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)
-   -   Not Level BOOOO (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17195)

Firefighter1019 07-24-2014 04:16 AM

Not Level BOOOO
 
Hmmm What do I level off of? Horizon looks level to me


http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...58&key=5982124


http://thumbnails110.imagebam.com/34...f340762116.jpg

CSX1702 07-24-2014 04:21 AM

Look at the right side of the nose. That is a vertical that should be level. You are off about a degree or so.

EDIT: The background appears to be leaning left though. What lens were you using? Wide angle distortion?

Firefighter1019 07-24-2014 04:31 AM

Yeah it looked so close but I wasnt sure. Canon EFS 18-55mm

Firefighter1019 07-24-2014 05:48 PM

Did a degree of CCR now im hit with to far left? WTH? I leveled off the right side of the nose so now what?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...76&key=4571028

bigbassloyd 07-24-2014 05:53 PM

The wide angle distortion needs addressed. I don't foresee a simple rotation fixing it. The EF-S 18-55 has tons of distortion to correct on the wide end. I can't show you an example here at work, but if no one else comes to the rescue, I'll fix your photo and you'll be able to see the difference tonight.

Loyd L.

Firefighter1019 07-24-2014 06:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 180656)
The wide angle distortion needs addressed. I don't foresee a simple rotation fixing it. The EF-S 18-55 has tons of distortion to correct on the wide end. I can't show you an example here at work, but if no one else comes to the rescue, I'll fix your photo and you'll be able to see the difference tonight.

Loyd L.

Hmmm I had no idea the lens had wide disitortion. Im not sure how to do distortion fix but Id greatly appreciate your help Loyd. Thanks

bigbassloyd 07-24-2014 06:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019 (Post 180657)
Hmmm I had no idea the lens had wide disitortion. Im not sure how to do distortion fix but Id greatly appreciate your help Loyd. Thanks

Most lenses do at their widest setting. The 18-55 has very pronounced barrel distortion on the wide end. It's a simple enough fix, though.

Loyd L.

JimThias 07-25-2014 05:11 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Horribly unlevel seems to be all the rage these days. Maybe you should try something like this...

Attachment 8693

bigbassloyd 07-25-2014 09:52 AM

2 Attachment(s)
http://forums.railpictures.net/attac...1&d=1406281880

http://forums.railpictures.net/attac...1&d=1406281880

Loyd L.

MagnumForce 07-25-2014 10:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 180677)
Horribly unlevel seems to be all the rage these days. Maybe you should try something like this...

Attachment 8693

Needs desert

bigbassloyd 07-25-2014 11:49 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce (Post 180680)
Needs desert

I need dessert

#fatkidproblems

Loyd L.

Ron Flanary 07-25-2014 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019 (Post 180648)

You're asking the wrong guy here. It looks fine to me. It makes zero sense to obsess over trivialities when the immediate impression is: "this is a great shot." It's almost as if screeners often overlook the visual impact of an image but start to pick the flies out of the buttermilk. You could screw around with this image to address the "problem" all day long, and never resolve it satisfy to everybody's OCD's tendencies. The sky's too purple, there's too much foreground flash, there's too much reflection off the second unit, the lighting isn't uniform....and on and on. None of that crap matters! This is merely Rail Pictures, not the Guggenheim.

I think it's an excellent shot.

bigbassloyd 07-25-2014 04:58 PM

We can aruge about right or wrong all day. The fact is: This is Railpictures and it's their call. They said fix it. Either fix it, or don't.

And it looks better fixed. :D

Loyd L.

JimThias 07-25-2014 07:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary (Post 180684)
You're asking the wrong guy here. It looks fine to me. It makes zero sense to obsess over trivialities when the immediate impression is: "this is a great shot." It's almost as if screeners often overlook the visual impact of an image but start to pick the flies out of the buttermilk. You could screw around with this image to address the "problem" all day long, and never resolve it satisfy to everybody's OCD's tendencies. The sky's too purple, there's too much foreground flash, there's too much reflection off the second unit, the lighting isn't uniform....and on and on. None of that crap matters! This is merely Rail Pictures, not the Guggenheim.

I think it's an excellent shot.

