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)
-   -   Forum exclusive - another sweet reject (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12531)

Mgoldman 07-20-2010 04:49 PM

Forum exclusive - another sweet reject
 
Ladies and gentleman, pan fans everywhere - I present this PEQ for an exclusive private viewing on the Forums.

Unlike my WM 1/3' pace which was indeed flawed with a slight doubling of one number board - this 1/5th second pan was on the spot. In an attempt to further mix things up a bit in the pan world, and inspired by a photo taken by Ron Flanary (which happened to get an SC), I submitted the following photo.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=836393&key=0

Several shots were fired off in an attempt to keep the nose clear of obstruction. Note I was able to capture the full train as well as appealing windows through the woods that allowed the logo, windows and cab to be seen.

As a reference, here's is Ron's well received photo - in the database.

[photoid=166130]

/Mitch

travsirocz 07-20-2010 05:09 PM

In the fall your winter your shot would have worked much better.

Diamond D 07-20-2010 05:25 PM

I guess I'll chime in here, I didn't like your nose-zoom-pan at all, but this one is pretty cool! The flat light might be the killer though.

And you're not alone is trying to get a shot "through the trees" into the db, I've given up on this one though after a few attempts...

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=147583051

When the railroad runs through Pinetown, it seems like good environmental portrait might include some trees, but oh well...

JRMDC 07-20-2010 05:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Diamond D (Post 117999)
And you're not alone is trying to get a shot "through the trees" into the db, I've given up on this one though after a few attempts...

Got mine in ...

[photoid=302099]

Nick, one interesting thing about yours (nothing to do with rejection) is that neither the engine nor the car have lettering or a logo on them. It looks a little like one of those pictures modified for advertising with all brand names removed.

Diamond D 07-20-2010 05:37 PM

There's a tiny "CLNA" under the cab window, but I agree, it's a little strange not seeing any big road names. The rejects were for "foreground clutter" but I would be the high sun is the real reason, with better light it might have a shot. Sorry Mitch, didn't mean to hijack!

coborn35 07-20-2010 06:34 PM

Not a fan Mitch.

cblaz 07-20-2010 06:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 117992)
...this 1/5th second pan was on the spot. In an attempt to further mix things up a bit in the pan world, and inspired by a photo taken by Ron Flanary (which happened to get an SC), I submitted the following photo.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=836393&key=0

Several shots were fired off in an attempt to keep the nose clear of obstruction. Note I was able to capture the full train as well as appealing windows through the woods that allowed the logo, windows and cab to be seen.

As a reference, here's is Ron's well received photo - in the database.

[photoid=166130]

Mitch, you're overlooking the major difference between Ron's pan and yours. In Ron's shot, I can see the entire nose and lead truck of the CSX unit. In fact, I can almost read the engine model on the side of the cab. How is your 722 pan "on the spot" if most of the nose and trucks are covered by brush? If the nose was clear, you might be able to overlook the poor light Nick mentioned, but as is, I don't see how this could get on.

- Chris

Mgoldman 07-20-2010 07:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cblaz (Post 118004)
Mitch, you're overlooking the major difference between Ron's pan and yours. In Ron's shot, I can see the entire nose and lead truck of the CSX unit.- Chris

I see a giant tree trunk but the photo was so creative and otherwise well captured I overlooked that. If there were fewer leaves obscuring the B&O unit, it would be just another pan. When I said on the spot, I meant razor sharp even at 1/5th.

troy12n 07-20-2010 07:56 PM

Foreground clutter...

And you are comparing it to a pic accepted 4 years ago

crazytiger 07-20-2010 09:13 PM

Yeah, The problem with your foreground clutter is that it is obscuring the front of the engine: a no-no.

Heymon 07-20-2010 09:27 PM

I like it. I think the panning has blurred the trees enough so that they are easy to look through and see the locomotive almost in its entirety. I like the engineer still being slightly hidden (adds some mystery, IMO) and I like the originality (always appreciated). I think the biggest fault is that the leading truck and plow are really not visible. I can see why it was rejected, but to me it is a quality effort.

Andre

Mgoldman 07-20-2010 09:45 PM

I figured the headlight, number board and windshield were enough of a visible front to work - these are some mighty high standards to comply with and I'll accept them though in all honestly, if all photos on RP were held to the same standards, aside from the perfect wedges, I think we'd more then halve the collection. I refer not specifically to pans, but levelness, perspective, foreground issues, noise, and such...

