I'm curious

[DWHonan]

Originally Posted by travsirocz

What about those coins on the rail head shots.

Point well taken on this comment "waited all day for this post to be started". I thought the cable release addition was enough. I should have added I was not trespassing and so I did. I didn't want to include the employee in this.

A good friend of mine told me that when he was a kid, he and some of his friends would put coins on a mainline rail to have trains flatten them -- it's cool, right? The last time they did it was when a coin squirted out to the side, went flying past them and embedded itself in a tree trunk. Given the forces applied at the railhead (for a fully-loaded 286K car where each wheel has a contact area of about a dime, you're looking at a load of something on the order of 6700 TONS per square foot), I certainly wouldn't want to have my expensive camera gear -- not to mention my body! -- anywhere near a bunch of coins sitting on the rail.

Glad you understood my point and updated your caption.

[trainmaster_1]

Originally Posted by DWHonan

A good friend of mine told me that when he was a kid, he and some of his friends would put coins on a mainline rail to have trains flatten them -- it's cool, right? The last time they did it was when a coin squirted out to the side, went flying past them and embedded itself in a tree trunk. Given the forces applied at the railhead (for a fully-loaded 286K car where each wheel has a contact area of about a dime, you're looking at a load of something on the order of 6700 TONS per square foot), I certainly wouldn't want to have my expensive camera gear -- not to mention my body! -- anywhere near a bunch of coins sitting on the rail.

Glad you understood my point and updated your caption.

Not to mention, your camera could be totaled by a low hanging air hose glad hand or brake rigging dragging along the ballast.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by sd9

Once again, Jim, your missing the point,

Once again? Have I missed your point before?

this is about RP this is not about what some hick photographer is doing.

That wasn't the point of posting the photos. Apparently YOU missed the point as well.

like Mr Kilroy said "This is not the sort of thing we want to encourage amongst our viewership."

Yeah? So why wasn't Travis's shot rejected?

There are a lot of photographers on RP from pros to first timers, as you know, and just maybe, some young photog might think it was done lying on the tracks or something not knowing what a "LONG CABLE SHUTTER RELEASE" is.

And that's RP's problem? There are PLENTY of shots in the database that were accomplished by much more dangerous means.

I never said it was, "BIG F'ING DEAL" I was just stating I was curious why RP would accept a pic (after Mr Kilroy made the Blanket statement.) that clearly defines trespassing and violation of state and federal laws, (maybe you can look them up instead of searching for pictures of other people standing on tracks) and when you say "YOU people need to lighten up" are you referring to RP/Mr Kilroy?

No, I'm referring to the people in this thread who have an issue with Travis's shot. I wasn't clear with that, eh?

Oh well...scrap the website. I'd be willing to bet that over 50% of the shots here came as a result of trespassing.

Oh, and since you brought up Chris Kilroy in this post, how is THIS any different from Travis's shot?

http://www.rail-videos.net/video/view.php?id=353

[jnohallman]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Yeah? So why wasn't Travis's shot rejected?

http://www.rail-videos.net/video/view.php?id=353

That, I think, was the whole point of this thread from the beginning. As someone else highlighted, Chris Kilroy has stated before that images that look like they were taken as a result of trespassing are grounds for immediate PEQ. Now, in this case it appears Travis had permission, and as several people have pointed out, if he had specifically stated that in his caption in the first place, these questions wouldn't have come up - or at least wouldn't have been the subject of quite so much discussion.

Now, I have to admit, I'd like a little bit of clarification from on high on the line between a PEQ disqualification based on an "appears to be trespassing" shot (especially in cases where the photog isn't) and an acceptance of a shot that could also be said to "appear to be trespassing" when the photog has permission to be there.

Jon

[EMTRailfan]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Oh, and since you brought up Chris Kilroy in this post, how is THIS any different from Travis's shot?

http://www.rail-videos.net/video/view.php?id=353

He is the one that made the statement posted before of trespassing=PEQ, so it must be a case of Do as he says, and not as he does.

Will his statement be enforced, will the topic just go by the way-side, or will this trespassing thread get locked too?

[dlocher]

One thing that has been overlooked here is how PETA has become involved by “Beating a dead horse”….just sayin’

Other than that, my addition to this topic would be

1) That picture by itself (no disclaimer of permission and all the safety precautions) can give the wrong impression, some may want to duplicate it and not be the smart rail fan Travis is (I’d hate to see somebody try this while holding the camera).

