Any people have good enough photos for Railpictures.net

I recently had a slew of photos rejected, because I tried to scan some slides using my flatbed scanner (not the best way to go). The scans are not as sharp as they could be, and they were rejected for being "soft."

But my friends still liked them!

-otto-

pgengler wrote:I've seen a couple of shots on RP that have made me wonder "what the f--- were the screeners thinking?", but all in all, there are a lot of nice shots there. I compare it to an open-upload site like rrpicturearchives, where there are a ton of, frankly, crap shots, with some real gems mixed in there. There are certain people who upload only good shots to rrpicturearchives, and there are some (lots?) of people who dump all of their photos there, regardless of how bad they may be. I've seen a lot of photos where the photographer has upload a photo & put in the information about the locomotive (which I may be looking for good pictures of), but the photo is dark and the locomotive is on the far end of a train, where you can barely see it. I've seen lots of way-too-dark photos, lots of blurry photos, lots of overexposed photos and lots of photos with poor lighting. I happen to think that RP's standards are a bit too high, and they end up rejecting lots of good photos for silly reasons, but it's MUCH more enjoyable to look through the new photos there than at rrpicturearchives.

I have to echo Phil's comments. At the risk of sounding elitist, there is way too image 'image pollution' at many railroad and transit photography sites. I know that it is probably unrealistic to expect every site to recruit screeners and go through hundreds of photos, but I really wish some sites would at least encourage photographers to self-edit their work.

Quite frankly, I find there are many photographers who capture images that are decent at best - perhaps some constructive criticism would push these folks to hone their techniques instead of settling for 'good enough' I entered a few slide contests when I was first learning 35mm photography, and I believe it forced me to become a better photographer. Again, I hope I don't come across as sounding like I think I'm better than others - just my 2 cents worth.

Jim D.

Jim is absolutely right, though. I'll spend much more time researching in books than online simply because I know I'll have to wade through a lot of "it" to find what I need.

One reason the Internet hasn't totally dominated the print media yet is because it's (almost) totally unregulated. The fact that anybody can post anything seems to be hurting it more than helping it. Anyone conducting serious research will use the Internet, but only in conjunction with more thorough resources.

~BS

I hate this site, ive tried to upload a few but they always reject them. I feel like sending them a picture of my as* and saying whats wrong with this, not enough "nose light" for you?

JUDGE DRED wrote:I hate this site, ive tried to upload a few but they always reject them. I feel like sending them a picture of my as* and saying whats wrong with this, not enough "nose light" for you?

Then don't upload to their site anymore. Problem solved.

Conrail4evr wrote:

JUDGE DRED wrote:
Then don't upload to their site anymore. Problem solved.

agreed!

Working through countless rejections in the beginning helped me to become a much better photographer. You can click the links in my signature for proof of that. Visit my RRPA site, that I haven't uploaded to in ages, and then visit my RP site. That's what Railpictures has done for me.

The only rejection reason I take issue with, is the "Poor Aesthetic Quality" one. That boils down to one person's subjective opinion. The rest of the rejections are geared towards objective technical faults, which I usually agree with in my shots, along with what I see from others on the RP forums.

If you're uploading to RP, and getting constant rejections for lighting, cropping, noise, etc. it may be in your best interest to take a more critical look at your photography. However, if you're completely happy with your shooting style, then you can simply showcase your work somewhere else.

Loyd L.

Why do they say "bad cropping" when i never even cropped the photo(s)?

JUDGE DRED wrote:Why do they say "bad cropping" when i never even cropped the photo(s)?

This rejection is usually due to improper placement of main details in a composition. RP prefers that normal compositions attempt to follow the "Rule of Thirds", which is generally accepted as the most pleasing type of arrangement of a composition. The premise is to grid a photograph into 9 equal regions (thirds), and to have main focal points at or near intersections of the vertical, and horizontal lines. More information can be found here:

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Rule_of_thirds

Just because you didn't crop it in post processing isn't an issue. You didn't 'crop' it properly when you composed the shot.

Now this isn't a set in stone law that must always be followed, but taking time to review some shots on RP you give you an idea of what works, and what doesn't.

Good luck!

Loyd L.

Sometimes I agree with their reasons for rejecting my photos, sometimes I don't. Guess what they rejected this one for? It seems like luck of the draw. Some screeners are complete Nazi's, while others only reject for something that is obviously wrong, and some put their opinion into what they reject, and approve. (like getting a Night Shot rejected for being too dark)

I don't really bother with them, I shoot railroad photography for me, and not for other people.

Chessie GM50 wrote:Sometimes I agree with their reasons for rejecting my photos, sometimes I don't. Guess what they rejected this one for? It seems like luck of the draw. Some screeners are complete Nazi's, while others only reject for something that is obviously wrong, and some put their opinion into what they reject, and approve. (like getting a Night Shot rejected for being too dark)

That photo IS pretty dark...I can barely make out any of the detail on the unit as it is. Bumping it up a stop would've done the trick in my opinion. Night shots CAN be underexposed too...it doesn't matter the time of day, you can ultimately let the same amount of light in by controlling the length of your exposure in conjunction with the F stop and ISO. It's just that during the day, 1/500 of a second is fine whereas at night, it's more like 30 seconds to let in the same amount of light.

