View Single Post
Old 06-28-2009, 06:05 AM   #22
Senior Member
coborn35's Avatar
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Thumbs down

Originally Posted by raider-15 View Post
I stated that photographers shouldn't focus on submiting low quality photos of accidents and such. I'm fine with derailment photos being accepted as long as they are good quality derailment photos. Your shot has poor lighting and a couple of other issues such as the bottom half of the locomotive being covered by the bridge. You're expecting your shot to get on the site just because it was of an accident and that's not always how it goes here.
Originally Posted by raider-15 View Post
I think I pointed out two major issues with the photo, did I not? Not to mention the fact that it was initially rejected. If you want to blatantly make a statement you'll need some sort of evidence to prove your point. And I'm sure I will get some sort of reply about how interesting the photo is. It is indeed interesting and would probably get a large number of views - but that doesn't mean it's a great photo.

Yes, I'm a complete nitpicker.
Incorrect. AT BEST, you presented 1 hazy argument. You said it was "bad light", and a myriad of other things. The example for the myriad was the trucks covered. As has been since addressed, that is not an RP issue. As for the light, it looks fine to me, and in either nit-picking case, having a tad bit of high sun does not make it "low quality".
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote