RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   Rejected again (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=16440)

BobE 06-15-2013 03:34 PM

Rejected again
 
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...91&key=3875097

They didn't like it. I like it. Maybe others will like it.

JRMDC 06-15-2013 04:36 PM

Basically, RP doesn't like the dark pilot, and probably doesn't like the darkness in general. It is an awkwardly lit shot, lots of deep darks, but the nose doesn't "pop", because the sun is so high that the lower part of the nose, above the pilot, is poorly lit also.

Try this shot later in the year. Call me when you do, I want this shot too! :)

Greg P 06-16-2013 02:54 AM

Great location. The lighting will kill it for RP.net though.

Check out the location on suncalc.net and see when you can get the sun shining on the front of the train.

Ron Flanary 06-16-2013 04:06 AM

I agree...the lighting is funky. Lacks contrast as well.

milwman 06-16-2013 11:44 AM

As somewhat liker of Funky lit shots this is flat ( Lacks contrast ) and little to look at with Dark signals but there is a shot wanting out.

BobE 06-16-2013 02:56 PM

'Funky' has some negative connotations. Maybe 'dramatic' would be a better adjective, but obviously I'm a little biased.

The photo works because the top lighting makes the locomotive stand out from a rather bland background, but there is still enough background lighting to show the train and the S-curve it just cleared. Would I get the same effect if my lighting were more uniform?

I'm not sure about lack of contrast. There are strong highlights, and I'm surprised how much detail is rendered in the shadows - you can still see detail the front of the locomotive, including its snowplow. Any more contrast, and all that would be lost.

I'd love to have had the signals lit up, but CSX's signal department didn't get my email.

I knew getting this accepted was a long shot, but sometimes you get lucky. I didn't shoot it to please the screeners. They can say what is an acceptable photograph for RailPhotos.net, but that doesn't give them a monopoly on photography.

Holloran Grade 06-16-2013 06:05 PM

My opinion - for what it is worth.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by BobE (Post 167370)
................. but that doesn't give them a monopoly on photography.

It does nothing for me - sorry.

Shadows are too deep and numerous and the subject is placed in an unappealing location (in my opinion) and I find myself straining to see what is in the image (contrast issue).

It is not a good landscape either - for all the reasons listed above.

This is a decent spot, you just need to get the light right.:wink:

troy12n 06-16-2013 06:22 PM

This is the approximate location of a big derailment of the Capitol Limited about 10 years ago.

Ron Flanary 06-16-2013 09:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobE (Post 167370)
'Funky' has some negative connotations.


NO! I didn't use it with those intentions. Have you never heard Wilson Pickett's classic "Funky Broadway"? (maybe not...too young at the time):

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=WqK1NF5m4bc

Chris Z 06-16-2013 09:47 PM

1 Attachment(s)
If you shot this in RAW you may be able to save this picture. Just messin' around with it in jpeg format adding a little enhancements yielded this.

Chris Z

JRMDC 06-17-2013 12:33 AM

Chris' is much better (but where do those red hues on the pilot come from?). Lack of contrast - see how in Chris' version the signal now "appear" as opposed to getting lost in the darkness. His has less contrast, actually, in the histogram sense, he has brought up the darks so there is more in the middle tones. But he has created contrast between signals and background, especially on the right - despite the signals having little light on them! - and the nose of the train actually stands out better, despite the background being brighter, because, for one, the pilot is less gray, more black.

I didn't use the word "funky" but I would use it on the original in the negative sense - the shot is sort of weird in how things disappear all over, and the foliage is pretty blah. I don't see the dramatic in it at all, mainly because the nose doesn't actually have nearly as much pop for me as it apparently has for you, and because even with the goal of having the nose pop, the surrounding area is still too blah in light for my tastes and the signals disappear. If the pop-out is your intention, I'd find a location without signals, as their weak presence in your shot - there, but hard to see them, especially on the right - runs counter to one's expectation of a RR shot, or really any shot, I think. I'd rather see a shot without those details than a shot where those details are included but obscured in exposure or processing. Exceptions abound, of course, but for my tastes this isn't one. So funky as in non-standard - to my tastes non-standard in a way that detracts from the image.

The original shot has the "blah" look of summer mid-day light, Chris' gets rid of the blah. The main thing I would do with his shot is reduce the saturation, probably selectively on the color range that is messing with the black of the pilot, turning it reddish-brown; the orange stripes on the nose looked overcooked also (but the yellows in the signs do not).

Greg P 06-17-2013 02:58 AM

Quote:

but that doesn't give them a monopoly on photography.
No, but it is their site. Their rules

Holloran Grade 06-17-2013 04:28 AM

Shadows work, but you need light on the nose to make it "pop."

Sort of like this.

http://farm9.staticflickr.com/8004/7...44f9824d_z.jpg
Remember the Santa Fe by El Roco Photography, on Flickr

nikos1 06-17-2013 08:24 PM

That shot its totally irrelevant to the OP's photo, also would have been better on the other side.

Holloran Grade 06-18-2013 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by nikos1 (Post 167398)
That shot its totally irrelevant to the OP's photo, also would have been better on the other side.

Bolderdash!

It would have looked like every other Arrowhead Junction shot - boreing.

nikos1 06-18-2013 06:01 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade (Post 167415)
Bolderdash!

It would have looked like every other Arrowhead Junction shot - boreing.

Different isnt always better, exhibit A right here.

nikos1 06-18-2013 06:02 AM

Also looks like its hardly unique....this ones got better light too.
[photoid=388520]

Holloran Grade 06-22-2013 06:32 AM

It ain't a warbonnet, and ya, I got those too.

JimThias 06-22-2013 12:59 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by BobE (Post 167370)
They can say what is an acceptable photograph for RailPhotos.net, but that doesn't give them a monopoly on photography.

If there is the perception of RP having a monopoly on photography, it is a myth perpetuated entirely by the haters of RP.

Ron Flanary 06-22-2013 02:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 167586)
If there is the perception of RP having a monopoly on photography, it is a myth perpetuated entirely by the haters of RP.

I certainly agree, Jim. How could they have a "monopoly"? Did Congress pass some law that said only RP.net could define what a train picture should be? Was there an amendment to the Constitution I missed somewhere? Has the Justice Department and Federal Trade Commission filed anti-trust action against RP.net to restore fair competition for us train photographers?

Anyone can take his/her images somewhere else anything they wish. RP.net is simply one place you can upload your images to be seen on the internet. The only difference: they judge whether or not they accept them. If they do---fine. If they don't---who cares? Life goes on either way.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:12 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.