Feels like winning an award... twice!

[Ed Kapuscinski]

I snuck two photos into Railpictures.net on the first submission. 

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=481379

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=481378

[C855B]

Well, they were accepted because they're quality shots. Congrats.

I've found the hard way the magic formula for being posted on these sites is clear, crisp atmospheres. Your pictures have that. It's something I rarely see in the Midwest unless it's -10°F. I think I have exactly one shot up on railpictures, and several years back told rrpicturearchives to shove off after they rejected perfectly fine, well-lit 3/4 wedgies that were "holes" in their rosters, just because the sky was a little hazy.

Hell, on one site that doesn't have an "approval" process I posted a really nice, historic Alco shot only to have some SOB resubmit it "corrected"... which consisted of editing out the "dirt" that happened to be litter actually in the scene. The standards some of these clowns (like Stan Lytle, RIP, and his cohorts) demand are impossible attempts to create an alternate reality, and in the process suppress sharing of 90%-level photography that is either newsworthy or potential good sources of modeling information. As you can tell, this "perfection" BS drives me nuts, and has done so my entire 50-year railfanning "career".

[packers#1]

Congrats Ed!
Mike, I didn't know rrpicturearchives had an approval process? I merely upload my shots and note which locomotives are in the shot; I just put five up yesterday which have bits of car in the frame

[C855B]

Maybe it has changed, Sawyer. This was five or six years ago. Could it be my complaint about the unreasonable rejection adjusted some attitudes? I could dream, I guess.

[packers#1]

Maybe it has changed, Sawyer. This was five or six years ago. Could it be my complaint about the unreasonable rejection adjusted some attitudes? I could dream, I guess.

It could have, because there is no approval process for photos; however, I do remember having to wait for my account to be approved, so that could have been what they transitioned to

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Well, they were accepted because they're quality shots. Congrats.

I've found the hard way the magic formula for being posted on these sites is clear, crisp atmospheres. Your pictures have that. It's something I rarely see in the Midwest unless it's -10°F. I think I have exactly one shot up on railpictures, and several years back told rrpicturearchives to shove off after they rejected perfectly fine, well-lit 3/4 wedgies that were "holes" in their rosters, just because the sky was a little hazy.

Hell, on one site that doesn't have an "approval" process I posted a really nice, historic Alco shot only to have some SOB resubmit it "corrected"... which consisted of editing out the "dirt" that happened to be litter actually in the scene. The standards some of these clowns (like Stan Lytle, RIP, and his cohorts) demand are impossible attempts to create an alternate reality, and in the process suppress sharing of 90%-level photography that is either newsworthy or potential good sources of modeling information. As you can tell, this "perfection" BS drives me nuts, and has done so my entire 50-year railfanning "career".

Yeah, it really is a challenge. Which is actually why, even though I find myself frequently frustrated by their d-baggery and somewhat arbitrary rulings, I keep going back (like a moth to the flame). It just feels so good when you "win".

That said, I have gotten some cloudy shots accepted, but they were a while ago (check out the low photo numbers):
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=42281
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=42280
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=7159
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=4552

[basementcalling]

Fine looking work there, Ed.

[GaryHinshaw]

Nice work.  That's an impressively sharp curve on the first shot.  I think I can hear the flanges squealing from here. 

[rswinnerton]

Nice photos Ed. I don't bother with Railpictures though as I don't need their 'approval' to feel good about my photography. Maybe I'm the exception, but I think my (unphotoshopped) pictures speak for themselves. My feelings about this stem from the 2 pictures I uploaded to Railpictures last year. One was rejected for high sun (which was correct) the other was "over sharpened", which is BS because I don't edit my pictures at all. I stewed on this a while and then it hit me.... Who really gives a flying **_* what some d-bags with no life think? I've gotten tons of positive comments about the two shots I posted from other sources. GFY Railpictures. 

[rswinnerton]

Incidentally, here are the two I posted:





And two more I decided not to bother with:

[VonRyan]

It's Railpricks not Railpics (Railpictures). 

I tried to submit a great shot of mine, they said it was too big, I never tried submitting anything ever again.

Besides, I don't edit my photos. Ever.

[peteski]

And two more I decided not to bother with:

Too bad as I like this one the best. I like the uniformity of the car carriers in that train (yes, I know that they aren't all identical, but still), and the neat and clutter-free ballast.  It looks like a ... model train layout. 

[lock4244]

View whore, view whore 

 

[Ed Kapuscinski]

Nice photos Ed. I don't bother with Railpictures though as I don't need their 'approval' to feel good about my photography. Maybe I'm the exception, but I think my (unphotoshopped) pictures speak for themselves.

Oh yeah, they're far from the arbiter of "good" photography. But that's exactly why I feel like getting a few photos accepted is a fun challenge.

View whore, view whore 

Lol. Yup.

[Bob Bufkin]

I have yet to get anything accepted with them.  And Ed I know how it feels to finally get something published.  Great feeling.