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)
-   -   How much light on the nose is enough light? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17889)

John Russell - NZ 03-01-2017 08:27 AM

How much light on the nose is enough light?
 
1 Attachment(s)
OK I knew this might be borderline but it's the best shot I've ever managed to get of this locomotive type which is very rarely seen. I have had rejections with same reason when there is grab iron shadow on the nose. So are we now wasting our time and screener's time submitting anything but perfectly nose lit photos? http://www.railpictures.net/members/...p?userid=64340

SAR Connecta 03-01-2017 10:25 AM

.....enough so that it's not backlit.

JRMDC 03-01-2017 04:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Russell - NZ (Post 190747)
So are we now wasting our time and screener's time submitting anything but perfectly nose lit photos?

Yes, if the shot is the simplest of roster/wedgies and it doesn't have full nose light, RP does not want that shot and you are wasting your time and screener's time submitting it. RP simply does not like that category of shots! Sure, some will get on, but it's a big negative factor for RP.

miningcamper1 03-01-2017 09:53 PM

If that was, say, an FM H10-44, it would be accepted in a nanosecond. :roll:

John Russell - NZ 03-02-2017 04:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 190751)
Yes, if the shot is the simplest of roster/wedgies and it doesn't have full nose light, RP does not want that shot and you are wasting your time and screener's time submitting it. RP simply does not like that category of shots! Sure, some will get on, but it's a big negative factor for RP.

So it might be acceptable if its say a drone shot of even common power or location? As I said I've had this rejection for photos that are not even near backlit. As a rule of thumb if the thumbnail looks a bit dark on the nose I don't submit the photo. I guess there has to be almost no tonal variation from front to side. The lighting for side and of heritage consist is among best of any photo I've taken but seems to count as nothing here. So it looks like I have to get even more fussy about what I submit. Of course, another screener might have accepted it but it's not worth the risk trying that.

ShortlinesUSA 03-02-2017 01:32 PM

Other issues I see:

1. Cropped way too tight.
2. Large distracting foreground shadow.
3. Angle too nosy placing emphasis on the shadowed nose rather than the very interesting equipment in the consist.
4. No conveyance of any sort of action (that is, train appears parked).

I realize some (if not all) of these factors are beyond your control based on the placement of the equipment and surrounding obstructions, let alone the limits of direction and how much the sun does (or does not) move throughout the day in New Zealand.

So there are compounding issues to the shadowed nose, IMO. There would be a lot to overcome to get this one into the database.

John West 03-02-2017 03:06 PM

Multiple issues
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by ShortlinesUSA (Post 190755)
Other issues I see:

1. Cropped way too tight.
2. Large distracting foreground shadow.
3. Angle too nosy placing emphasis on the shadowed nose rather than the very interesting equipment in the consist.
4. No conveyance of any sort of action (that is, train appears parked).

I realize some (if not all) of these factors are beyond your control based on the placement of the equipment and surrounding obstructions, let alone the limits of direction and how much the sun does (or does not) move throughout the day in New Zealand.

So there are compounding issues to the shadowed nose, IMO. There would be a lot to overcome to get this one into the database.

Well said. I think there is a tendency to look at rejections in one dimension when often there are multiple issues going on.

JRMDC 03-02-2017 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Russell - NZ (Post 190754)
So it might be acceptable if its say a drone shot of even common power or location?

An unusual angle is like any other case where a shot is special/different in some regard; the screeners give leeway. Yours is the most standard of wedgie/roster angles. On RP, that makes the threshold higher.

Quote:

The lighting for side and of heritage consist is among best of any photo I've taken but seems to count as nothing here.
Putting aside heritage, the lighting for side is no way near among the best of any photo of yours.

[photoid=583692]

If you mean it's the best lit roster shot of heritage, that may be so, but the issues pointed out by others apply. And the screener is unlikely to know it is heritage because it is non-US. At any rate, if it were a shot of US heritage, it would be rejected.

John Russell - NZ 03-02-2017 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John West (Post 190756)
Well said. I think there is a tendency to look at rejections in one dimension when often there are multiple issues going on.

Yes that's why I considered it borderline for RP but doubt it would make much difference elsewhere. Biggest problem is that its probably not interesting enough for a predominately American RP audience. The nose light is just what the screener rejected it for I guess. Distracting shadow might have been at least as valid as nose light is enough to see all detail. After being the most popular photo I've posted to a large Facebook group for many months it has languished on Flickr so the audience I suspect a huge factor in terms of interest. Nothing I could have done better for the photo with train parked as it was. Thanks guys for your valued opinions.

John West 03-03-2017 12:28 AM

And RP is just one of many different railfan audiences, and even within RP there are probably a lot of different audiences all looking for something slight different.

KevinM 03-03-2017 01:18 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Russell - NZ (Post 190758)
Nothing I could have done better for the photo with train parked as it was. Thanks guys for your valued opinions.

John,

In the case of the photo you posted at the beginning of this thread, I might have moved to the right a bit and captured more of a side view of this train. In my personal opinion, the more head-on a train shot is, the less interesting it is. In this case, moving to the right and going wider would have decreased the emphasis on the problem areas, namely the poorly lit nose and the shadowed pilot. Honestly, I think THAT view of the train would get on here....at least it would if I were screening. But then I don't believe that all train pictures MUST have light on the nose to be interesting or compelling.

John Russell - NZ 03-03-2017 04:21 AM

Thanks Kevin. Not sure if I could have got any wider as photo taken from far side of open car vestibule of parked passenger train. Going wider may not have helped much because of that shadow. Yes we all have different preferences but there is no getting away from the fact that without a home audience it is a lot harder to attract interest. Participation here and on Flickr by local railfans is so minimal that it is rare to see any of them favorite a photo. But I actually like such an international following and hope that RP Admins do too. By the way, steam locomotives were still being built here when that locomotive entered service 65 years ago.


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

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