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)
-   -   Game rules for "foreground clutter" (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18314)

Daniel SIMON 02-12-2020 07:10 AM

Game rules for "foreground clutter"
 
Sometimes I find it hard to understand why the rules of the game for "foreground clutter" can vary from one member to another. I have choosen these two examples, but I could have found others.

REJECTED:
https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...21&key=9162581

ACCEPTED:
[photoid=724878]
[photoid=725350]

miningcamper1 02-12-2020 07:33 AM

[photoid=725163]
I won't repeat what I said when I saw this one!

bigbassloyd 02-12-2020 01:26 PM

Your rejected image is the textbook definition of obstruction. The grass, tree, house, fence, etc. is not supporting the composition. The shot could easily be cropped to lose the left third of the image and not lose anything.

The first image you linked, while highly obstructing to the locomotive, does have composition interest to it. Not sure it deserves a spot here because of that however. I can understand why the second image was accepted because the foreground blur does offer more support to the composition in a panning shot.

So in conclusion, The screener(s) do whatever they see fit and we just accept it or move on. Judging by the site activity over the last couple years, the latter seems prevalent.

Loyd L.

Daniel SIMON 02-12-2020 02:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 196138)
Your rejected image is the textbook definition of obstruction. The grass, tree, house, fence, etc. is not supporting the composition. The shot could easily be cropped to lose the left third of the image and not lose anything.

The first image you linked, while highly obstructing to the locomotive, does have composition interest to it. Not sure it deserves a spot here because of that however. I can understand why the second image was accepted because the foreground blur does offer more support to the composition in a panning shot.

So in conclusion, The screener(s) do whatever they see fit and we just accept it or move on. Judging by the site activity over the last couple years, the latter seems prevalent.

Loyd L.

Many thanks for your comments Loyd. How would you judge this one ?

[photoid=725368]

RobJor 02-12-2020 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel SIMON (Post 196139)
Many thanks for your comments Loyd. How would you judge this one ?

[photoid=725368]

This unit is not moving so that is only view available short of a weed wacker plus the weeds supplement the abandoned story so I am OK with it.

As far as yours, given the type of line it is I consider weeds part of expected scene which is pleasant so could be accepted.

I am not a fan of posing tractors, cars, cute kids etc in front of subject or backsides of fans taking photos(ok for your loca show) but will own up to this one which was complete serendipity.

[photoid=589896]

Bob

bigbassloyd 02-12-2020 04:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Daniel SIMON (Post 196139)
Many thanks for your comments Loyd. How would you judge this one ?

[photoid=725368]

The weeds do support the composition as it lends credence to it being an abandoned / broken / forgotten locomotive that hasn't moved in some time. I would have probably accepted it.

Loyd L.

Grewup on the CW 02-12-2020 05:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 196140)
This unit is not moving so that is only view available short of a weed wacker plus the weeds supplement the abandoned story so I am OK with it.

As far as yours, given the type of line it is I consider weeds part of expected scene which is pleasant so could be accepted.

I am not a fan of posing tractors, cars, cute kids etc in front of subject or backsides of fans taking photos(ok for your loca show) but will own up to this one which was complete serendipity.

[photoid=589896]

Bob

Just cannot go wrong with a classic Mustang (sorry Chevy lovers, umm not), especially one like this that appears to have been maliciously restored. The train still holds it own.

To the OP - Loyd hit the nail on the head. Weeds in general is gonna kill a "normal" pic especially a loco that is in operation while something that is abandon or rusting away that may hold historical significance will get a pass.

need2foam 03-06-2020 06:11 PM

I like this one:

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/727800/

[photoid=727800]

Decapod401 03-07-2020 03:09 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by need2foam (Post 196179)
I like this one:

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/727800/

[photoid=727800]

In this case, the fallen tree is part of the story. Otherwise, it would be another run-of-the-mill head-on shot. I'm OK with it.

RobJor 03-10-2020 11:32 AM

With the emphasis on quality photos I find it interesting to look at top of last week:
1) a drone shot of tie plates and a yellow thing
2) scrunched up shot(as viewed in top shots) with an odd format of a tree fallen over
3) backsides of a bunch of guys in green vests.

While I understand somewhat the why they are top shots, I chuckle when people bad rap other venues.

Bob

KevinM 03-10-2020 02:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 196184)
With the emphasis on quality photos I find it interesting to look at top of last week:

2) scrunched up shot(as viewed in top shots) with an odd format of a tree fallen over


While I understand somewhat the why they are top shots, I chuckle when people bad rap other venues.

Bob

WRT that #2 shot, it seems that the home page displays of Top Shots, SCs, PoTW, To24, etc. don't properly handle vertical format shots. The taller and narrower, the more distorted they look. I'm sure Chris K. could probably wax poetic about the technical challenges associated with that. For that reason, I tend to REALLY avoid submitting verticals, unless the shot is really compelling and a reasonable-looking landscape crop just isn't possible.

bigbassloyd 03-10-2020 04:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 196185)
For that reason, I tend to REALLY avoid submitting verticals, unless the shot is really compelling and a reasonable-looking landscape crop just isn't possible.

I do the same thing, but what I find interesting is that railroad verticals usually sell better than landscapes (for me anyhow)

Loyd L.

Joseph Cermak 03-11-2020 03:02 PM

Not to be that guy but....

[photoid=728424]

Daniel SIMON 03-11-2020 06:07 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 196187)
Not to be that guy but....

[photoid=728424]

Really nice weeds !! :smile:

RobJor 03-12-2020 12:34 PM

I don't have a problem with above photo but is V2.0 or 3.0. I have this odd vision of several people crouched behind this small clump of grass vying for position.

On another note, I understand SC selections to some extent featuring creativity but question the value of a fixation on backlit photos with a train somewhere in the background. Today 3 out of 3. In my world view you might want to include some variety plus encourage other types of photography.

Bob

KevinM 03-12-2020 02:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 196189)
I don't have a problem with above photo but is V2.0 or 3.0. I have this odd vision of several people crouched behind this small clump of grass vying for position.

:lol: Amen! I had exactly the same mental picture, when V2.0 and V3.0 suddenly appeared several months after the first one got the SC/PoTW/PCA. IMHO, V1.0 was the best, by far. It's not always that the first of several similar photos is the best, but that was the case this time.

bigbassloyd 03-12-2020 05:26 PM

Gotta have something on the main page, and from my standpoint the volume (or lack thereof) of incoming material is making it a bit harder to do so.

Loyd L.

TedG 03-12-2020 10:10 PM

[photoid=728424]

Strikes me as being "unbalanced", although it's nothing that 2 or 3 additional watermarks, in the upper half of the frame, couldn't rectify.:p
/Ted

miningcamper1 03-13-2020 06:34 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedG (Post 196192)
[photoid=728424]

Strikes me as being "unbalanced", although it's nothing that 2 or 3 additional watermarks, in the upper half of the frame, couldn't rectify.:p
/Ted

Ah yes, watermarks.
I seem to recall RP had a rule against large, distracting watermarks (except their own, of course!)
Smaller and fewer is better!

RobJor 03-13-2020 02:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 196191)
Gotta have something on the main page, and from my standpoint the volume (or lack thereof) of incoming material is making it a bit harder to do so.

Loyd L.

Deleted Loyd, LOL.


Bob

bigbassloyd 03-15-2020 03:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 196194)
Deleted Loyd, LOL.


Bob

Did I miss a funny from you Bob? :D

It was probably true.

Loyd L.

RobJor 03-16-2020 03:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 196195)
Did I miss a funny from you Bob? :D

It was probably true.

Loyd L.

Not a funny, Congratulations on your Screeners Choice.

Bob

bigbassloyd 03-17-2020 10:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 196200)
Not a funny, Congratulations on your Screeners Choice.

Bob

Thank ya sir!

Loyd L.

JimThias 03-21-2020 10:34 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedG (Post 196192)
[photoid=728424]

Strikes me as being "unbalanced", although it's nothing that 2 or 3 additional watermarks, in the upper half of the frame, couldn't rectify.:p
/Ted

Unbalanced...and pointlessly contrived.

miningcamper1 03-21-2020 10:39 PM

Yet another!

[photoid=729454]


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:06 PM.

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