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)
-   -   Front Coupled (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14748)

Jeff Terry 12-14-2011 03:18 PM

Front Coupled
 
This one was rejected on two counts. One, for grain (I'll give them that...it was a foggy, miserable day). Second, for being front coupled:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=641229938

I can deal with the grain, but is "front coupled" really that much of an issue here? I don't want to spend allot of time on this image if that's what's going to get it rejected again.

Jeff Terry

Joe the Photog 12-14-2011 03:33 PM

It is front coupled. The only way around that to get this shot on would be an appeal. Maybe pull out and show that is being towed to go along with the caption as written.

WMHeilman 12-14-2011 03:38 PM

I like it as is. To me, this is one of those times where being "front coupled" does nothing to hurt the value of the shot.

I would appeal, but sadly, I doubt you'll get it on.

Hatchetman 12-14-2011 03:40 PM

Certainly a unique enough shot to be accepted IMO.

Ron Flanary 12-14-2011 03:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Terry (Post 147987)
This one was rejected on two counts. One, for grain (I'll give them that...it was a foggy, miserable day). Second, for being front coupled:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=641229938

I can deal with the grain, but is "front coupled" really that much of an issue here? I don't want to spend allot of time on this image if that's what's going to get it rejected again.

Jeff Terry

The "front coupled" rejection has no merit whatsoever. If this were a CSX or BNSF GE unit----then yes, that would be a reason for rejection. This is a cool shot of an historic piece of railroad equipment that could have only been photographed on the move FRONT-COUPLED.

Bad screening decision....(and a nice shot).

Joe the Photog 12-14-2011 04:10 PM

I go back to my statement of seeing what it is coupled to instead of cutting it off at the coupler. I think that kind of cropping would stand a better chance.

KevinM 12-14-2011 04:19 PM

I agree with Joe. I also don't buy the front-coupled rejection. I think the only issue may be with cropping. Show a little bit of what the locomotive is coupled to....as one would do with a normal panning shot.

This is a newsworthy shot of a historic locomotive being dragged dead, in tow....it is not meant to be a calendar shot or a roster shot. The thing can't run by itself, so for any long-distance movement, it is going to have to be front-coupled.

I would ten times rather look at your shot, Jeff, than at some crummy derailment. Recrop and resubmit. If they boot it, then appeal it on the grounds I mentioned above.

bigbassloyd 12-14-2011 05:39 PM

I'd work on the noise, and get the image quality up to a better standard before tackling the front coupled rejection. If you can do that, then raise hell.

Loyd L.

crazytiger 12-14-2011 06:16 PM

I'm with Loyd. Fix the noise and then point out strongly in the remarks that what's happening. Once in a lifetime opportunity for a motion shot with this engine. Now if that isn't a unique shot, what is? I honestly think it has a decent chance of getting on, but it may not.

Ron Flanary 12-14-2011 07:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 148006)
I'd work on the noise, and get the image quality up to a better standard before tackling the front coupled rejection. If you can do that, then raise hell.

Loyd L.

I'm totally in agreement with Loyd. Great advice.

Jeff Terry 12-14-2011 07:21 PM

Thanks, everyone, for the advice. I made the recommended changes and resubmitted (although honestly, there wasn't much of the lead unit in the shot - I purposfully cut it out). We'll see what happens.

Jeff Terry

Ron Flanary 12-15-2011 01:02 AM

1 Attachment(s)
I did some quick and very dirty work on this. I removed the "front coupled" issue, added some smoke, an engine crew, restored the engine's missing main rod, added blur to the crosshead, and came up with this. You might try some variation like this next time. :)

http://forums.railpictures.net/attac...1&d=1323910949

lock4244 12-15-2011 01:15 AM

Needs some snow added, too :wink:

Jeff Terry 12-15-2011 04:51 AM

No Dice
 
Most of the noise was taken care of, but it was rejected again for being front coupled:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=984269760

Oh well, I tried. I'm not going to waste any more time with this one.

Ron, I loved your Photoshop job! :D

- Jeff Terry

wds 12-15-2011 05:21 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Jeff Terry (Post 148058)
Most of the noise was taken care of, but it was rejected again for being front coupled:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=984269760

Oh well, I tried. I'm not going to waste any more time with this one.

Ron, I loved your Photoshop job! :D

- Jeff Terry

Jeff, appeal! Point out that in their explanation of the front-coupled rejection it states simply that "blah-blah...are <b>generally</b> not accepted. To me the word "generally" being the operative one here and there ain't nuthin' "general" about this shot. It's worth a try, greater minds have been known to prevail in the past.:D

DWHonan 12-15-2011 05:54 AM

Or go back to the original crop and use some of that marvelous blurry background to clone out everything around the engine's own front coupler.


...I'm waiting for Mitch to start yelling about the rods not being down, whatever special connotation that has... ;)

troy12n 12-15-2011 11:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Ron Flanary (Post 148035)
I did some quick and very dirty work on this. I removed the "front coupled" issue, added some smoke, an engine crew, restored the engine's missing main rod, added blur to the crosshead, and came up with this. You might try some variation like this next time. :)

http://forums.railpictures.net/attac...1&d=1323910949

You are getting pretty good at the whole digital processing thing, dont sell yourself short... :wink:

WMHeilman 12-15-2011 02:07 PM

Appeal the second rejection.

Mr. Pick 12-15-2011 02:57 PM

I think part of the problem may be that there are already a handful of pics accepted of this same engine being transferred. All the ones accepted show the lead power as well as this engine, so they may not be real motivated to bend the front coupled rule to accept this one.

JimThias 12-15-2011 03:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 148064)
You are getting pretty good at the whole digital processing thing, dont sell yourself short... :wink:

I agree. The image really pops. If Jeff decides to try again with this picture some day he should process it like Ron did.

KevinM 12-15-2011 07:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 148072)
I agree. The image really pops. If Jeff decides to try again with this picture some day he should process it like Ron did.

Seriously, Ron did a nice job with that shot. The only thing that could maybe use a bit of tweaking is the plume, but it is otherwise very believeable. If Jeff had shopped that way to start with, I think it would be in. A pan shot in the fog? Not many of those in the DB.

Quote:

Originally Posted by DWHonan (Post 148061)
...I'm waiting for Mitch to start yelling about the rods not being down, whatever special connotation that has... ;)

Folks who shoot steam typically do attempt to catch the rods in the middle of a power stroke as opposed to at the end of one. For those who understand how a steam engine works, it is just more pleasing to the eye to see the crank pins offset 90 degrees from the direction of rod movement. It conveys power and motion. The most pleasing is rods down (in the middle of a push-stroke) as opposed to rods up, but either is preferable to rods straight across the wheel, which doesn't send the subliminal power/motion message at all. In order to catch the rods down, most of us shoot in burst mode as the train passes us. I usually inspect the frames in the field and delete any "rods-straight" frames, unless that's all I have.

[photoid=382812]
I guess it's like shooting a picture of a marathoner running the last mile to the finish line. You want a shot of the guy or gal with legs fully extended, one forward, one back, conveying a last burst of power toward the finish.....not a shot of the persons legs passing each other....looking like he/she is about to fall over! Same idea.

Most photo viewers would understand the mechanics of a runner and thus the value of getting the proper frame there, but many people are oblivious to how a steam engine works.....so they wonder why we foam over rods-down.

The hard drive in my computer likes it best when I shoot Shays! :lol::lol::lol:

JimThias 12-15-2011 08:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 148078)
I guess it's like shooting a picture of a marathoner running the last mile to the finish line. You want a shot of the guy or gal with legs fully extended, one forward, one back, conveying a last burst of power toward the finish.....not a shot of the persons legs passing each other....looking like he/she is about to fall over! Same idea.

Most photo viewers would understand the mechanics of a runner and thus the value of getting the proper frame there, but many people are oblivious to how a steam engine works.....so they wonder why we foam over rods-down.

