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)
-   -   Kinda figured it would get rejected. (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=8280)

Tgranville 09-17-2008 01:28 PM

Kinda figured it would get rejected.
 
Im not complaining. I knew it might get rejected for high sun, but i tried. I like the shot. Guessing its better for the personal collection or should have tried later in the day.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=751579351

JRMDC 09-17-2008 01:33 PM

Nice. Are the 4400's so ubuquitous that even a railfan will sleep through a train moving past? :)

When you try it again, keep the person's foot and elbow in the picture.

Tgranville 09-17-2008 01:41 PM

It was a last second grab.

I saw the railfan snoozing and the train coming, so i grabbed my camera out of the car and thought i had all of him in the frame.

Noct Foamer 09-17-2008 01:59 PM



Maybe I'm weird (OK, I know I am) but I actually like the shot. It has some human interest to it. As for the rejection reason "high sun," keep in mind that many of these screeners really aren't photographers and know nothing about light and how to use it. :roll: That is THE key concept in all photography. I agree to be careful to not cut off body parts on your subjects. I generally frame things a little loose to avoid that.


Kent in SD


ottergoose 09-17-2008 02:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noct Foamer
Keep in mind that many of these screeners really aren't photographers and know nothing about light and how to use it. :roll:

Keep in mind that Noct Foamer's been active on the forums for all of two weeks now, but thinks he knows more than everyone else here put together :roll:

While this opinion isn't coming from a former pharmaceuticals salesman with a hillbilly shotgun or nice Beretta (of course), the bottom line is that you have a poorly lit wedgie shot of standard CSX power and you got one of your foamer buddies to pose in the foreground.

I agree with your assessment - nice for a grab shot, but, I can see why they didn't accept it.

rpalmer 09-17-2008 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC
Nice. Are the 4400's so ubuquitous that even a railfan will sleep through a train moving past? :)

Maybe he had already realized that the sun was too high, and was resting up for later in the day :-)

JRMDC 09-17-2008 02:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rpalmer
Maybe he had already realized that the sun was too high, and was resting up for later in the day :-)

Robert, your opinion here is totally invalid as you are not a photographer and you know nothing about light or how to use it. :roll: :)

Noct Foamer 09-17-2008 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottergoose
the bottom line is that you have a poorly lit wedgie shot of standard CSX power and you got one of your foamer buddies to pose in the foreground.


It's not poorly lit. It could use a little work in PS to lighten a few areas, but the train itself actually well lit. Check the shadows. I'm not crazy about the b&w treatment either as it appears to just be a simple grayscale conversion, but it might have some potential.

Note I haven't gone into my background much. In the past I have worked for a (Kansas City) studio photographer (making product shots and some commerical location work), was a custom photo printer for Fuji TruColor Systems, have sold stock photos for over 10 years (mostly ag images,) and have 20+ years of nearly daily outdoor photo experience in multi-formats (35mm, 645, 4x5, digital.) While some screeners here are very good, some do indeed appear much less.....capable. Judging from the brief comments some make. As for the "hillbilly" comment, doesn't bother me. I am basically a very well educated small town/farm hillbilly. :wink: So is my wife, a clinical pharmacist. We are indeed transplanted Missouri hillbillies. :-)


Kent in SD

JRMDC 09-17-2008 03:02 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noct Foamer
It's not poorly lit. It could use a little work in PS to lighten a few areas, but the train itself actually well lit.

It is plainly lit. Interesting light is not the reason this shot exists. Given that, RP has a preference against the dark trucks look that comes along when the sun is at certain angles relative to the train. Another website might accept it, but it isn't a wrongly construed rejection.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noct Foamer
As for the rejection reason "high sun," keep in mind that many of these screeners really aren't photographers and know nothing about light and how to use it. :roll: That is THE key concept in all photography.

With respect to the current issue, the light is plain and there is no issue of how to use it. It is a plain wedgie shot, plus a person. Light is not the dominant photographic characteristic of this shot.

My suspicion is that your views on the screeners are colored by the amount of time you have been or spend on ObsCar. Take a moment and go through the screener's shots here on RP; you may find that your eyes are opened.

