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)
-   -   Leveling Disagreement on Elevated Grade (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=15929)

Freericks 11-21-2012 03:03 AM

Leveling Disagreement on Elevated Grade
 
Two shots hit with horizon unlevel. Both were leveled against objects center frame (ish) that I knew were straight. Pointed this out in comments to screener on the first one.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...42&key=5600180

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...54&key=8239028

Indecline 11-21-2012 03:48 AM

I normally shoot with a tripod or two and use a shot level on the camera(s). Make's it tough to dispute if the photo is level or not as long as the camera is level in the field. :)

DS

nikos1 11-21-2012 04:54 AM

Fence posts and lightposts are close to level according to the PS ruler, I'd say appeal.

jnohallman 11-21-2012 05:43 AM

I have to say the second shot really doesn't do much for me, so I'd be tempted just to let that one go, but I'd say try an appeal for the first one.

Jon

Mgoldman 11-21-2012 09:24 AM

Dr Jim Thias C.W. has offices in Michigan, though I believe he accepts consultation over either the phone or via e-mail. Prices are pretty good too, on per image basis.

Dr Loyd Lowry C.C.W., his understudy has opened a branch in West Virginia and also has reasonable rates.

Suggest you make an appointment.

From my experience, however, I've determined that sometimes it's not whether an image is level but instead whether it looks level. Take caution when making an appointment with the above two levelologists - the costs can escalate dramatically should any warping be necessary.

/Mitch

Mgoldman 11-21-2012 09:51 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Hey Charles!

Look at me - I can level with the best of them now! I think I'll try to get certified later this year. (If only I could crop like a pro....)

This image is way off - holy smokes -> 1.22 degrees. Dare you show your face around these parts for at least a month! We're talking well over a 1,220 pubic monkey hairs.

Here's the corrected pic (Loyd or Jim are welcome to chime in should I be a monkey pubic hair off still - but I think I'm really close - maybe even RP standard-wise!). I used the ruler and determined the imbalance at .72 CW. I then went to Google Image to acquire a plumb tool which I then pasted as a separate layer and lined up against the center vertical handrail pole. I then arbitrarily rotated an additional .2. Still needing more, I went .2 more. I then found I needed to go .1 more and viola! Only took 15 minutes!

Here you go! Have a super fun time with the next - try it!

/Mitch

Attachment 7757

Mgoldman 11-21-2012 09:56 AM

Here's the third party freeware plumb 2.0 plug in:

http://waterburyucc.files.wordpress....7/plumbbob.jpg

/Mitch

JimThias 11-21-2012 01:18 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 161544)
Here's the corrected pic (Loyd or Jim are welcome to chime in should I be a monkey pubic hair off still - but I think I'm really close - maybe even RP standard-wise!).

What I really want to know is, does this monkey pubic hair belong to the same one-armed monkey that can score a screener's choice any time it takes a picture west of the Mississippi? :lol:


Hey, Charles, it looks good to me. This is the dead center of the image:

Attachment 7758

Freericks 11-21-2012 05:14 PM

I appealed the first one and abandoned the second one (which looks like it would go great in a "This is Culver City" brochure - he he).

Ron Flanary 11-21-2012 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks (Post 161534)
Two shots hit with horizon unlevel. Both were leveled against objects center frame (ish) that I knew were straight. Pointed this out in comments to screener on the first one.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...42&key=5600180

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...54&key=8239028

In the future, I suppose we'll have to submit an excerpt from the official track profile for the line, plus a clip from a USGS 7.5 minute quad map to avoid this kind of foolishness. They look fine to me....but, what the heck do I know?

jnohallman 11-22-2012 07:35 PM

Something worked.

[photoid=415736]

Jon

CSX1702 11-23-2012 12:14 AM

Geez, you guys have really been on the screeners over this leveling thing recently haven't you? If it's over 1 degree off or so it can be noticeable. Just level and resubmit. Although it does take a lot of time to redo everything you edited before that like cropping, contrast, blah, blah. But I don't really care if all the screeners care about is it being unlevel.

If there's anything that bothers me its when you correct an issue and they hit you with another one. That needs to stop.

Ron Flanary 11-23-2012 04:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSX1702 (Post 161589)
If there's anything that bothers me its when you correct an issue and they hit you with another one. That needs to stop.

You are SO right! Of course, this happens because one screener may see a shot, and gig it for something like unlevel. So the poor old photographer goes through all this anguish and finally levels it the best he can....and resubmits. So this time, another screener sees it, and....oh....well, well....I think the color is a bit off here, so you get another rejection for a different reason. Same process, and the shot is resubmitted. Only this time a third screener gets it, and he decides he doesn't like the cropping...

That's how it happens. The only way you might avoid this stuff is to add some notes to the screener (whichever one it is...) in the comments section. I'm known to offer frequent mini-editorials with my uploads. :)

CSX1702 11-23-2012 04:44 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary (Post 161590)
You are SO right! Of course, this happens because one screener may see a shot, and gig it for something like unlevel. So the poor old photographer goes through all this anguish and finally levels it the best he can....and resubmits. So this time, another screener sees it, and....oh....well, well....I think the color is a bit off here, so you get another rejection for a different reason. Same process, and the shot is resubmitted. Only this time a third screener gets it, and he decides he doesn't like the cropping...

What bothers me is that this can all happen in a matter of minutes which makes me think it's all the same screener.

Ron Flanary 11-23-2012 02:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by CSX1702 (Post 161591)
What bothers me is that this can all happen in a matter of minutes which makes me think it's all the same screener.

