Train Picture rejected on Railpictures.net

[UnumProvident101]

I uploaded this train picture on railpictures.net

but it got rejected because of poor image quality

[K. P. Harrier]

I’m sort of baffled, and perceive that there might be more to this than first meets the eye.

The photo is copyrighted.  Are you, UnumProvident101, Micah Hutcherson, the copyright owner?  If so, did you sign a copyright release on the photo?  If you are not Mr. Hutcherson, might you be sued for unauthorized posting the photo?

Was there a specific reason given for the rejection, or was it a blanket-type one?

Unless the steamer was terrorist-bombed a second later, I would say the photo has no value, especially with all the what looks like dust in the air of the view.

[rdamon]

I finally got my first photo accepted after several tries. They seem to be concerned with lighting and image composition.

 

[UnumProvident101]

It was rejected because of poor image quality

 

[tree68]

I haven't tried to submit to them, but my impression is that they are quite fussy - you aren't the first to have a picture rejected by any means.

What appears to be steam drifting in front of the locomotive is probably the culprit.  It makes the entire image look hazy.  If there was no steam, perhaps the lens was dirty.   The people in the image may also have been a factor, and perhaps the freight train in the background.  Methinks they like "pristine" images.

The image also seems to have suffered greatly as a result of some sort of post processing.  Whether you did it or it is due to handling by this site I don't know.  What resolution did you shoot?  What was the ISO?  

The basic composition of the image looks OK to me - ie, framing, etc.  It's the other elements that detract.

[UnumProvident101]

I auto adjusted the colors on ifranview and sharpened

the picture and changed the res from 

1920 x 1080 to 1024 x 702

[tree68]

UnumProvident101

changed the res from  1920 x 1080 to 1024 x 702

Not all image software handles such reductions well...

Don't take it hard - we all have a favorite image that's less that perfect, but we like it.  Still, a site like that would probably reject it.

Take any and all critiques as opportunities to improve your work.

[rdamon]

If I had to guess, it was the shadows that they did not like.

 

I use Irfanview as well .. great free program.

[Geared Steam]

For the 30 or so I have submitted, I have had five accepted. Yes, it is difficult, yes they are very particular, but that's whats makes it Railpictures. 

It makes you better photographer, and you spend more time questioning if the photo you are about to take. The site is about quality railroad related pictures.

Is there some that have been accepted questionable? Yes of course, it depends on the reviewer.  

[tree68]

rdamon

I use Irfanview as well .. great free program.

I use an ancient program called "LView Pro."  It's tryware, so I have to wait for the counter to get where it needs to be.  On the other hand, I'm on something like day 700 of the 14 day trial period.  

It's great for simple editing - crops, resizes, etc.  Every now and then I'll get a little fancier with it, but it's certainly no competion for the high-end stuff.

[nycstlrr]

I can see why they rejected it but I wouldn`t use them to host photos anyways. You have a lot of other choices and I have seen a lot better photos, on other sites.

[M636C]

As reproduced here, the photo has the wrong aspect ratio.

The photo is taller than it should be, resulting in the locomotive appearing shorter than it should be. This could have occurred inadvertently during processing but would be a possible reason for rejection.

Could you post the original image out of the camera for comparison?

M636C

[Wizlish]

K. P. Harrier

s there a specific reason given for the rejection, or was it a blanket-type one?

If what they told him was 'poor image quality' (and I suspect it was, because that's a sufficient reason based on the image provided) then the next step is to review what problems the image has.

I agree that it would have been helpful for them to provide a more detailed list of the problems -- but they may not have the time, or given the number of pictures they may be sent for review, the inclination to do that.

A principal problem I see is that all the shadow areas are 'underexposed' and blurred/hazy, with the detail areas insufficiently detailed or 'washed out' looking.  Another is the previously-mentioned steam or haze across the smokebox.  There are people in the shot but they do not contribute to the composition; in fact, one blocks a direct view of the valve gear.  Ghastly stairstep artifacts in the very visible white edge of the running boards.  The very unfortunate juxtaposition of the gooseneck lamp with the fireman's window, which may have been a conscious decision to minimize the effect of an unavoidable obstruction, was a bad choice.