Ween 09-17-2008 03:29 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottergoose
Keep in mind that Noct Foamer's been active on the forums for all of two weeks now, but thinks he knows more than everyone else here put together :roll:

Perhaps someone will write a 5-page reply to Kent at some point after they see enough of his comments on life/photography/everything else in life that he's better at than you...oh wait, that's already happened in at least one other online venue...:wink:

ccaranna 09-17-2008 04:06 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottergoose
Keep in mind that Noct Foamer's been active on the forums for all of two weeks now, but thinks he knows more than everyone else here put together :roll:

Trust me, he knows what he's talking about. Don't get him started! :D ;)

Length of time/number of posts on this forum (or any forum) doesn't mean anything. I've been on the fourms for nearly 4 years and I still don't know beans. Well, maybe a little more than that, but I'm still learning. Believe me, Kent is the man.

As far as the picture in question, I like it, but like everyone else said, the guy is too low into the frame. One thing I'll say though, there sure seem to be a lot of pictures with people in them these days...like it's becoming the latest fad or something. Get one of your friends to pose. :roll: Some of these work for me, some don't. I guess as long as it looks natural I like it, but if looks fabricated, then forget it.

ottergoose 09-17-2008 10:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccaranna
Trust me, he knows what he's talking about. Don't get him started! :D ;)

Length of time/number of posts on this forum (or any forum) doesn't mean anything. I've been on the fourms for nearly 4 years and I still don't know beans. Well, maybe a little more than that, but I'm still learning. Believe me, Kent is the man.

Well, I have yet to see anything that demonstrates he's a superior train photographer to any of the screeners. I have seen his work on Flickr (http://www.flickr.com/photos/96826069@N00/), and it doesn't seem to demonstrate that "he's the man."

All I've seen so far are comments that are boastful and belittling. Kent, if you know your stuff, that's great - but don't be a dick about it. There are a lot of really smart, talented folks here who offer great advice without talking about how good they are, others are less... capable.

Andrew Blaszczyk (2) 09-17-2008 11:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Noct Foamer
As for the rejection reason "high sun," keep in mind that many of these screeners really aren't photographers and know nothing about light and how to use it. :roll:

Kent in SD

He/you defended my penny shot in another forum so I will let this slide! :-D ;-) :lol:

bigbassloyd 09-18-2008 12:34 AM

The front knuckle / plow is too dark for me.. :D

Seriously though, the shot screams posed to me. You'd have to be really drunk, in a coma, or have a very weird sleep cycle. to sleep trackside like that, in the middle of the day.

Loyd L.

chris crook 09-18-2008 12:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottergoose
Keep in mind that Noct Foamer's been active on the forums for all of two weeks now, but thinks he knows more than everyone else here put together :roll:

Dude, come on. That is why people don't come on the forums in the first place. As if you have to be vested or something.

One can be a great photographer, or even a halfway good one, without having to get clearance from the RP.net forums.

I have known Ken on the ol' internet for a long time, and agree with him on almost nothing. But the idea that post count has something to do with photographic knowledge is offensive.

Chachi 09-18-2008 12:47 AM

Whaa??? a railfan sleeping when a train is comming!

ottergoose 09-18-2008 01:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by chris crook
Dude, come on. That is why people don't come on the forums in the first place. As if you have to be vested or something.

One can be a great photographer, or even a halfway good one, without having to get clearance from the RP.net forums.

I have known Ken on the ol' internet for a long time, and agree with him on almost nothing. But the idea that post count has something to do with photographic knowledge is offensive.

The point I wast trying to make is that's it's offensive to hop on a forum and say the guys running the site don't know what they're doing. It annoys the hell out of me, in fact. I've gained so much knowledge from the screening process that I get defensive when people knock it. I honestly don't know how I'd participate in the hobby if it wasn't for this site.

I'm not suggesting that post count or duration of forum membership has anything to do with how capable or valid of an opinion someone has. That said, generally speaking, the longer folks have been around here, the better idea they have of what RP's looking for. Generally speaking, when people who don't "get" the process start expounding bad advice with a holier-than-thou tone, it degrades the quality of the forums for everyone.

I apologize for the trolling... I'll refrain from adding anything else to this thread.

chris crook 09-18-2008 01:41 AM

Oh no doubt Ken is a big know it all. He has mellowed over the years, too.

