"guess the reason"

[scottychaos]

im just curious..
can anyone guess the reason this was rejected?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=85448

if someone can guess, I will feel better about the rejection! :lol:
im just curious if anyone else can see the reason..

btw, this is a very rare engine..the largest locomotive ever lettered for the Bath & Hammondsport railroad.
and the only road diesel EVER lettered for the B&H.
(for the last several decades, the railroad's entire roster has consisted of two Alco S-1's..so this Alco Century is quite a step-up for the little shortline!)

if it was a NS dash9 im sure it would be more interesting. :roll:

Scot

[David Telesha]

Nice shot.

If I recall, that Century is ex-New Haven Railroad.

[chauncey87]

poor lighting (backlit)?

[scottychaos]

Nice shot.

If I recall, that Century is ex-New Haven Railroad.

thanks!
actually she is originally Erie Lackawanna..

"poor lighting" is close, but not exact..
the reason for the rejection has more to do with the image itself, and not the conditions "at the scene."

it actually isnt backlit at all..
its front lit.
the sun was behind me and is shining toward the engine,
but it was near sunset and there wasnt much *direct* light shining at the time..
Scot

[Ween]

Maybe: Too dark / backlit / horizon unlevel (wild guess)

[cmherndon]

I'd say either soft focus or too much glare.

[scottychaos]

hmmm..
well ok, you all are saying "too dark"..so I guess that is a semi-valid reason then..
(the reason given was "Poor lighting (too dark)" )

but the thing is..it really isnt "too" dark!
its perfectly exposed!
I cant lighten the scene any, because that would make the highlights on the locomotive side, and the entire sky, go to pure white, and would make the image look MUCH worse..
the photo is perfectly exposed for the lighting at the scene..
maybe you could say "poor lighting"..but is it really "poor"?
I dont think so..

well, I wrote a polite appeal, explaining that the photo cant be made any lighter, and that from a photographic standpoint, the exposure is fine.
and! that the locomotive is very rare, one of a kind actually,
the only B&H road diesel ever..
and how many pristine and operating C424's are out there?
not many..

well, we shall see!
I admit, the lighting could be better..if I got there an hour earlier it might have been better, but I certaintly dont think its "poor" lighting..
I quite like it actually!
hmmm..
well, thanks for the input! :)
Scot

[Lord Vader]

Dark

[oltmannd]

im just curious..
can anyone guess the reason this was rejected?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=85448

if someone can guess, I will feel better about the rejection! :lol:
im just curious if anyone else can see the reason..

btw, this is a very rare engine..the largest locomotive ever lettered for the Bath & Hammondsport railroad.
and the only road diesel EVER lettered for the B&H.
(for the last several decades, the railroad's entire roster has consisted of two Alco S-1's..so this Alco Century is quite a step-up for the little shortline!)

if it was a NS dash9 im sure it would be more interesting. :roll:

Scot

I'd have guessed poor lighting, but I love the shot. It's obbiously not trying to be an average roster shot. Your angle and elevation are obviously all wrong for that - as is the lighting.

What makes it great is the combination of the low angle, the glossy paint and the lighting conditions.

I wonder what percentage of shots in the database were shot from a standing position? I think it's one of the most overlooked facets of rail photography. Most everybody just shoots standing up. Getting up or down from there can make a huge difference, sometimes. You shot from a low angle with great results!

[Joe]

You're sure the rejection reason wasn't "Photo is way too much better than anything the site operators can shoot"? :lol: :lol: :roll: :roll:

[cometv]

Too dark?!?!? :lol: Yeah, right.

Do you have Photoshop? If so, maybe you could cut and paste a prancing pony on the nose. Then you should be good to go. :roll:

Seriously though, I like the shot. Don't see much wide angle stuff here.

[Ween]

Most everybody just shoots standing up. Getting up or down from there can make a huge difference, sometimes.

I like the squat shot, but they don't work out too well in low light or cloudy conditons. Squatting gives the subject a looming presence, to me anyway...

[Guilford350]

Looks dark to me.

[E.M. Bell]

great angle, poor lighting...to dark

[busyEMT]

Also, this would be classified as a "roster shot." The lighting is expected to be optimal or clearly an artistic attempt (suggested from numerous past rejection experiences).

[emfinite]

It's a little dark, but DAMN that is a great photo of an amazing looking engine! I think the screeners should see beyond the darkness on this shot and just accept it! Nice work.