I would need more information on the 'reformat' that was performed to know where there was serious overcompression or detail loss (and presumably this was not a boondoggle HDR thing that has recoverable detail in those underexposed areas).  If you reframed or cropped the image to get to the 1024 x 702 you mentioned, for compositional reasons, this is not a "problem" (and the people at the site would have mentioned something about 'composition').  If you rescaled the image, tinkered with the aspect ration as M636C says he sees, etc., the quality of the image would suffer and 'poor quality' again would apply.  See the recent discussion about the kind of pictures Trains Magazine accepts for some reasons to keep 'processing' to a minimum unless there are specific effects you want to apply to 'make a point' artistically.

My father remembered an argument he had in college with an enthusiastic photographer, about how much composition was done with the camera at the time of shooting vs. in the darkroom.  (If you have never looked at contact prints of some of the famous Ansel Adams photographs and compared them with the 'final images' you should do so; it's a strong indication on how good post has a serious effect ... I might add just as tipping the board in the darkroom to make locomotives look longer has a serious effect of another kind...).  The photographer argued that there was little value in framing the view in the camera, or adjusting the exposure for initial best results (rather than preserving the maximum dynamic range on what was then the emulsion) - coming up with a memorable line: "You take pictures, I create photographs".

The thing is, when you are using the camera you have to work out the composition while you're there.  If you've ever been on a movie shoot, it's not uncommon for the cinematographer to look at a scene through a little lens that creates exactly the view that the camera will record -- it's radically different from what you 'see' as you're getting into position to take a picture, and in some cases railfans will be distracted by the excitement of train-watching from setting up the picture in the 'best' ways ... or staying out of other people's views, etc.

My own opinion is that you should carefully organize the elements in the shot -- if necessary take a number of shots to be sure that one of them is usable (this is much cheaper with digital than it could have been with film and development).  Think about what you're shooting and understand your camera and its dynamic response ... and the software you might be using and its effect.  (And remember the effect of dodging and other darkroom techniques as they enhance an image, and the great range of enhancement that a program like Photoshop (or one of its free or open-source analogues) provides, and practice a bit how to use them.)

[schlimm]

Warning!  When one clicks on the image from the OP, the site may contain malware, according to my security software.

[Wizlish]

schlimm

Warning!  When one clicks on the image from the OP, the site may contain malware, according to my security software.

Schlimm, what software are you running and how do you have your firewall configured?

I tested this on an older Mac system here that has Ghostery and No-Script running, and did a malware check using the malwarebytes software, and there is not a peep even from the usual sorts of tracker or notice of "PUPs".  That had me wondering if I have inadvertently whitelisted something, as I didn't even have any cause to visit that particular site before clicking on the inline image to enlarge it.

[Euclid]

An important rule in graphic art is to have only one subject in the image.  This can be somewhat of a judgement call about exactly which details comprise the subject, but generally a determination can be made. 

In this photo, the locomotive is the intended subject.  An engineer oiling around could easily be part of the locomotive subject because his attention is clearly on the locomotive.  But there is a second subject in the photo.  It is the drama created by the interaction of the five people, all with attention strongly focused on some particular mystery, which has nothing to do with the locomotive.

Whatever it going on there, it must be significant because it has captured the attention of the two guys in the foreground who seem to have been frozen in mid stride.

This rule of just one subject is often violated in photography as compared to painting or drawing.  The reason is that an artist has complete control of the image, whereas a photographer must find an image and take what it offers.  So photography is often associated with gathering details in the selection of an image. 

This is why you see images such as locomotives struggling upgrade with a long train, and birds hatching in a nest in the foreground.  If there are no birds available, sometimes a horse or cow will do.  This represents the left brain thinking that tends to dominate in the relatively technical process of photography where the challenge is seen as a quest to gather details in the composition.  That is, to make the photograph “interesting” by virtue its details. 

But the “right brain” of the viewer is not really looking for details.  Instead, it wants to be transported into the view by a sort of magic carpet ride through a total experience; as opposed to the left brain objective of entering the picture and taking inventory of the details.

