Old 04-25-2014, 12:24 AM   #51
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
Ron, however, if you were to tell me what hours you screened, those would be the hours I upload. It would make for an interesting pole to see who thinks who is rejecting the majority of their images (and why).

/Mitch
Seriously....I wouldn't have an interest in doing it, even if asked. I doubt I could do a good job. Clearly, guys, it ain't easy. These screeners must have hides the thickness of an elephant.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 12:59 AM   #52
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
Seriously....I wouldn't have an interest in doing it, even if asked. I doubt I could do a good job. Clearly, guys, it ain't easy. These screeners must have hides the thickness of an elephant.
Ironically, you and I might be opposite in one sense (and in sync in another).

I'm thinking you'd accept more and I would accept a lot fewer - but I think we'd both allow more allowances then seem the norm for photos with "issues" such when other aspects (including a photographer's style) trump. I'd need Chris to modify the rejection reasons ASAP as I think I'd tire quickly of leaving encouraging comments for what is likely a large percent of otherwise correctable rejections answered in the current tone.



/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 02:08 AM   #53
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
Give me the same screeners with the attitude and enthusiasm they had 5 years ago and it would be a better place.

All new screeners - depends who. I'd NEVER want Jim Thias to screen my shots for level, lol.
Grammar and spelling errors in your captions would be on the chopping block first.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 02:48 AM   #54
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
Ironically, you and I might be opposite in one sense (and in sync in another).

I'm thinking you'd accept more and I would accept a lot fewer

/Mitch
I'm not sure what I would do. I see gobs and gobs of rather ordinary choo-choo pictures these days on RP.net. They're not exciting, and they're not creative...but they're level, in focus, good color, etc. So, on what justification do you reject them? You can't.

And once more....a majority (yes, a majority) of RP.net viewers probably enjoy the choo-choo pictures more than some moody creative thing that someone may upload.

So, it's not easy...
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 03:35 AM   #55
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,633
Default

I'd have rejected this for "oversharpened" for instance, lol:

Image © Mitch Goldman
PhotoID: 151170
Photograph © Mitch Goldman



I recall a lot of "far away trains" that are so jumbled looking they look like they were newspaper scans.

But you're correct - a boring technically correct shot is a shot RP should not be rejecting, nor would I reject a "perfect wedge".

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 05:06 AM   #56
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Exclamation

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
..And once more....a majority (yes, a majority) of RP.net viewers probably enjoy the choo-choo pictures more than some moody creative thing that someone may upload.
By view numbers - at least 250 - 350 per day on any given day.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 03:20 PM   #57
jdirelan87
Senior Member
 
jdirelan87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 725
Default

I want to see stuff like this stop getting on;

Image © TJ Yumoto
PhotoID: 479177
Photograph © TJ Yumoto


This picture looks like it was taken with a camera phone.... in the year 2005.

How does this get through? Are people screening drunk?
jdirelan87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 04:45 PM   #58
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

John, I'll readily admit that I don't have a discerning eye for PIQ. But what is the problem here, besides probably oversharpened? "Camera phone ... 2005 ... drunk" seems like a complete overreaction.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 05:49 PM   #59
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,397
Default

I agree ^ Doesnt look awful.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 06:57 PM   #60
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 633
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdirelan87 View Post
I want to see stuff like this stop getting on;

Image © TJ Yumoto
PhotoID: 479177
Photograph © TJ Yumoto


This picture looks like it was taken with a camera phone.... in the year 2005.

How does this get through? Are people screening drunk?
I don't understand, looks fine to me.
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 08:25 PM   #61
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mberry View Post
I don't understand, looks fine to me.
Take a look at the numberboards. Lots of pixelation because it's such a low resolution shot.

No hard feelings to the photographer, but this one really isn't good at all. However, I have many shots on RP.net that are far worse (particularly those from 10 years ago or more).
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 08:56 PM   #62
conrail1990
Senior Member
 
conrail1990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Location: Delaware
Posts: 204
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdirelan87 View Post
I want to see stuff like this stop getting on;

Image © TJ Yumoto
PhotoID: 479177
Photograph © TJ Yumoto


This picture looks like it was taken with a camera phone.... in the year 2005.

