You say the "Best rr photos on the net" ?
 

Well I've been away for the most of the year and had a second to look at some pictures today and see the screening process continues to muddy the waters in what is accepted and not!? Good grieve I saw this photo in the top of the day views and how did this get accepted. Sorry for using yours Alex, but having over 800 photos in the database your experience should be telling you this is a shot that should of got the "foreground clutter" at the minimum and have been kept for personnel use IMO. Seeing you have a drone, taking from the other side with just a tree would've been a bit better but still sometimes you just have to draw the line.

[photoid=718049]

It just reiterates to the many photogs that have left the site for various reasons (some for the irrational rejections) that the statement "The best railroad photos on the net" is applied rather loosely. Many have kept much better quality and composed shots from the viewing public that were rejected by the screeners here and to see one that highlights light posts does nothing to ease hard feelings by many, lol. Oh well, time goes on and yes it's their site but live up to the title a bit as the debate will live on ;).

Rich

Totally agree with you Rich.

The bar for aerial photo acceptance here is quite low. Tons of views from curiosity or campaigning, and only ounces of likes for the majority of them.

Loyd L.

The biggest offender has denied campaigning here in the forums, but I don't buy it. There's no way that every "Where's Waldo" image leaps to the TO24 without outside help.

Loyd, I know the bar is a bit lax but you need to have a bar set period and I know you've been here long enough to understand that, lol. It's laughable and does no good for the sites integrity when the parameters set allow shots (many as we know over the years) that shouldn't even get a sniff of acceptance.

Also, I agree with Doug as many shots of no special merit have bloated view counts from some computer viewer, link mania or other factors.

Like I said previous, drone or not the photog needs to get creative with the obstacles given or just keep the shot for their own files if it doesn't measure up. Then there is the photog gets a automatic pass thought. Screening process=one of the great unsolved mysteries :)!

Keep shooting, Rich

[photoid=689372]

I appreciate this photographer took the time to get his photo when then light would enhance his subject. Not a big fan of stationary steam photos probably from memory of days past watching a slide show where someone would shoot the greater part of a dead line. However, if you do then do the best you can with composition and light, it is just sitting there?

Bob

...and then there is the lack of a boiler jacket. It's great that these engines have survived, but the visual negatives are so unfortunate.

There is a bar set and it's called submit any drone photo no matter how crappily composed, edited, or disfigured from perspective distortion it is. 😂

Loyd L.

I wish I had the original raw file for this one. I could probably help the person make it look more realistic. As it is, it is overexposed and a little tough on the eyes.

I don't own a drone, but have thought of getting one for (very) occasional use when I just could not find a camera position to capture a pleasing composition. In my view, a drone is a replacement for an overpass or a little hill that I wish were there. If the result ends up looking like I was flying, I would consider it a failure. There are most definitely a plethora of images on this site that not only make me wonder: "Why did you take that shot?", but also: "What made you think that a drone would make it more appealing?"

I think both questions apply to this one. :sad:

The most significant advance since digital photography is aerial photography. For the first time in history, you can have an eye in places impossible to reach before. This allows us to see and understand our world in ways never before thought of. However, as with any tool, it can be misused. Since most people with a camera don't know how to use it, with the same being said of aerial platforms, we who care about the image have to be patient for those who are willing to put in the time to learn how to use it. That is worth the wait.

I'm hoping I fit into the category of "willing to put in the time to use it".

How about this one?

[photoid=502394]

I have no idea what a "boiler jacket" is and when I look at that photo, it looks like a regular old steam engine to me. [shrug]

Modelers spend their lives looking down at their trains from similar perspectives that drones give real trains, yet drone photography is met with so much negativity. It baffles me.

Hi Jim,

Your image of this display engine is far nicer than the one discussed earlier in the thread. The light is great, and the down-angle is not too steep...just enough to clear the fence. You’re a little more head-on than I like, but you’ve also included a coaling tower in the composition, which really enhances the scene. Not sure you could do much better.

Hi Jim,

A boiler jacket an insulating layer placed around the boiler shell to minimize heat loss to the atmosphere and improve the thermal efficiency of the engine. Generally, it consists of a layer of insulation material, surrounded by a protective, sheet metal jacket, which is usually painted black. In park engines, the jacket is often removed for a lot of reasons. First, the ones from back in the day contain asbestos insulation, and are a health hazard. Second, when left outside for a long time, water tends to get under the jacket and into the insulation, which then holds the moisture against the boiler shell, promoting corrosion. Removing them actually helps preserve the steel. Unfortunately, to the purist, it doesn’t look right. A boiler jacket looks smooth, and when clean, it also looks shiny. Without the boiler jacket, you can see the raw boiler steel, including the rivets and seams. It’s a dead giveaway that the engine is cold and dead. :)

BTW, most steam engines in service today use a modern insulation such as calcium silicate blocks. Asbestos is no longer used.

Everything has its place. I have considered getting a drone for those occasional situations in which I cannot physically get to a camera position from which a good composition can be achieved. As a friend of mine puts it, the drone is like a portable overpass or portable hill to replace the overpass or hill that I wish were present. I think that many traditional photographers get off the drone bus when people shoot from excessive altitudes or extreme angles. Some of us find shots like that far less pleasing than ones taken from a more human perspective. When the shot starts to scream “Hey, I’ve got a drone!!”, or “Look mom, I’m flying!”, that’s when I tune out. :)

Knowing you have a 'level' complex like I do, your lack of response concerning the perspective distortion and non-leveled drone shots is baffling to me. :D

Neighborhood fireworks and improperly shoveled driveways,

Loyd L.

And yet, most model photography that I've seen is not from a high-altitude drone perspective.

Was that with your 25ft. tripod??

I am not negative about drones as much as the way most RP contributors use them. I follow folks on Flickr who use their drones in a manner that is more consistent with the way I (and presumably Kevin, if the subjects were steam) envision their usage. There may be a few other flaws that you can cite in these photos, but composition and visual appeal are not among them. A few examples:


https://www.flickr.com/photos/40666398@N02/48808214688/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/83399266@N02/37201118294/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/gejockey/48957384771/

https://www.flickr.com/photos/nickpalazini/49506566113/

Those are nice, Doug. I think that some of the RP contributors could take a lesson from these. You don't need (or want) to be at the maximum operating altitude of your drone to get the optimum view of the subject. As a friend of mine is fond of saying, his drone is a "portable overpass" or a replacement for the hill he wishes were there. We don't NEED to have the horizon in the shot to make it interesting.

Todd Novak is probably one of the best out there using a drone right now and very much an inspiration. While I mostly agree with the statements about "not operating at the maximum height" I think it's use is grossly exaggerated in these forums. On one hand, it takes a lot of flight experience to get comfortable to operate at lower altitudes, often requiring flying over something like wires/trees and then descending to the desired height for the photo. On the other hand, I personally think there are some scenes are better photographed from a higher altitude. Not as high as some contributors here use regularly though. Overall, I think there is a balance between this idea that the only ways to use a drone are "as an overpass" or "at the 400 ft max" and that is where the best photos can come from.

Same here, actually. Maybe it's jealousy from folks who don't have drones. I don't have one, but some of the photography I see taken with one are really good. Drones are just another tool to get different perspectives