Old 11-19-2012, 11:30 PM   #1
Watain
-_-
 
Watain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiltons, Virginia, USA
Posts: 953
Send a message via MSN to Watain
Default Suggestions?

Try a different crop or trash it? I kicked myself in the rear this year, I wanted to use the ultra wide angle lens, I should have used a longer lens, I didn't want to get the same shot everyone else was getting..

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...24&key=7208747

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...00&key=1846747

Heavy cropping on this one, thanks to the wide angle, poor image quality..

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...36&key=1536999

Bad color, and motion blur from the wide angle lens. -_-

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...52&key=5280943
Watain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 12:08 AM   #2
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,807
Default

Aside from these rejections, I think you need to focus on your color/saturation processing. The color is WAY too deep, so I'm surprised they didn't nail you with bad color.

Here is a good comparison to show how overly saturated your shots are:

Image © Wayne Stumbo
PhotoID: 415133
Photograph © Wayne Stumbo


Image © Chase Gunnoe
PhotoID: 415168
Photograph © Chase Gunnoe
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 12:18 AM   #3
Watain
-_-
 
Watain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiltons, Virginia, USA
Posts: 953
Send a message via MSN to Watain
Default

The color is straight out of the camera processed with Nikon RAW software. I didn't touch the saturation in processing.
Watain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 12:21 AM   #4
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,807
Default

Right, but it doesn't look too saturated to you? How does Chase's shot look to you?

Here's another to compare to:

Image © Ryan Lewis
PhotoID: 415405
Photograph © Ryan Lewis
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 12:24 AM   #5
Cyclonetrain
Senior Member
 
Cyclonetrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Downers Grove, IL
Posts: 359
Send a message via AIM to Cyclonetrain Send a message via Yahoo to Cyclonetrain
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watain View Post
I didn't touch the saturation in processing.
well, maybe you should
Cyclonetrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 12:25 AM   #6
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,760
Default

The color is whacked, but I think it's due to contrast and under exposure. Common tells of an ultra wide lens in use.

Here's the same photo with a decrease in contrast, and a big boost in exposure. I did not touch any color settings, either.



Loyd L.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg Redo.jpg (827.2 KB, 388 views)
__________________
What used to be is no more

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 12:31 AM   #7
Watain
-_-
 
Watain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiltons, Virginia, USA
Posts: 953
Send a message via MSN to Watain
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Right, but it doesn't look too saturated to you? How does Chase's shot look to you?

Here's another to compare to:

Image © Ryan Lewis
PhotoID: 415405
Photograph © Ryan Lewis
Yep, I liked the color depth originally so that's why I left it alone.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Cyclonetrain View Post
well, maybe you should
....K...

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbassloyd View Post
The color is whacked, but I think it's due to contrast and under exposure. Common tells of an ultra wide lens in use.

Here's the same photo with a decrease in contrast, and a big boost in exposure. I did not touch any color settings, either.



Loyd L.
They rejected it for overexposure originally.. On this screen that version looks too contrasty.
Watain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 12:35 AM   #8
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,760
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Watain View Post



They rejected it for overexposure originally.. On this screen that version looks too contrasty.
I reduced the contrast over your version though, significantly. The histogram is also showing it to be underexposed.

Loyd L.
__________________
What used to be is no more

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 12:43 AM   #9
Watain
-_-
 
Watain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiltons, Virginia, USA
Posts: 953
Send a message via MSN to Watain
Default

I meant that it looked too bright. Anyway..

The original reject.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...45&key=2694088
Watain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 01:27 AM   #10
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,807
Default

Ok, here is a better comparison. Take a look at both of your shots of the same train a year apart at the same location. It appears it was sunny both times, and with the same sun angle, the lighting and color should be about the same. Do you see a difference? Your shot from last year looks MUCH better. Did you change monitors since then?

Image © Wayne Stumbo
PhotoID: 381545
Photograph © Wayne Stumbo


Image © Wayne Stumbo
PhotoID: 415133
Photograph © Wayne Stumbo


Quote:
Originally Posted by Watain View Post
I meant that it looked too bright. Anyway..

The original reject.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...45&key=2694088
It's barely a smidgen brighter than the accepted shot, but the color is still way too deep.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 01:36 AM   #11
Watain
-_-
 
Watain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiltons, Virginia, USA
Posts: 953
Send a message via MSN to Watain
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Ok, here is a better comparison. Take a look at both of your shots of the same train a year apart at the same location. It appears it was sunny both times, and with the same sun angle, the lighting and color should be about the same. Do you see a difference? Your shot from last year looks MUCH better. Did you change monitors since then?