Thanks for the comments, points of view and critique(s).

/Mtich

troy12n 07-20-2010 09:47 PM

Speaking of foreground clutter, this got on for whatever reason

[photoid=331963]

Mgoldman 07-20-2010 10:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 118020)
And you are comparing it to a pic accepted 4 years ago

I was comparing it to a photo I liked very much. One I commented on. One that was well recieved. One with an SC.

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 118020)
Speaking of foreground clutter, this got on for whatever reason
[photoid=331963]

Speaking of clutter - why would you even bother to bring up an unrelated negative response? And, FYI, simply type "fellow" in the search field and you'll find a bunch of similar photos (and far from all such examples).

/Mitch

Freericks 07-20-2010 10:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 118020)
Speaking of foreground clutter, this got on for whatever reason

Making friends for the world to see....

cblaz 07-21-2010 05:40 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 118019)
...these are some mighty high standards to comply with and I'll accept them though in all honestly, if all photos on RP were held to the same standards, aside from the perfect wedges, I think we'd more then halve the collection. I refer not specifically to pans, but levelness, perspective, foreground issues, noise, and such...

/Mtich

So, what you're saying is that it's unfair that shots are screened to see if they conform to a pre-established set of criteria (such as leveling or foreground clutter) by the administrators of a rail photography website?

Maybe a formal introduction is in order: Mitch, meet the RP screeners. Screeners, meet Mitch (or Mtich, or Mcith, or Micth). Just for future reference, screeners, when the name Mitch Goldman pops up under contributor's name on the screening page, the accept button is on the left. Please avoid the reject button on the right.

- Chris
/10 points to the first person who doesn't understand sarcasm.

Mgoldman 07-21-2010 06:52 AM

I'll take those 10 points as I don't understand your version of sarcasm.

What I am saying is the complete opposite of what you imply. Consistency is all I am asking and hoping for on RP - several screeners yet one set of rules.

I can go to a McDonnalds anywhere in the US and I get what I expect regardless of which person cooked my meal. If the meals keep getting better, that's great. I know it ain't easy and there is certainly discretion involved but there are several examples in the data base of images - both new and old that contradict what others have had rejected.

That was funny, you pointing out the typo in my name.
(25 points)

/Mitch

TJFarmer 07-21-2010 09:30 AM

The screeners personal feelings about individuals do play into the screening decisions. I know, I know, they shouldn't, but they do.

You'd better send some heart felt birthday gifts. And by heartfelt, "not" a McDonalds gift card.

You, all of a sudden, are getting on the "bad" side of a certain screener.

T.J. Farmer

JRMDC 07-21-2010 10:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TJFarmer (Post 118050)
The screeners personal feelings about individuals do play into the screening decisions. I know, I know, they shouldn't, but they do.

You'd better send some heart felt birthday gifts. And by heartfelt, "not" a McDonalds gift card.

You, all of a sudden, are getting on the "bad" side of a certain screener.

T.J. Farmer

TJ, welcome to the forums! I'm so glad you are here, as you apparently have great inside knowledge of RP, despite not having any shots accepted that I could find, at least under TJ Farmer, and of course just having joined the forum. Finally, an insider!

Or are you simply repeating rumor/conventional wisdom about the site that has no basis in fact but sounds good?

troy12n 07-21-2010 10:36 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 118048)
I'll take those 10 points as I don't understand your version of sarcasm.

What I am saying is the complete opposite of what you imply. Consistency is all I am asking and hoping for on RP - several screeners yet one set of rules.

I can go to a McDonnalds anywhere in the US and I get what I expect regardless of which person cooked my meal. If the meals keep getting better, that's great. I know it ain't easy and there is certainly discretion involved but there are several examples in the data base of images - both new and old that contradict what others have had rejected.


If you want consistency, go to mcdonalds. you cant just get every shot you upload accepted. thats what he was trying to say. I wouldnt complain about it getting rejected with all that foreground clutter. I was pointing out in that other picture that most pictures with through-girder bridges get rejected for foreground clutter because the entire trucks are blocked by the bridge structure.

cblaz 07-21-2010 11:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 118048)
What I am saying is the complete opposite of what you imply. Consistency is all I am asking and hoping for on RP - several screeners yet one set of rules.

