Old 05-30-2005, 02:22 PM   #26
brunswickrailfan
Senior Member
 
brunswickrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2004
Location: Jefferson, MD/Shippensburg, PA
Posts: 208
Send a message via AIM to brunswickrailfan
Default

And how this relates to Dave's rejections is that his aren't the "everyday 3/4 wedgie" they are framed differently and have a different aesthetic quality than a wedgie.

I'm sure more than just Dave frames his pics differently...
__________________
--Dan
KB3LDB
Web Photo Editor, SU Slate
http://dputz.deviantart.com
http://members.trainorders.com/dputz/v2
brunswickrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-31-2005, 01:30 AM   #27
mtrails
Senior Member
 
mtrails's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 249
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brunswickrailfan

Why is it that when someone asks a simple question about format/rules and NOT quality of a photograph, the responders, for the most part, speak out negatively?
I see your judgment on the issue, but I wouldn't say it's completely negative. I think it's great that the individual's in this forum make such down to earth comments, and even though the simple point of the thread is skewed, I find the general discussion (and b*tches) to be benneficial to others and myself regarding our place here as participant's and/or photographer's.

Quote:
Originally Posted by brunswickrailfan

And as such, each visitor has certain tastes and types of photographs they'd like to see (and potentially add). And since, at least for now, each screener only accepts photos they like, the selection is bound to get mundane eventually. New and different sources of photography for this site should be accepted even if it isn't "what you like," because someone else will like it and they will return. But if current "standards" are maintained, variety will dry up eventually, and so will visitors.

Different "styles" of photography should be differenty. Everyone should not be held up to the same standards, as if one screener gets used to one style, they will tend to not accept photos of styles they don't care for. For instance, there are many complaints about the "3/4 wedgie." Yes, it isn't the most creative style, but many viewers do enjoy them for qualities other than artistic style. Maybe the power is special, maybe it's perfectly exposed, maybe it's from a rare area, maybe...

Dave has developed his own style. This is evident in the rejections posted in the beginning of this thread. His "style" or anyone elses for that matter should not be held up to the "3/4 wedgie" or any other standards. If the picture is well-exposed, contains something railroad related, and has *some* artistic merit (again, don't hold the picture up to what you prefer) it should be accepted.
I for one agree whole heartedly with your statements here. It would be great to see "other" photography relating to the railroad. Those of us who have disagreement's about rejected photo's, or those which may view the site for recreation may eventually loose interest in the site altogether, but I guess someone is going to have to create a new railroad photography website to cater to the tastes of many. Who will it be?

I must say, I have learned much in the past several months since becoming a participant to this website, not just as a RAILROAD photographer, but as a contributor. I have expandend my horizon's of photography greatly aside from shooting trains, and sustain my enthusiasm to share my photo's (which may suck) with the world based soley on the guidelines laid out before me by the site which I contribute to.
mtrails is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005, 03:20 AM   #28
hoydie17
We Own The Night...
 
hoydie17's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 799
Send a message via AIM to hoydie17 Send a message via Yahoo to hoydie17
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by brunswickrailfan
And how this relates to Dave's rejections is that his aren't the "everyday 3/4 wedgie" they are framed differently and have a different aesthetic quality than a wedgie.

I'm sure more than just Dave frames his pics differently...

Kinda drifted away here, the rejections as Dave suggested isn't because of the "3/4 wedge", it was due to size issues. Chris Starnes chimed in early in this thread and said the pictures were fine as composed, it was simply to do with size. He pretty much cropped too much off the bottom and left too much on the top.

IOW he should have centered the train top to bottom, not only left to right. Unfortunately, it may still have "unwanted ballast or scenery" in the picture, but that's why you keep your original and crop it the way you like. For your own collection, if you want it on RP, you have to conform to their standards or as some believe "tastes".

I do agree that there is a certain amount of boredom that afflict the screeners and maybe they occasionally toss a picture out that might be acceptable. But mistakes happen, we're not all perfect, and we cannot expect the screeners to be flawless in every instance.