Agreed. And the funny thing is, the screener says it needs to CCW, but if you go in that direction, the trailing gondolas will look even more unlevel than they do now.

John West 07-25-2014 08:20 PM

I'd do a little lens correction as Loyd suggested and maybe see if the color balance can be improved.

bigbassloyd 07-25-2014 09:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 180690)
Agreed. And the funny thing is, the screener says it needs to CCW, but if you go in that direction, the trailing gondolas will look even more unlevel than they do now.

If they only implemented a rejection for wide angle distortion aka the problem that doesn't exist...

Loyd L.

Ron Flanary 07-26-2014 01:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 180696)
If they only implemented a rejection for wide angle distortion aka the problem that doesn't exist...

Loyd L.

That's true. Just stick to the reason they rejected it (although collectively several of us are at a loss to accurately explain what it is they want you to correct...).

I also agree that it's RP, and they can decide however they want to decide. I frequently disagree with their decisions (mostly on the shots we see discussed here), but it serves no purpose to denigrate a screener for whatever decision is made, even if you think it's really incorrect and unfair to the photographer.

Dennis A. Livesey 07-26-2014 04:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019 (Post 180657)
Hmmm I had no idea the lens had wide disitortion. Im not sure how to do distortion fix but Id greatly appreciate your help Loyd. Thanks

Designing lenses for normal perspective is pretty easy. It's the wide end that is the most challenging. Designers have to wrestle with edge to edge sharpness, distortion, vignetting, and chromatic aberration.

Like in so many things, the more money you spend, the better the end result. You can get wide lenses that address the above issues but they would be way above the price point of the typical 18-55mm.

You might consider this one. Then you wouldn't have to do that arduous processing suggested by Loyd. :-)

http://www.bhphotovideo.com/c/produc...5mm_f_2_8.html

Firefighter1019 07-26-2014 05:47 PM

Well it got accepted this time. Thanks to Loyd, I downloaded a distortion fix program and used his fixed shot to fix the original shot Ive taken.

Agreed Ron. We can nit pick over why we got rejected " yet wonder how some other abominations get accepted " But at the end of the day its RP and what they want.


http://www.railpictures.net/photo/491212

Mgoldman 07-26-2014 06:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019 (Post 180717)
Agreed Ron. We can nit pick over why we got rejected " yet wonder how some other abominations get accepted " But at the end of the day its RP and what they want.

So when you go to your favorite restaurant and start finding strands of hair in your soup, do you just automatically think to yourself... "It's their restaurant, they can do what they want"? No... you probably say something! Of course, at some point, if no changes are made, you have to decide whether or not you still want to frequent that restaurant. It's a tough choice - damn the food's good, but all those damn strands of hair....

/Mitch

Firefighter1019 07-26-2014 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 180718)
So when you go to your favorite restaurant and start finding strands of hair in your soup, do you just automatically think to yourself... "It's their restaurant, they can do what they want"? No... you probably say something! Of course, at some point, if no changes are made, you have to decide whether or not you still want to frequent that restaurant. It's a tough choice - damn the food's good, but all those damn strands of hair....

/Mitch

Little extra protein in my food Mmmmmm..

CSX1702 07-26-2014 10:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Firefighter1019 (Post 180719)
Little extra protein in my food Mmmmmm..

Mitch, your argument is invalid. :lol:

Mgoldman 07-27-2014 12:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSX1702 (Post 180721)
Mitch, your argument is invalid. :lol:

Why are you quoting Shawn?

And my argument is plenty valid. More photographers would come, and stay - perhaps even return if management seemed to care, let alone acknowledge that there's simply way too many flies in it's soup. It's a shame - it's damn good soup.

/Mitch

JRMDC 07-27-2014 12:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 180718)
Of course, at some point, if no changes are made, you have to decide whether or not you still want to frequent that restaurant. It's a tough choice - damn the food's good, but all those damn strands of hair....

/Mitch

And ...with respect to RP , most of us passed that point some time ago.

CSX1702 07-27-2014 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 180724)
Why are you quoting Shawn?

I was joking about his response to your argument. I actually tend to agree with you most if the time.


All times are GMT. The time now is 08:59 PM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.