Incidentally, I am told that science has determined that a viewer’s attention enters a rectangular image from the lower left corner.  So that is where the magic carpet ride begins.  From there, it is up to the artist to shape that ride.  Often times, a clockwise circle that returns to the starting point works fine.     

In this photo, the viewer enters the lower left corner and immediately goes to the guy in the middle foreground.  Then it goes to the action below the number 4501, and hits a brick wall.  These are elements of “composition” which includes far more than what is commonly believed.

[Semper Vaporo]

I think the site passes advertising on from other sites and the selection of what is passed on is random, so accessing the site multiple times may not get the same data downloaded.  It is possible that one of those advertiser sites has something suspicious on it and it got flagged.  Go back to the site and it may not pass on that same advertisment and so nothing gets flagged (or something different gets flagged).

People that are using ad-blockers may not see these sorts of things happen because those 3rd party URLs get blocked completely.

It would be nice if the anti-malware program that gives the warning would narrow it down to which URL was the culprit... then it could be added to the "HOSTS" file on the local computer and the suspicious site could be permanently blocked.

[Wizlish]

Euclid

Incidentally, I am told that science has determined that a viewer’s attention enters a rectangular image from the lower left corner. So that is where the magic carpet ride begins. From there, it is up to the artist to shape that ride. Often times, a clockwise circle that returns to the starting point works fine.

This is fascinating - can you provide hard references or the original sources for this science?  I'd like to read up on it.

Schlimm - if you are reading, what's the current state of the art on this?

[Wizlish]

Euclid

An important rule in graphic art is to have only one subject in the image. This can be somewhat of a judgement call about exactly which details comprise the subject, but generally a determination can be made. In this photo, the locomotive is the intended subject. An engineer oiling around could easily be part of the locomotive subject because his attention is clearly on the locomotive. But there is a second subject in the photo. It is the drama created by the interaction of the five people, all with attention strongly focused on some particular mystery, which has nothing to do with the locomotive. Whatever it going on there, it must be significant because it has captured the attention of the two guys in the foreground who seem to have been frozen in mid stride.

See, I look at this a bit differently, considering the photograph as if it were 'art' instead of a pictorial reproduction of a scene.  Here, the longer you look at the image, the more your perception sees and begins to associate, and you start to get a story out of the progression.  (One example of this 'in action' is the last scene in Otto Preminger's movie version of 'On the Beach')

When I look at this picture (as a railfan who likes steam locomotives) my view goes straight to the 'face' and then takes in the general lines of the locomotive (annoyed slightly by the fellow blocking the valve gear) until I have had my initial fill of looking at the locomotive.  Then I start to notice what the people are doing -- and this rapidly involves following some of the sightlines to the 'secondary composition' here, which involves four of the people I see.  Two people are looking to the right and down, drawing the eye to the two 'lumps' of workers on the tender truck, an interesting composition in space.  It is impossible to ignore the female railfan blissfully ignoring anything to do with maintenance/railroading, as she whips her camera up for a photo.  There's some interesting commentary implicit here, all without a word spoken or obvious posing.

While yes, this isn't something a railroad picture site is likely to value, it is a well-established aspect of art history and art interpretation (a couple of da Vinci paintings are commonly used to illustrate how it works).  It is interesting to see it here, even if perhaps not consciously intended...

[Euclid]

Wizlish

 

Euclid

Incidentally, I am told that science has determined that a viewer’s attention enters a rectangular image from the lower left corner. So that is where the magic carpet ride begins. From there, it is up to the artist to shape that ride. Often times, a clockwise circle that returns to the starting point works fine.

 

 

This is fascinating - can you provide hard references or the original sources for this science?  I'd like to read up on it.

These issues of graphic composition are covered in many art books.  One of the best is LANDSCAPE ILLUSION A SPATIAL APPROACH TO PAINTING by Daniel Chard published by WATSON GUPTILL in 1987.

Much of the book is on the topic of composition. 