How does this get through? Are people screening drunk?
At first glance I missed all of it.
__________________
Evan Schilling
My Photos on RP.
My Photos for sale
conrail1990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 09:36 PM   #63
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Yeah it doesn't look that terrible. I see what looks like a little bit of excess noise removal and it's soft, but other than that, I've seen worse.
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 09:50 PM   #64
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CSX1702 View Post
Yeah it doesn't look that terrible. I see what looks like a little bit of excess noise removal and it's soft, but other than that, I've seen worse.
Fortunately, my eyes are too bad to pick up on any of that. If that shot had been rejected for PIQ I would have thought it as a case of unnecessary nitpicking.
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 09:51 PM   #65
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
Fortunately, my eyes are too bad to pick up on any of that. If that shot had been rejected for PIQ I would have thought it as a case of unnecessary nitpicking.
Don't worry, I just saw what I thought looked like noise removal. Lol.
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 11:29 PM   #66
jay124
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 122
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post

- Admin should try harder to modify the screening process to reduce the extent of having series of rejection, fix one thing, hit with a rejection for another reason. That is a KILLER issue here, in my view, because of the frustration factor. It is a lot easier to upload a good shot and have it rejected because of differences in preferences, right at the start, then to have the process go on and on.
I know this feeling all to well. I tried a long exposure and had it rejected three times for unlevel,underexposed,under sharpened and finally PEQ.
I don't have a problem with it being PEQ but why after 3 tries instead of the beginning. Is that just a nice way of saying your shot sucks with out trying to be blunt.

Here is the shot, I was really hoping for a north bound but came a south bound.
Please let me know what you think is wrong and I could do better.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...04&key=1773677
Thanks Jason

Last edited by jay124; 04-25-2014 at 11:32 PM. Reason: added wrong link
jay124 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 11:37 PM   #67
CSX1702
Senior Member
 
CSX1702's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2009
Location: Cincinnati, Ohio
Posts: 1,268
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jay124 View Post
Here is the shot, I was really hoping for a north bound but came a south bound.
Please let me know what you think is wrong and I could do better.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...04&key=1773677
Thanks Jason
Sounds like screener roulette. Try again tomorrow?

Really nice shot...
__________________
Derek

Flickr

Out Of Place Album
CSX1702 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-25-2014, 11:58 PM   #68
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,397
Default

This is exactly what we are all talking about!
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 12:25 AM   #69
bigiron
Senior Member
 
bigiron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bedford, NH
Posts: 247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
I'd have rejected this for "oversharpened" for instance, lol:

Image © Mitch Goldman
PhotoID: 151170
Photograph © Mitch Goldman



I recall a lot of "far away trains" that are so jumbled looking they look like they were newspaper scans.

But you're correct - a boring technically correct shot is a shot RP should not be rejecting, nor would I reject a "perfect wedge".

/Mitch
Oh yes, I would say the same with your assessment of your own shot Mitch and as many have pointed out including myself several times in the past with thread responses, this is one of the biggest problems with the screening process and the inconsistency of their views. When I first starting submitting pictures I would on many occasions call in my kids to look at the rejected shot of mine and then show ones that got on and ask if my eyes were going bad or if I was missing something and more often than not they were baffled too. I never could get a good feel of what was acceptable and not due to the variations on the site itself and rather obvious ones at that!

I don't know exactly how the screeners view the shots as far as from separate residences or if there is a central office but no matter the situation I've often wondered how much communication within the group goes on. I know with any good business venture, meetings and good communication within on a regular basis help create more uniform methods and it would in the case of this site soften the roller coaster rejection reasons with a more in tune group of screeners.