Whether or not Dave decides to do what is necessary to get them accepted is pretty irrelevant. While it would be a shame to let something so simple get in the way of the recognition he obviously seeks.
hoydie17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005, 06:19 AM   #29
Robby
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Georgetown, KY
Posts: 71
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
[A few months ago, they came along and said shots must be either 800X600 or 1024X768.

Joe H.
So can we have some honest clarification here. Are these two size formats the only true ratios accepted now? Yes, no or maybe. I ask, and if it is then sobeit, because about half of my rejections have always been for poor cropping, not improper size. In fact I've never had that comment unless it was under cover as a bad crop reject. It is very hard to crop a photograph to eliminate excess sky, ballast, pole lines, people, etc and have these ratios come out exact. I generally crop and try to hit what looks like one of these ratios then size the horizontal to 1000 pix and let the vert. stay constrained. In the future, I can resize to 1024 horz but it would take forever to make the vert hit 768 every time. It seems to me that if you are close to 768 then it should be a non-issue. Maybe the screeners should make a policy that we size 1024 and then have a tight range for vert of say 738-798. Fall in that target and you're golden. I offer this range because I just eyeballed seven different crops on seven different pics and everyone easily hit in this range without too much effort. Trying to hit 768 exactly is a pain in the butt and I gave up after four or five attempts. Unless anyone has a hot tip on how to do this quickly let me know. My method is to open the raw image, eyeball a crop using the select tool, copy, open a new file, paste, color correct and sharpen if needed, then resize to 1024 with the constraint enabled and finally save as.

opinions??

Robby
Robby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005, 06:37 AM   #30
Robby
Member
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Georgetown, KY
Posts: 71
Default

From the Acceptance Criteria I looked at for the first time ever:

>Photos must be at least 800 pixels in width x 500 pixels in height for landscape images, or 600 pixels in height for portraits. Photos not meeting these requirements will, unfortunately, be rejected. Optimal size for uploaded images is 1024 pixels wide x 768 pixels high.<

Alright I may have answered my own question. At 800 x 500 as a stated minimum for acceptance then doing a little math gives us 500/800=0.625. Likewise using this ratio for the desired width of 1024 x 0.625 = 640 as the minimum height accepted. That's minus 128 pix off target or a pretty huge variation. If we can't hit that then we should give up.

I would think if we size for either 800 or 1024 pix wide and get close to the height target of 600 or 768 size should not be a factor.

IMHO
Robby
Robby is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005, 02:44 PM   #31
Chris Starnes
Administrator
 
Chris Starnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 927
Default

Robby is correct, if they are in the ballpark of those two ratios, the image will be accepted.
__________________
Chris Starnes
Co-Editor, RailPictures.net
Chris Starnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005, 06:16 PM   #32
ddavies
Senior Member
 
ddavies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 381
Default

That makes things a lot clearer ... the three pics in question were all 800 pixel width, with 443, 544 and 530 image heighth. Only the Amtrak at 443 should have been rejected by your last comment.
ddavies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005, 09:19 PM   #33
Chris Starnes
Administrator
 
Chris Starnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 927
Default

My reply to Robby was in response to his first reply, not the second one. My regrets for the confusion.

I have also updated the photo guidelines page to indicate the new suggestions for submissions.
__________________
Chris Starnes
Co-Editor, RailPictures.net
Chris Starnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-02-2005, 11:01 PM   #34
busyEMT
Senior Member
 
busyEMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 902
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Robby
I offer this range because I just eyeballed seven different crops on seven different pics and everyone easily hit in this range without too much effort. Trying to hit 768 exactly is a pain in the butt and I gave up after four or five attempts. Unless anyone has a hot tip on how to do this quickly let me know.

opinions??

Robby
My converted TIFFs measure 30(72 ?) x 25xx (can't remember exact numbers, as I am at work).

-If I can or need to crop off the sides, I automatically resize the width to 768, that makes the width a little over 1200. From there I manually crop or use the image sizing tool in PS6 to achieve 1024. [Be sure to us Bi-cubic selection] The other way is bit trickier.