I do agree that some of the screeners there can be, frankly, morons sometimes. It's not uncommon that I appeal a rejection and have it accepted, as the administrators seem to grasp what I was going for with a shot better than the screeners do sometimes. It's natural, however, that with a human analyzing the shot that there will be some sort of bias, and it is true that they do sometimes play favorites (even sometimes accepting shots that they shouldn't just because of the person who uploaded them).

Thiat last reason has recently really gotten on my nerves (quite a few of my recent shots were rejected, whereas screeners who upload similar shots that, frankly, aren't nearly as good [based on composition, subject matter, light, etc.], and yet they get right in...). For the time being, I'm no longer uploading anything there - I don't know if I will again, if this sort of partiality (and prejudices on the other side of the fence) continue as they are now. That and I feel as though I've outgrown the site - it's getting to be more trouble than what I am gaining from it, so in my case, why bother?

To be fair, however, I learned a LOT in a short amount of time by putting up with them. The rejections will make you want to pull your hair out at first, but stick with it and follow their advice, and it WILL help you become a better photographer, if that is your goal. I have only been shooting seriously for about 2 years now, but thanks to their help, I've gotten quite far in those two years. So long as you have the discipline to keep trying to better your photos, and don't take the rejections personally and get in a big uproar (getting emotionally attached to your photos can be a very dangerous trap if you're trying to improve your photos), there's no reason why anyone else can't learn just as much that quickly.

Chessie GM50 wrote:I don't really bother with them, I shoot railroad photography for me, and not for other people.

There you go. If you're happy with your work, then it shouldn't matter what others think. And thus there's no reason to whine about what Railpictures.net thinks of your photos Yes, they have rigid and sometimes hard-to-meet standards - that's the way it is, and it's not going to change. Thus, as I said, if you don't like it, don't upload. Don't accuse them of "knowing nothing about photography" or other insults - frankly, the people running the site are fairly good photographers, more so than most railfans out there in my opinion. These guys are disciplined photographers more so than they are people who just go out and take photos of trains - if this doesn't describe your view of railroad photography, chances are, you probably won't have too much luck trying to upload shots to their site.

For anyone who wants me to put my money where my mouth is, by the way, check out my shots on Railpictures.net here: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=18338

Whow! conrail you had 5 on nov 29th, you dah man!

JUDGE DRED wrote:Why do they say "bad cropping" when i never even cropped the photo(s)?

I have gotten this. I have also gotten the sun is to high in the sky. This ussually happens in the summer months. Thanks next time I'll not take photos in the summer, and not when the sun is out. But wait, that means it is to dark or cloudy. I can't win. But I got a new camera that is 10x better than my old ones and I am hoping that will solve the bad photo quality, which I do have to agree on sometimes.

atsf sp wrote:

JUDGE DRED wrote:Why do they say "bad cropping" when i never even cropped the photo(s)?

I have gotten this. I have also gotten the sun is to high in the sky. This ussually happens in the summer months. Thanks next time I'll not take photos in the summer, and not when the sun is out. But wait, that means it is to dark or cloudy. I can't win. But I got a new camera that is 10x better than my old ones and I am hoping that will solve the bad photo quality, which I do have to agree on sometimes.

A million $$$ camera wouldn't help with high sun or cloudy, but by all means shoot during those times. Just don't expect them to get accepted unless the power is really special, or it is an out of this world composition. It's hard to tell what you'll miss if you don't shoot it, plus those days/times are good practice to learn your new camera.

Otto Vondrak wrote:ANo one can tell you how to be a good photographer. We may be able to give you pointers on how to better use your camera, but over time, you will learn what makes a "good photo" and what does not. And BTW, it's not always what Railpictures accepts. In fact, if you have a photo, and you like it, that should be good enough. Don't worry about living up to other people's standards. Is a photo "great" because it made the cover of a magzine? the home page of RAILROAD.NET? or framed on your wall?

Of course, that's not to say that there are not TECHNICAL standards for lighting and focus. No one wants to see a dark, blurry photo of anything. Keep that in mind.

Yes, I'm quoting myself. Just wanted to stress a point... if you like your photo, that should be good enough for you. But be mindful that if you're looking to get published (on RAILROAd.NET, railpictures.net, a magazine, whatever) people will expect sharp, well-composed and well-exposed photos. A dark, blurry, off-center picture of a train is just no good. Work on improving your technical skills and the rest will follow. I feel I have improved over the years and I continue to learn how to take better pictures- as long as you're open to trying to improve, you're well on your way to getting more out of your pictures.

I am getting there, I have some shots that I think I could get on Railpictures, well exposed and whatnot. They usually pull the whole foreground clutter, or just not what we're looking for, I haven't really tried though..