Chase, if you are reading this I would like first of thank you for starting this thread and I can only hope it will lead to positive changes and I would also like to know if the screeners actually have a way to have a group meeting say like once a month or so and actually discuss questionable shots? To be clearer, I often wondered if conversation amoung the screeners takes place on marginal shots that have been brought your attention either through appeals, this forum, or actual viewing by screeners? Let's say a shot is accepted and there is talk of said shot to challenge it's acceptance, have an open frank talk about it and use it to create more clarity if needed and even have a group of shots and share your views on the merits of each one and that way the screeners get a REFRESHER course from time to time on the likes and dislikes. The individual taste of each screener doesn't have to change but eliminating the wild swings in the simple requirements such as; color, sharpness, composition, foreground clutter, levelness, and the subject matter as it relates to Railroading. If something like this doesn't take place or not that often, I would venture to guess the more effort one puts into something the greater the outcome and in this case a much more uniform process and that would eliminate much of the frustration shared by many seeing some get on and then theirs get the boot when in fact it could be better. I will close by saying that Mitch Goldman himself pointed out his accepted photo looks over sharpened and I'm sure many others would agree but I can understand how that could happen as I've had shots been rejected before that looked rather realistic and then "over sharpened" them and they get on even though I know it wasn't how it looked naturally and no matter who you are as a patron to the site that gets under your skin seeing obvious misses time after time.

You've reached out and I hope as a united group of screeners you can come to some means of streamlining the screening process even if it means critiquing questionable shots accepted amongst yourselves to better the group as a whole.

Rich Clark
bigiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 02:00 AM   #70
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb Always Room for More Wedgies!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigiron View Post
......... I never could get a good feel of what was acceptable .......
Wedgies, that is what is acceptable.

Sunny day wedgies.

Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 463760
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 463578
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 462470
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 462399
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 462201
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 462043
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography


Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 460981
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography



Not a wedgie.

Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 464164
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography



And for whatever reason, people don't seem to favor this type of sunny day wedgie.

Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 463693
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography

Last edited by Holloran Grade; 04-26-2014 at 02:05 AM.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 10:04 AM   #71
bigiron
Senior Member
 
bigiron's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2006
Location: Bedford, NH
Posts: 247
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Wedgies, that is what is acceptable.


No, you missed my point as far as "acceptable", one day a normally sharpened shot is good the next they want it blown up with sharpening. We've know about the "candyland color" at times and if you don't change the realistic look you may not get your shots accepted. You have a slight object in the foreground and get "foreground clutter" and soon after you see globs of weeds, trees or fences in pictures on the site. That type of wishy washy acceptance and it makes you guess what angle to try on a given day. That is not uniform.

Rich
bigiron is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 02:39 PM   #72
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,797
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by jdirelan87 View Post
I want to see stuff like this stop getting on;

Image © TJ Yumoto
PhotoID: 479177
Photograph © TJ Yumoto


This picture looks like it was taken with a camera phone.... in the year 2005.

How does this get through? Are people screening drunk?
And this is a good example of inconsistency. How is the above photo NOT bad cropping but this one is?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...86&key=1514299

Honestly, the first thing I thought about that CSX shot was "bad cropping" instead of John's observation.

Ted's shot is bad cropping and TJ's is not?

Perplexing.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 03:01 PM   #73
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

That's an interesting comparison, Jim. But my take is different. My take is - are either of these shots cropped so badly that they shouldn't be on RP? I just don't see the big deal here. They are just plain wedgies. I don't see either one being notably better or worse if cropped differently. Little in the background of either shot appears unreasonably cropped. Please point out what I am missing.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 03:16 PM   #74
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

I guess U Boat > GP
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2014, 03:41 PM   #75
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

The two problems I see with the CSX shot is the image quality is poor (pixelated) and it is oversharped.

Ted's image could use a little more space on the right side, but it should have been accepted.

It would be interesting to know how the screener would have cropped it
and why.

His other shot has shadows on the wheels that if he adjusted the contrast or HDR'd it, he might be able to fix it.

Last edited by Holloran Grade; 04-26-2014 at 03:44 PM.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:17 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.