While I understand and appreciate what you are trying to explain to us ignorant few, I really don't see a difference, physically, between rods-up or rods-down, other than essentially a mirror image. However, there is a huge physical difference between a photo of a runner with his legs fully spread in stride as opposed to passing each other. :wink:

To me, the sight of "rods-up" gives a charging forward feeling to the locomotive.

Is a photo like this "tainted" to a steamhead because of the placement of the rods? [photoid=347001]

Oh look...whoops! Purely by accident:
[photoid=195142]

:D

KevinM 12-15-2011 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 148080)
While I understand and appreciate what you are trying to explain to us ignorant few, I really don't see a difference, physically, between rods-up or rods-down, other than essentially a mirror image. However, there is a huge physical difference between a photo of a runner with his legs fully spread in stride as opposed to passing each other. :wink:

To me, the sight of "rods-up" gives a charging forward feeling to the locomotive.

Is a photo like this "tainted" to a steamhead because of the placement of the rods? [photoid=347001]

Hi Jim,

I personally am not a complete nazi with respect to steam engine shots not being rods-down. Rods-up is OK too. Both are middle of the power stroke. It is only shots that have the rods in the center that just look odd. Also, the more one gets away from a "locomotive shot" or a "train shot" and into the realm of a landscape shot that includes a steam engine, the position of the rods becomes less obvious and less important. The color shot you reference is a very nice shot. Who cares about the rods at that range?

Exhaust plume is another effect that steam people care about. One could have perfect light, great scenery and a beautiful train, but if the engine is not producing at least some visible plume, you can forget selling that shot to a calendar buyer. It doesn't matter that a properly fired steam engine doesn't smoke much. What matters is that the photo critics who select calendar images (who often aren't steam experts) want the shot to convey the impression of power and speed and a grey haze doesn't do it. They also figure their customers expect a steam engine to blacken the sky.

This photo was always a disappointment to me:

[photoid=301969]
Without a nice plume to lead your eye, the train sort of disappears into the landscape. Interestingly, the railroad later contacted me and wanted to use the shot for a report to a Government agency for precisely that reason!!! :)

I don't think that steam-heads are that different from diesel-shooters. I've seen folks here rant about how a perfect shot was KILLED by a door being open, or a "pole growing out of the locomotive" or some other minor issue.

We all strive for perfection and have to learn to live with whatever we actually get. :smile:

JRMDC 12-15-2011 09:05 PM

Well, I read Kevin's explanation as applying to what I will call "rods middle" as opposed to up or down, so the analogy to the marathoner makes sense.

But he also says rods down is more pleasing than rods up, and offers no explanation for that. :)

BTW, same issue applies to pictures of cyclists, particularly from the front (as when they are sprinting for a finish, the front shot is a cliche in those cases), where one does not want to catch the cyclist with both feet at the same middle level (one front, one back in the stroke, a distinction not evident when shooting from the front) but rather one wants one leg down, one up.

JRMDC 12-15-2011 09:10 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 148084)
Exhaust plume is another effect that steam people care about. One could have perfect light, great scenery and a beautiful train, but if the engine is not producing at least some visible plume, you can forget selling that shot to a calendar buyer. It doesn't matter that a properly fired steam engine doesn't smoke much. What matters is that the photo critics who select calendar images (who often aren't steam experts) want the shot to convey the impression of power and speed and a grey haze doesn't do it. They also figure their customers expect a steam engine to blacken the sky.

Hey, wait a second, I know a bit about how steam works and I know they aren't supposed to smoke much. I am an informed image viewer/shooter. But I want that plume!!!!!! (And, I suspect, so do you! Maybe I am wrong, maybe you are a purist who is desensitized to the visual impact of a plume. Maybe you are just stuck at all those d*mned photo charters, where they push all that gunk into the air, against your purist will.)

Quote:

I don't think that steam-heads are that different from diesel-shooters. I've seen folks here rant about how a perfect shot was KILLED by a door being open, or a "pole growing out of the locomotive" or some other minor issue.
I don't care about the door. But the pole critique does apply, perhaps by tradition but I think for greater reasons, the more a shot is "roster-y" by nature.


All times are GMT. The time now is 05:37 PM.

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