-For this I will crop the sides first, then us the resize tool to see where the height is relative to a 1024W photo. You will also see where the height is. Usually I can crop out some from top and bottom to make 768.

-Also, if you need to rotate the photo a bit, this should be done before any resizing.

Only a few pictures on RP.net of mine are in 800x600 size and a rare photo is less then 768W. But it bites to get a bad cropping rejection when I have already optimally cropped my photo.
__________________
Aaron Florin- Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Visit Twin Cities Railfan.com
Visit the Twin Cities Railfan forums.

Don't do anything you wouldn't want to explain to the paramedics!

Last edited by busyEMT; 06-02-2005 at 11:05 PM.
busyEMT is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005, 02:21 AM   #35
ddavies
Senior Member
 
ddavies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 381
Default I give up.

After the last comments, I tried to load 4 images, all 600 pixel vertical, and they were all rejected for size.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=132177
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=132178

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=132179
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=132182
ddavies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005, 02:31 AM   #36
quiksmith10
Senior Member
 
quiksmith10's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Norman, OK / Frederick, MD
Posts: 269
Send a message via AIM to quiksmith10
Default

Your problem is that they aren't the right size again. You have the 600 part right, but it needs to be 800 x 600, not 600 x 600. Reformat to the acceptable sizes and it will probably be accepted.
quiksmith10 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005, 03:22 AM   #37
Chris Starnes
Administrator
 
Chris Starnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 927
Default

Dave's latest batch was technically within the requirements even though the ratio/cropping could have been better.
__________________
Chris Starnes
Co-Editor, RailPictures.net
Chris Starnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005, 05:49 AM   #38
ssw9662
Senior Member
 
ssw9662's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 839
Thumbs down

Pics don't load here, I keep getting the no image matches id number thing.
__________________
Austin
Canon EOS 7D
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon 50mm f/1.8
My Railpictures.net Photos
flickr

Last edited by ssw9662; 06-03-2005 at 05:50 AM. Reason: NOTE TO SELF: Be more specific you idiot! ;-)
ssw9662 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005, 12:32 PM   #39
ddavies
Senior Member
 
ddavies's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Fairfax, VA
Posts: 381
Default

Chris forgot to mention they were accepted on appeal. They were vertical images, where 600 pixel is the min.

A lot of people forget that the standard computer screen is TV, 800x600, 1024x768, etc., while film and digital formats vary all over the place. They can range from a Hassleblad at 6x6, Mamiya at 6x4.5, 6x6 or 6x7, 35 mm (36x24mm), or most digital formats, which also have a 3:2 image size ratio.

A photographer is taught to first choose his format for the job to do, then "fill the frame" with your subject. If you have done the last step correctly, if you try and make an 8x10 print or TV image from most of these formats, you are going to have to cut something off that doesn't fit. When you do that, you are loosing some of your original composition (Kodak later solved this problem by making 12x8 prints rather than 10x. I will not do that.

To make Chris happy, rather than starting with the 800 pixel width, then having the heighth fall below 600, I have begun to set the heighth at 600 and let the width fall where it will (900 for a full frame digital image).

This was what I have been trying to find out, but nobody could put the new standard into words. If you get a size rejection, try the above steps.
ddavies is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-03-2005, 06:47 PM   #40
trainmonster
Senior Member
 
trainmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Central Pa.
Posts: 378
Default

Well, FWIW, this is how I've done it:

1) In Photoshop, under View, I do "fit on screen"

2) Then rotate appropriately if it needs to be leveled.

3) Crop horizontally to the desired "look."

4) Then I do a bicubic resize to 975 W. (This eliminates horizontal scrollbars, which drive me gaddy for some reason)

5) I again do fit on screen under View.

6) Then I start to crop vertically, in increments, keeping the train proportional top to bottom. Example: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=106846

I put all of my photos locally in an HTML presentation on my computer with a javascript that opens a full window. 975 X ~670-680 fits nicely and I never got a proportion reject.

Rich
trainmonster 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 06:42 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.