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)
-   -   Objects in front problem. (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=13494)

gp9fl9 02-05-2011 02:15 AM

Objects in front problem.
 
What objects do you suppose is in front? Such an object as this.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=900542&key=0

JRMDC 02-05-2011 02:28 AM

Generally speaking, views of people from behind have poor prospects on RP. In this case, not even an whole person, just a back of a head sticking up into the shot, almost like having your thumb over part of the lens. The humanity of the human element is almost nonexistent. Not a fan.

Freericks 02-05-2011 02:28 AM

Hey Donald... I think the issue is the floating head. It's a bit too big and close to be part of the scenery... at the same time that it is too disembodied to be a foreground element.

jnohallman 02-05-2011 02:47 AM

If you're going to put people in the foreground of your shot, it works best if the shot looks something like this . . . :lol:

[photoid=288162]

Jon

coaststarlight14 02-05-2011 03:22 AM

comment removed by coaststarlight14

coborn35 02-05-2011 03:29 AM

Guess what, anyone can accomplish any type of shot. http://serve.mysmiley.net/sign/sign0063.gif

coaststarlight14 02-05-2011 04:03 AM

comment removed by coaststarlight14

crazytiger 02-05-2011 12:36 PM

How's this:
Quote:

Originally Posted by The Guidlines
We encourage creativity in our submissions. Please avoid uploading the standard 3/4 wedge shot; we would much rather see a nicely composed angle instead.

Additionally, I see nothing in the guidelines against it. There are a good handful of pictures like this on here. Such as this more borderline one.
[photoid=257334]

JimThias 02-05-2011 01:32 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coaststarlight14 (Post 130848)
if there were no people it would be rejected for "object too far away" and the photo with just people would be just way too insanely stupid to think about adding to the database.

i can handle an occasional shadow or guy by a tripod picture but this should have been rejected for inappropriate material, non-railroad related material, or cloudy day shot.

just my -.0000002 cents

The #1 goal of RP is to attract viewers. The more hits a photo gets, the better for them. They knew Nick's photo would get a ton of views, so there was no reason to reject it. They are in the business to make money. More traffic/views = more money. Pretty simple concept to grasp.

JezG 02-05-2011 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 130863)
The #1 goal of RP is to attract viewers.

Ha! If that's the case then the owners have chosen a rather obscure premise on which to build a website. If 'hits' is the key metric then then why bother with trains? Might as well go straight for the T&A and leave the boring trains out entirely!!

travsirocz 02-05-2011 04:51 PM

http://www.railpictures.net/addphotos/guidelines.php

Lets break this down.

http://www. - this must mean it has a web address
railpictures.net - name of the site
addphotos - must be a link by where you can upload photos
quidelines - information to help you with what they want but not like rules

So who cares what that link says about any photo that is already in the database. Nick's photo I think might even stand on it's own without the girls and canoe. The girls and canoe add a lot to that photo. It feels like they were out on the lake enjoying the summer day as a train goes by. It tells a story and has more meaning than just look, a train.

The rejected photo isn't very strong. If there were more of a crowd it might work better. It looks like a roster shot of one car that 3 other cars some how got into along with a womens head that appears to be the main subject of the photo. It just isn't a strong photo on it's own. Maybe in a set of 4 or 10 it would work much better.

travsirocz 02-05-2011 04:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coaststarlight14 (Post 130848)
i feel like anyone could accomplish that sort of photo and the people are no encouragement to RAILpictures.net contributors.



just my -.0000002 cents

If anyone can, where are the rest. What photos do you think, not anyone can capture. I would like to see what photos are so much harder to capture and create. We all know people shooting trains in a lake in a boat is such a common practice. I'm glad you made the "Rail" part of railpictures so large so we could get what your point was without having to think about it.

ottergoose 02-05-2011 05:24 PM

Which of the photos, the middle of a UP passenger train, or the one with the ladies in the canoe, is more interesting to look at? Which of them required more time, effort, or creativity to create? Which one of them happened after stepping out of a car and walking 12 feet, and which one of them required sitting in a swamp for two hours on a gloomy day? Which one of them was actually composed? Which one would get 300 views and which one would get 30,000?

Blue skies and the ability to count rivits aren't the only features that make a photo interesting or relevant.

JRMDC 02-05-2011 05:30 PM

Nick, I don't see any whine in Don's post. Are you conflating Don and coaststarlight (Danylo)?

ottergoose 02-05-2011 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 130876)
Nick, I don't see any whine in Don's post. Are you conflating Don and coaststarlight (Danylo)?

Yes I am! :: foot in mouth ::

I'll edit my post as appropriate; I thought the tone was odd based on Don's work.

bigbassloyd 02-05-2011 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coborn35 (Post 130849)
Guess what, anyone can accomplish any type of shot. http://serve.mysmiley.net/sign/sign0063.gif

I suck at pans.

Loyd L.

JimThias 02-05-2011 08:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JezG (Post 130867)
Ha! If that's the case then the owners have chosen a rather obscure premise on which to build a website. If 'hits' is the key metric then then why bother with trains? Might as well go straight for the T&A and leave the boring trains out entirely!!

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...s/facepalm.gif
Quote:

Originally Posted by ottergoose (Post 130875)
Which of the photos, the middle of a UP passenger train, or the one with the ladies in the canoe, is more interesting to look at? Which of them required more time, effort, or creativity to create? Which one of them happened after stepping out of a car and walking 12 feet, and which one of them required sitting in a swamp for two hours on a gloomy day? Which one of them was actually composed? Which one would get 300 views and which one would get 30,000?