As for the picture in question... I hate it when people try to hide crappy light by converting to black and white. Not that the photographer would do that... just throwing it out there. :)

If you knew it was going to get rejected, you should have had more fun with the caption. Imagine the possibilities.

Tgranville 09-18-2008 02:09 AM

To all who said he posed for the shot, it is quite the contrary. A few of us had been up before the butt crack of dawn after getting roughly 2 hours of sleep and drove all over the wonderful scenery of central Ohio (i.e. flat lands) and us and another group of railfans found a spot to crash for a few hours during high sun. More than a few actually dozed off for about a half hour, all the while trains roared by.

So no he didnt pose, he was in fact sleeping. So :-P .

InspetorMFD 09-18-2008 02:18 AM

I like it, but I'm not a screener. Nice shot

F40PH271 09-18-2008 02:59 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd
The front knuckle / plow is too dark for me.. :D

Seriously though, the shot screams posed to me. You'd have to be really drunk, in a coma, or have a very weird sleep cycle. to sleep trackside like that, in the middle of the day.

Loyd L.

It sure isn't posed...and you just described my sleeping cycle:weird.

I actually got up for that shot which is I'm guessing the only reason I am not in the photo. Here is a train that came a few minutes later...you can clearly tell I was too lazy to get up. Sadly, it is better than a good amount of rejects posted here. Anyways, I once fell asleep on the Cassandra Railfan Bridge (ya know, the one that has 4-bangers going underneath it; Howard (NSDitch), is from there too. I'm sure he could tell ya all about it.)

However, the photo was rejected for the right reason, alas why we were sleeping.

ccaranna 09-18-2008 02:37 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ottergoose
The point I wast trying to make is that's it's offensive to hop on a forum and say the guys running the site don't know what they're doing.

I can see where you're coming from, but why is it frowned upon for anyone to express an opposing viewpoint around here? I could never understand that. The screeners are fine and all, but they're not holier-than-thou either. Why not try to listen to someone else for a change? Someone that has experience and sees things differently? I'm not saying I agree with or do everything Kent (or anyone for that matter) says, but I feel the alternative of getting caught up in a vacuum more concerning.

Finally, what's up with all of the trackside sleeping? You guys must be bored or something. To me, that just shows: "Hey, welcome to the wonderful world of train watching! Come join us. We're so pumped up and excited about it, we fall asleep."

Tgranville 09-18-2008 03:15 PM

Quote:

Finally, what's up with all of the trackside sleeping? You guys must be bored or something.
ummm... I think ya missed the explanation.

Quote:

A few of us had been up before the butt crack of dawn after getting roughly 2 hours of sleep and drove all over the wonderful scenery of central Ohio (i.e. flat lands) and us and another group of railfans found a spot to crash for a few hours during high sun. More than a few actually dozed off for about a half hour, all the while trains roared by.

JRMDC 09-18-2008 03:26 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by ccaranna
I can see where you're coming from, but why is it frowned upon for anyone to express an opposing viewpoint around here? I could never understand that. The screeners are fine and all, but they're not holier-than-thou either. Why not try to listen to someone else for a change? Someone that has experience and sees things differently? I'm not saying I agree with or do everything Kent (or anyone for that matter) says, but I feel the alternative of getting caught up in a vacuum more concerning.

Well, Chuck, given your previous conspiracy theories about how RP accepts images, you may not be fully sensitive to the differences between reasonable and not so reasonable criticisms of RP and RP screening.

I suspect that Kent knows a lot about photography. I also suspect he doesn't know a lot about the current state of RP and he has some biases based on his knowledge and/or perceptions of RP in the past. So he comes in here and says some foolish and inaccurate stuff. As a result, because the rest of us are human, we don't trust him to say accurate things on any topic, even on topics where he might be well informed.

See what he said in post 4 of this thread, which I quoted and responded to in my post 9 of this thread.

There is a difference between an opposing viewpoint and a foolish viewpoint. It is a matter of judgment, and my judgment, for one but I suspect shared by many others, is that this particular viewpoint is way, way on the foolish end. Kent has chosen to begin participating on the forums here - welcome! - but doesn't seem to have chosen to inform himself about the website much.

ccaranna 09-18-2008 03:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Tgranville
ummm... I think ya missed the explanation.

Nope, I got that part...


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:29 PM.

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