Image © Wayne Stumbo
PhotoID: 381545
Photograph © Wayne Stumbo


Image © Wayne Stumbo
PhotoID: 415133
Photograph © Wayne Stumbo



Yes I see the difference, and no I got a new camera and a different lens...
Watain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 05:44 PM   #12
Watain
-_-
 
Watain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiltons, Virginia, USA
Posts: 953
Send a message via MSN to Watain
Default

So no advice on the ones that have been rejected?

Here's a couple more..

Composition/Balance

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...71&key=7949081

Then...Bad angle. .

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...77&key=8180556
Watain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-20-2012, 05:52 PM   #13
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

To my eye the issue is that you are mixing two things, the extreme angle on the engine with the intentional wide angle distortion, and the upcloseandpersonal view of the rails, which are more "artistic" things, and then trying to pull in the people on the right side, which is more of a "documentary" thing.

The second shot, you drop the people, but you are still doing the rails thing on the right, which poorly balances the engine on the left. The eye goes left, left, left.

Piling on, more of a nitpick, but for my tastes, the slight "up" angle on a SD40-2 doesn't show off the porch. It's like a picture of an ice cream cone that doesn't show all the ice cream. Yes, you can tell there is more space there, but it doesn't present that well.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 08:09 AM   #14
Watain
-_-
 
Watain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiltons, Virginia, USA
Posts: 953
Send a message via MSN to Watain
Default

Ah I see. I was trying to stay away from the typical wedgie, and my usual Telemash stuff.. Though taking another look at it I see what you're talking about. Better luck next year I suppose.

This is the first time I've had a chance to point the ultra wide lens at a train. It's presented some challenges for me on this trip. These are the most rejects I've gotten in 5 years
Watain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 01:04 PM   #15
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,807
Default

Wayne, I think that ultra wides tend to work better with big scenes than with wedgies. My first lens purchase was a 17-40 and I found it frustrating at times to make a wedgie shot work with that lens. When I'd find a train within a larger scene, I was happy to have that lens. I've also found that more often than not, being above the train, like on an overpass or something, the wide angle creates a more appealing visual than shooting from trackside.

Of course, there have been many wide angle wedgie shots that have incorporated interesting objects in the foreground with great success, but for my own personal tastes, I've found myself limiting my use of the ultra wide to more interesting, larger scenes.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-21-2012, 01:11 PM   #16
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,807
Default

RP double post glitch.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 12:34 AM   #17
nikos1
Senior Member
 
nikos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,775
Default

The only one thats decent is the last one, outside the curve wedgie = recipe for fail. People seem to think using a ultrawide automatically makes a shot more artistic, these are prime examples that it doesn't.
__________________


Wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=7861

More wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://nikos1.rrpicturearchives.net/

Video wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's
http://youtube.com/profile?user=nikosjk1
nikos1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-22-2012, 06:34 PM   #18
Watain
-_-
 
Watain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiltons, Virginia, USA
Posts: 953
Send a message via MSN to Watain
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Wayne, I think that ultra wides tend to work better with big scenes than with wedgies. My first lens purchase was a 17-40 and I found it frustrating at times to make a wedgie shot work with that lens. When I'd find a train within a larger scene, I was happy to have that lens. I've also found that more often than not, being above the train, like on an overpass or something, the wide angle creates a more appealing visual than shooting from trackside.

Of course, there have been many wide angle wedgie shots that have incorporated interesting objects in the foreground with great success, but for my own personal tastes, I've found myself limiting my use of the ultra wide to more interesting, larger scenes.
Thanks Jim, I'll keep that in mind, and I'll keep my eye out for more interesting scenes. I kinda regret using it as much as I did. Wish I had just left the 24-70 on for the wedgie stuff.. I was beyond impatient though, and couldn't wait to use the ultra-wide.
Watain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-24-2012, 02:32 AM   #19
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Talking

This is a 16-35 at 16mm.

Eastbound and Down

AMTK 66 at EBCS Fullerton Junction

AMTK 66
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 11-26-2012, 06:08 PM   #20
Watain
-_-
 
Watain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Hiltons, Virginia, USA
Posts: 953
Send a message via MSN to Watain
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
This is a 16-35 at 16mm.

Eastbound and Down
14-24 at 14mm.

Watain is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:24 AM.


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