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)
-   -   Bad Angle on Electric MUs (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=11466)

SamD 12-31-2009 03:00 AM

Bad Angle on Electric MUs
 
I got back angle on all of these, and I can't see what the screen was thinking, in the least.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=158616323

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=654838593

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=765383&key=0

As anyone who's submitted pictures of electrical MUs to RP knows, straight on shots are more desirable that shots from the side. In point of fact, most shots of the CTA in the database are from angles similar to this. Given that, what makes the angle in these shots "bad"?

Christopher Muller 12-31-2009 03:42 AM

Regardless of the rejection reason, there are some image quality issues in all the shots (and the other thread you have active right now too). You should be able to easily read the destination on the front of the train. It is very blurry and unclear, as well as everything else in the photo.

SamD 12-31-2009 04:53 AM

You would be able to read the destination sign if the CTA kept their cars cleaner. But since IQ wasn't the rejection reason, a discussion of IQ isn't really helpful to understanding what's wrong with the angle.

crazytiger 12-31-2009 05:00 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamD (Post 106444)
You would be able to read the destination sign if the CTA kept their cars cleaner. But since IQ wasn't the rejection reason, a discussion of IQ isn't really helpful to understanding what's wrong with the angle.

I can. It plainly says Forest Park.

SamD 12-31-2009 05:01 AM

And after examining and reexamining all three photos, I can clearly read the destination maker on the trains in each picture but the third (which is smudged, no doubt from melted, salty snow that dripped over it from the roof). Maybe your monitor is not optimally sharp? I used to have a monitor in which shots that were visibly blurred looked okay due to crumby definition.

SamD 12-31-2009 05:03 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crazytiger (Post 106448)
I can. It plainly says Forest Park.

I can see what he was talking about with the O'Hare bound train in the third picture, but that's definitely the result of smudging (pretty common in the winter when snow and salt gets all over everything). I probably could spot-sharpening it, but that would be of questionable ethics considering that's how it looked to the naked eye.

Christopher Muller 12-31-2009 06:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamD (Post 106444)
You would be able to read the destination sign if the CTA kept their cars cleaner. But since IQ wasn't the rejection reason, a discussion of IQ isn't really helpful to understanding what's wrong with the angle.

Well, since you want to hear specifically about the bad angle rejection - the angle is bad. If you want me to elaborate here it is... the angle doesn't work (for me as a viewer) because so much is cut off on the photo, on the top. It isn't framed with anything. Except the bridge and the highway and they are just 'kinda there'.

I know you don't want to hear about other flaws in the photo, but look at them as possible rejections down the road if they ever decide to the let bad angle go:

Just because you can barely make out what the writing is in the photo doesn't mean there aren't image quality issues. There isn't a crisp spot in the photo. It isn't just the train and the smude/salt/snow/ice you credit, look at the road signs and the cars. It is like a soft or possibly blurry photo is trying to be corrected by oversharpening. Image quality is a problem in these photos, sorry for honest feedback. The shadows extending all the way across the tracks are distracting also.

Unless you have some specific personal ethics against it, I don't think you have to worry about spot sharpening. It is much more utilized than you'd think.

SamD 12-31-2009 06:37 AM

Quote:

I know you don't want to hear about other flaws in the photo, but look at them as possible rejections down the road if they ever decide to the let bad angle go
I think you may have misunderstood what ticked me off on that other thread. I welcome any input you have about the photo... what bugs me is imput about everything <i>but</i> the specific rejection reason. I mean, yes, looking at other issues is important, but theoretical rejections are moot if you can't get solve the existent one.

Quote:

Originally Posted by Christopher Muller (Post 106483)
Well, since you want to hear specifically about the bad angle rejection - the angle is bad. If you want me to elaborate here it is... the angle doesn't work (for me as a viewer) because so much is cut off on the photo, on the top. It isn't framed with anything. except the bridge and the highway and they are just 'kinda there'.

Okay, this is a good thought. Because it was angle, not C/B I was focusing in on the train, thinking "what the heck is wrong with this angle of the train?" But I can see what you're saying about the composition.

I was trying to go for a telesmash to get all the vertical lines, and then use the bridge as an anchor for the top of the photo, with the train holding the bottom. I can see where this wouldn't work for everyone.

As for the third photo, I was also bothered by the sort of emptiness of the top half, but I was hoping the strong duality of the el next to the CSX tracks with the stored cars would off-set that.

Quote:

Just because you can barely make out what the writing is in the photo doesn't mean there aren't image quality issues. There isn't a crisp spot in the photo. It isn't just the train and the smude/salt/snow/ice you credit, look at the road signs and the cars. It is like a soft or possibly blurry photo is trying to be corrected by oversharpening. Image quality is a problem in these photos, sorry for honest feedback.
I don't know, the IQ on the first two looks good on my screen, including sharpness (by good I mean consistent with my published RP subbmissions). The third one I felt borderline as a result of straining the effective range of my sensor and 200mm lens, and honestly I expected either bad IQ or it would be accepted. Bad angle surprised me.

Quote:

Unless you have some specific personal ethics against it, I don't think you have to worry about spot sharpening. It is much more utilized than you'd think.
Hahah, no, I don't have anything against it, but I guess I thought it was frowned on here. I do use it for stuff that's focus related, but I've been leery of using it for stuff like this on RP (although, who would honestly know the difference if I did?).

Anyway, thanks for taking the time to give your input. I think it demystified these shots a bit for me.

Christopher Muller 12-31-2009 06:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by SamD (Post 106487)
Hahah, no, I don't have anything against it, but I guess I thought it was frowned on here. I do use it for stuff that's focus related, but I've been leery of using it for stuff like this on RP (although, who would honestly know the difference if I did?).

I don't think you really have to worry about it. I do it, and I know a handful of regular folks on here that do it as well.

rathman11 12-31-2009 02:41 PM

I would have to agree with Chris' observations. I am veiwing your rejects on an HD monitor and the IQ is still poor. As Chris stated, cutting off the buildings in the background and the tops of the highway lights doesn't work for me, in this case the telesmash is no good.


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:50 PM.

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