 

[schlimm]

Semper Vaporo

It would be nice if the anti-malware program that gives the warning would narrow it down to which URL was the culprit... then it could be added to the "HOSTS" file on the local computer and the suspicious site could be permanently blocked.

http://hostthenpost.org/uploads/58f2f5ccf834fb26697287f990558b37.jpg

Webroot Content Classification and Web Reputation

This site might contain links to viruses or other software programs that can reveal

personal information stored or typed on your computer to malicious

persons, i.e., malware.

Web Reputation is in the danger zone, 10 (out of 100).

As to the picture, my hunch it was rejected because of poor composition (busy and

stereotypical) and the smudgy area at the front of the loco.  

A defective lens coating, perhaps?

[Norm48327]

Schlimm,

Have you received that warning on any other pages on Railpictures.net? I haven't.

[schlimm]

NO.  Only this one.  But this picture was not on RailPictures.net as it was rejected by them.  It was on hostthenpost.

 

[Semper Vaporo]

HostThenPost dot org is a web site that allows people to place files so they can then reference them in forums and not have to make their personal computer available to the world to fetch the image each time someone else views the forum posting.  Similar to other photo hosting sites.  This is where the photo is now that is being displayed in this forum posting thread.

Apparently that site has a reputation (to the anti-malware program suite that schlimm is using) that some people have posted files there that are "Trojan Horse" type files (look like something you want, but contains malware).

It does not say exactly what it found to be bad, or even that it did find something bad, only that the site is known to host malware (albeit unwittingly or otherwise).  It is just a warning to be wary of downloading things from the site.  (i.e.: be sure to run an anti-malware check against any files you download)  It does not mean that the photo itself is bad.

[schlimm]

Perhaps so.  But Webroot is pretty cautious about warnings.  It seldom happens. Over the three years I have used it, the number of times that warning has appeared is small.  So when it does, it means the site in question has had files to upload in the past that contain all sorts of trojans, spyware, malware, viruses, worms and  extortion bugs.  Safety first.

[cv_acr]

UnumProvident101

It was rejected because of poor image quality

Sorry dude, but I have to agree with that assessment. The photo has the following knocks against it, any number of which I'd expect the screeners to consider grounds for rejection:

- photo has issues with extremely high "noise" (graininess) and low resolution

- poor sharpness

- it might just be the steam, but there appears to be a bit of fuzziness or glare through the cylinders/smokebox area, or a dust cloud has blurred the photo

- *several* items including multiple people, a platform light and the large tree are obscuring portions of the main subject, the locomotive, and none of them seeming to tell a particular story - just people hanging around a railroad museum

- sun angle appears quite high or straight on the nose of the engine or even slightly back lit, darkening the subject

- it's obviously a modern shot of a preserved engine at a museum or tourist line, so no intrinsic historical value (anyone can go back tomorow and retake this shot without the issues mentioned above)

[DavidH66]

rpnet contributor here.

 

You have to be the cream of the cream of the crop to get on that site. and frankly this photo is nowhere even remotly near that.

 

First off it's soft

 

secondly there shadows galore

 

and pretty much anything else thats wrong with it has already been said.

[zugmann]

DavidH66

You have to be the cream of the cream of the crop to get on that site. and frankly this photo is nowhere even remotly near that.

Umm.. nah... you have to offer what they want.  While there are some great photogs there, there's also a lot of stuff that is not exactly "cream of the crop".  

[Semper Vaporo]

any photos on that site that might be less than spectacular still might be the 'Cream of the crop' because it is the best they have of the particular subject.

[DavidH66]

zugmann

 

 

DavidH66

You have to be the cream of the cream of the crop to get on that site. and frankly this photo is nowhere even remotly near that.

 

 

Umm.. nah... you have to offer what they want.  While there are some great photogs there, there's also a lot of stuff that is not exactly "cream of the crop".  

 

 

The older submissions are  nothin to sneeze at, but the newer photos are tougher to get through.

 

then again you get an occasional mediocre one slip through the cracks like this one. (Don't get me wrong I am a big fan of Sid's work, but this just seems like such a pedestrian photo)

http://www.railpictures.net/images/d2/3/9/0/3390.1455055616.jpg