There are trees blocking almost half of the engine in your shot. 10 times out of 10 the screener will reject it for PEQ and/or foreground clutter. You can't get much more consistent than that.

- Chris

JimThias 07-21-2010 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 118048)
I'll take those 10 points as I don't understand your version of sarcasm.

What I am saying is the complete opposite of what you imply. Consistency is all I am asking and hoping for on RP - several screeners yet one set of rules.

I can go to a McDonnalds anywhere in the US and I get what I expect regardless of which person cooked my meal. If the meals keep getting better, that's great. I know it ain't easy and there is certainly discretion involved but there are several examples in the data base of images - both new and old that contradict what others have had rejected.

That was funny, you pointing out the typo in my name.
(25 points)

/Mitch

Mitch, that's what the appeal feature is for. Then, if you want to complain about the lack of consistency from the ONE person who screens the appeals, then you may have a bone to pick. However, things are always changing here...standards change, thoughts and feelings about photos change. Maybe 4 years ago it would have been accepted...maybe in 4 years it will be. But for now, there's just too much stuff blocking the train to appease the current feelings of the screeners.

You've also got to look at it from this perspective: if this shot is accepted, you're going to have every kid and his brother trying to submit shots of trains through trees (and I'm sure there are plenty of those on rrarchives already). Yeah, yours is panned, but not everyone is going to look at it as the only reason it was accepted. They might think that a well-focused shot of the trees and the train should deserve to be on more than yours. I'm guessing the screeners really don't want to deal with that kind of onslaught of shots.

Mgoldman 07-21-2010 02:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cblaz (Post 118054)
There are trees blocking almost half of the engine in your shot. 10 times out of 10 the screener will reject it for PEQ and/or foreground clutter. You can't get much more consistent than that.

- Chris

10 times out of 10 a screener will reject a shot that is blurry and out of focus yet you still see streak shots and partially blurred "movement" shots. Try to keep this in context. The rejection reason was PEQ, not foreground clutter.

-Troy
I thought you were stating the photographers were the "clutter" and that threw me off. Getting back to consistency, however, you bring up an interesting observation. As if to acknowledge my point above, perhaps the train obscured by the trestle was allowed since it was understood that the photo's primary focus was that of the rail fan aspect of the image. The obscured train did not detract from the implied intent of the composition.

On the other hand, back to the McDonnald's analogy, I have had a photo of a steam engine on display rejected since it was behind a fence yet my good friend Dennis had a nearly identical photo accepted. I had a photo of a CSX train in Center City Philadelphia rejected since the University of Pennsylvania sign painted on a girder blocked the trucks yet just the other day a photo of a steam engine was accepted where none of the drivers were visible. The scenery in that photo, as well as composition were superb. In my opinion, my scenery was simply urban vrs countryside.

/Mitch

JimThias 07-21-2010 02:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 118065)
-Troy
I thought you were stating the photographers were the "clutter" and that threw me off. Getting back to consistency, however, you bring up an interesting observation. As if to acknowledge my point above, perhaps the train obscured by the trestle was allowed since it was understood that the photo's primary focus was that of the rail fan aspect of the image. The obscured train did not detract from the implied intent of the composition.

Well, there's your solution. The next time you want to pan a train through heavy foliage, make sure you have a couple of railfans standing in front of you. Better yet...a girl in a bikini! :lol:

troy12n 07-21-2010 03:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Mgoldman (Post 118065)
-Troy
I thought you were stating the photographers were the "clutter" and that threw me off. Getting back to consistency, however, you bring up an interesting observation. As if to acknowledge my point above, perhaps the train obscured by the trestle was allowed since it was understood that the photo's primary focus was that of the rail fan aspect of the image. The obscured train did not detract from the implied intent of the composition.

They do a good job of rejecting most through-girder bridges because it completely obstructs the trucks and usually the front plow/pilot/knuckle area of the locomotive. That is what I am getting at. Maybe yours got on because it's an F unit instead of a GE widecab. It definetly is not location, because I have seen plenty of instances, including a couple of my own where the location/shot was very scenic and that did not matter. That's why I made that comment.

As for the railfans, I am really not a fan of those types of shots, but that's just personal preference. If it was a couple kids playing in the river or a family picnicking , that's human interest. A bunch of foamers trying to keep out of each others' way is not AFAIAC.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:06 AM.

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