Blue skies and the ability to count rivits aren't the only features that make a photo interesting or relevant.

http://i2.photobucket.com/albums/y17...s/applause.gif

jnohallman 02-05-2011 09:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coaststarlight14 (Post 130848)
i was actually really annoyed that such an image got on rp.net i feel like anyone could accomplish that sort of photo and the people are no encouragement to RAILpictures.net contributors.

if there were no people it would be rejected for "object too far away" and the photo with just people would be just way too insanely stupid to think about adding to the database.

i can handle an occasional shadow or guy by a tripod picture but this should have been rejected for inappropriate material, non-railroad related material, or cloudy day shot.

just my -.0000002 cents

I've followed the progress of this thread since I posted my comment earlier, and come to the conclusion that I need to cease with my attempts at humor . . . :lol:

I chose Nick's photo precisely because it is the kind of picture that incorporates people into the scene in an appropriate way, while also significantly increasing the interest in the photo. The picture would be just as worthy of acceptance in Nick had been the only person in the canoe, but the fact that there were two others there who happened to be attractive women should not be thought to detract from the photo. It is a successful composition.

My point, which I suppose I needed to make more bluntly, was that if you are going to include people in your shot, you have to give more consideration as to how they appear and what effect they will have on the overall composition.

Jon

Holloran Grade 02-05-2011 09:25 PM

Watch Out Boys, Nick is Back and He is Going to Kick Your Hind End.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ottergoose (Post 130875)
...[portion omitted]...Blue skies and the ability to count rivits aren't the only features that make a photo interesting or relevant.

Good to have you back!

Could I borrow the canoe?:razz:

JezG 02-05-2011 09:29 PM

Whilst the OP's shot was rightly rejected for obstructing objects, the inclusion of half-naked women is a cynical attempt to get hits and frankly, I don't really care how much effort it took to obtain the image. It's attainment that counts. I could bleat on about how much effort it took to take a cloudy 3/4 but does anyone really care? I tend to side with coaststarlight14 on this one. If I want to see shots of trains, then I'll go to RP.net. For hot, naked women, I can either look at the missus, or if she's got a 'headache', there are a plethora of other sites on the web. Maybe it's the mixture of trains and woman that specifically get some 'going' on here and may explain why these shots get so many hits? Maybe there's a niche market for such 'specialist' images or maybe those people need to get out more?

Jim - An emoticon response? The last domicile of the illiterate? Really?

JimThias 02-05-2011 09:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JezG (Post 130892)

Jim - An emoticon response? The last domicile of the illiterate? Really?

Your post wasn't worthy for any more than that.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JezG (Post 130892)
Whilst the OP's shot was rightly rejected for obstructing objects, the inclusion of half-naked women is a cynical attempt to get hits and frankly, I don't really care how much effort it took to obtain the image.

Maybe there's a niche market for such 'specialist' images or maybe those people need to get out more?

Think about it for a minute. You're a member of a website consisting of probably a majority of people who have never been laid before. Of course shots with women in it are going to get a ton of views. And again, RP is in this business for making money. More views = more money.

crazytiger 02-05-2011 10:21 PM

Come on, we all know that photos with girls in them mean more views.

ottergoose 02-06-2011 12:09 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Holloran Grade (Post 130891)
Good to have you back!

Could I borrow the canoe?:razz:

Ha! I'm only here to defend my honor. I'll soon slip back into the obscurity of flickrland.

We're still in railroad snow fighting mode up here on the tundra. Once railroad cheesecake season arrives, I can certainly point you in the right direction with regards to canoes. ;)

coaststarlight14 02-06-2011 01:08 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JezG (Post 130892)
Whilst the OP's shot was rightly rejected for obstructing objects, the inclusion of half-naked women is a cynical attempt to get hits and frankly, I don't really care how much effort it took to obtain the image. It's attainment that counts. I could bleat on about how much effort it took to take a cloudy 3/4 but does anyone really care? I tend to side with coaststarlight14 on this one. If I want to see shots of trains, then I'll go to RP.net. For hot, naked women, I can either look at the missus, or if she's got a 'headache', there are a plethora of other sites on the web. Maybe it's the mixture of trains and woman that specifically get some 'going' on here and may explain why these shots get so many hits? Maybe there's a niche market for such 'specialist' images or maybe those people need to get out more?

Jim - An emoticon response? The last domicile of the illiterate? Really?

Thank you. Anyway, to cease further arguments, i will remove my earlier posts.
@ottergoose: i was not attempting to disown your honor, or put down anybody's photos, i merely come to rp.net to see photos of trains and to the forum to offer my opinion and (if any) my advice.


World English Dictionary
forum (ˈfɔːrəm) [Click for IPA pronunciation guide]

n , pl -rums , -ra
1. a meeting or assembly for the open discussion of subjects of public interest
2. a medium for open discussion, such as a magazine
3.a public meeting place for open discussion
4. a court; tribunal
5. (in South Africa) a pressure group of leaders or representatives, esp Black leaders or representatives
6. (in ancient Italy) an open space, usually rectangular in shape, serving as a city's marketplace and centre of public business

copied from: http://dictionary.reference.com/browse/forum

Holloran Grade 02-06-2011 01:29 AM

Relax dude, nobody is going to flame you for saying what you think.
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by coaststarlight14 (Post 130904)
Thank you. Anyway, to cease further arguments, i will remove my earlier posts.
@ottergoose: i was not attempting to disown your honor, or put down anybody's photos, i merely come to rp.net to see photos of trains and to the forum to offer my opinion and (if any) my advice.

Why cease further arguments, that is what these "forums" are all about.;-)

You have an opinion about a shot ok, but don't get freaked out when the person who took it all of a sudden materializes in the room like Harry Potter and responds accordingly.

That is what makes it fun.:evil:

Deleting your posts is the worst thing you could do, because it is a tacit admission that you were wrong and you lack the guts to defend your position.

Everyone is entitled to their opinion - you are no different.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:30 AM.

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