I uploaded this train picture on railpictures.net
but it got rejected because of poor image quality
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.
I finally got my first photo accepted after several tries. They seem to be concerned with lighting and image composition.
It was rejected because of poor image quality
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.
I auto adjusted the colors on ifranview and sharpened
the picture and 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.
If I had to guess, it was the shadows that they did not like.
I use Irfanview as well … great free program.
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.
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.
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.
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
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 ’
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.
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 se
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.
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?
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 c
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.