If that be the case....that's a shameful way to treat those who voluntarily take the time to upload (and thus donate) their images...

mersenne6 11-23-2012 06:25 PM

Ron and CSX I agree it is something of a bummer. I've had it work both ways - correct and reject for another reason either with a time lapse (say overnight) or within a short period of time.

The most unusual reject concerned the same setting but different angles and focal lengths. I corrected one image three times and then called it a day and the next morning I tried with a different image which had previously been dinged for darkened shadows only to have it judged and rejected (I think) on the basis of the set of attempts from the night before. As I said, it is disappointing but it happens. When it does I take consolation in the fact that I do get a reasonable percentage of my offerings accepted and I let it go.

Holloran Grade 11-24-2012 01:46 AM

Buses on tracks.
 
You know Charles, it would probably be easier for you if shot pictures of real trains instead of trams and buses on tracks.

That issue aside, I just turn the stupid picture until they accept it (yes, call me an RP whore).

One time I became so frustrated (going back and forth) that I finally e-mailed them and got a response as to which direction to turn the shot and it was finally accepted.

[photoid=353501]


I think it is a lot like Dr. Thias telling me that shots taken by others at Pilgrim Hill (see my Avatar photo) in the Cajon Pass are crooked, even though he has never stood on that hill and I have spent hours there over the years and objects in the disputed images look plumb.:lol:

Ron Flanary 11-24-2012 02:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade (Post 161608)
...One time I became so frustrated (going back and forth) that I finally e-mailed them and got a response as to which direction to turn the shot and it was finally accepted...

I love it!!! It's like they want to take the camera out your hands and shoot it the way they think it should look. That's what gets me a little hot under the collar at times. I'm not seeking their advice. Just accept what I upload and don't question my judgment. (sure...:)....)

I was shooting train photos and having them published before these guys were born...literally. However, that counts for nothing.

That finishes my mini-rant for November 23, 2012...

Holloran Grade 11-24-2012 02:15 AM

Yup.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary (Post 161609)
It's like they want to take the camera out your hands and shoot it the way they think it should look.

Yes, such as this one.

<a href="http://www.flickr.com/photos/36722129@N06/5610531909/" title="Coming into Cadiz by El Roco Photography, on Flickr"><img src="http://farm6.staticflickr.com/5302/5610531909_098113b082_n.jpg" width="320" height="218" alt="Coming into Cadiz"></a>

They say it is cropped wrong and the subject is too far in the distance.

The conclusion I draw from that is that "they" don't understand what the subject is and what I intended to show - or I did a bad job in conveying it.

Perhaps one cannot comprehend the feeling of just how big the desert is. unless you walk around out in the central Mojave for a spell and take it all in.

JRMDC 11-24-2012 02:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade (Post 161610)
The conclusion I draw from that is that "they" don't understand what the subject is and what I intended to show - or I did a bad job in conveying it.

Perhaps one cannot comprehend the feeling of just how big the desert is. unless you walk around out in the central Mojave for a spell and take it all in.

I don't understand either, do tell!

(I would not have greater understanding if you would have moved one or two steps to the right and not had the engine right on top of the foreground elements, but I would have liked it better.)

Ron Flanary 11-24-2012 02:36 AM

1 Attachment(s)
You could do something like this:

http://forums.railpictures.net/attac...1&d=1353724468

Oh, wait! Now I'm doin' the same thing THEY do!! Sorry.

Forget it. I like the shot as it is (yes, I agree...the Mojave is a study of the "vastness of the infinite").

Holloran Grade 11-24-2012 06:30 AM

Yuk yuk yuk.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary (Post 161613)
You could do something like this:

http://forums.railpictures.net/attac...1&d=1353724468

Oh, wait! Now I'm doin' the same thing THEY do!! Sorry.

Forget it. I like the shot as it is (yes, I agree...the Mojave is a study of the "vastness of the infinite").

I tried that version and the train (cause that is now the subject) was too far away - and I like those poles (I could do a shot of empty track with those poles).

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 161612)
.......... and not had the engine right on top of the foreground elements, but I would have liked it better.)

I worked real hard to get it there.

I have plenty of other frames from this sequence.

Perhaps I will crop one into a wedgie and submit it just to prove a point.:-D

JRMDC 11-24-2012 12:17 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade (Post 161610)
The conclusion I draw from that is that "they" don't understand what the subject is and what I intended to show - or I did a bad job in conveying it.

Perhaps one cannot comprehend the feeling of just how big the desert is. unless you walk around out in the central Mojave for a spell and take it all in.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 161612)
I don't understand either, do tell!

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade (Post 161616)
I worked real hard to get it there.

I have plenty of other frames from this sequence.

Perhaps I will crop one into a wedgie and submit it just to prove a point.:-D

I do wish you had tried to answer my question. What is your subject, what did you intend to show, and why was this composition the best means of doing that?

Ron Flanary 11-24-2012 06:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade (Post 161616)
I tried that version and the train (cause that is now the subject) was too far away - and I like those poles (I could do a shot of empty track with those poles).


That "train is too far away" standard is really bad. They should drop that (although they obviously don't listen to me <g>...).

jnohallman 11-24-2012 10:36 PM

Since this is the most recent thread about unlevel rejections, I just thought I'd point out this recent example of what must, in the screeners' eyes, be a perfectly level photo.

[photoid=415934]

Let the ranting begin! :twisted:

Jon


All times are GMT. The time now is 10:46 AM.

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