2) There does seem to be the occasional inconsistency in what is accepted and what is not (yes, I hate the rejections I get). My comment to that would be, hey, it’s not my site. Nobody is forcing me to come here. I certainly wouldn’t create another forum (Yahoo group, for example) to bash this site or its policies. I have made getting more accepted pictures a challenge for me to take better pictures, not a “sit down and shut up” directive.

3) I had some bad Chinese food for lunch, that is all for now.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by dlocher

One thing that has been overlooked here is how PETA has become involved by “Beating a dead horse”….just sayin’

Hey, I'm a proud supporter for PETA: People Eating Tasty Animals.

[Chase55671]

Originally Posted by sd9

There are a lot of photographers on RP from pros to first timers, as you know, and just maybe, some young photog might think it was done lying on the tracks or something not knowing what a "LONG CABLE SHUTTER RELEASE" is.

C'mon now.. We all know that younger railfans aren't on RP looking up photos! They're on youtube, RRPA, and other POS sites sharing their backlit roster shots of a ES44DC..

I'm just an exception.

Chase

[John Ryan]

It amuses me that we live in such a day and age where everyone spends so much time up in everyone else's business. Why would anyone assume that Travis did NOT have some sort of permission or escort when this photo was made? To do so otherwise would be foolhardy; Travis is no fool.

Please raise your hand if:

1) You have never trespassed on railroad property.

2) You have never taken a cloudy-day photo and posted it to RP.

3) You have never, ever benefitted from so-called "inconsistent screening?"

I think just about everyone here lives in a glass house of some sort. Why are we casting stones? Travis managed to produce an interesting photo. Those whining about irrelevant technicalities here are invited to spend some time taking an even-more-interesting photo of their own.

[Chase55671]

Originally Posted by John Ryan

It amuses me that we live in such a day and age where everyone spends so much time up in everyone else's business. Why would anyone assume that Travis did NOT have some sort of permission or escort when this photo was made? To do so otherwise would be foolhardy; Travis is no fool.

Please raise your hand if:

1) You have never trespassed on railroad property.

2) You have never taken a cloudy-day photo and posted it to RP.

3) You have never, ever benefitted from so-called "inconsistent screening?"

*Hand remains firmly inside pocket*

Nicely said, John.

Chase

[dlocher]

Originally Posted by Chase55671

*Hand remains firmly inside pocket*

Hmmm, don't think I needed to know that.

[Chase55671]

Originally Posted by dlocher

Hmmm, don't think I needed to know that.

Get your head out of the gutter.

Chase

[Joey Bowman]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Ok, that's it (for now).

You know, I'm a little less concerned about a railfan taking pics on RR property than I am with dimwits like the people in the above shots. So Travis put the camera between the tracks at a grade crossing and got a picture of a train passing over...BIG F'ING DEAL. I think we have MORE to worry about with the type of behavior in the pictures above than a random shot like Travis got.

You people need to lighten up.

Though I partially agree with you, at the same time I think its wrong to have a double standard in the idea that it may be more "okay" for a railfan to trespass than a non rail fan. A lot of railfans on here (as well as other websites, especially youtube) seem to have this same opinion and refer to any non railfan near RR tracks as trespassers with no regard to the fact that they are likely trespassing in one way or another as well to get their shot or video.

Also as a professional photographer, I ENJOY shooting portraits on railroad tracks and paying clients seem to enjoy them as well. I only do them in certain areas that are more aesthetically pleasing to me (no Class 1's, too clean). I also do it in areas where I know I wont be given any trouble or along railroads where I Know that everybody knows me and wont have an issue with me "trespassing". I also know when the train(s) along that line will be running or do it on tracks that are no longer used though technically not "abandoned".



(Watch this post gets bashed as every other post I make on here does)

[travsirocz]

Let me get my spectacles as I read the fine print in Joey's post.

[jnohallman]

Originally Posted by John Ryan

It amuses me that we live in such a day and age where everyone spends so much time up in everyone else's business. Why would anyone assume that Travis did NOT have some sort of permission or escort when this photo was made? To do so otherwise would be foolhardy; Travis is no fool.

Please raise your hand if:

1) You have never trespassed on railroad property.

2) You have never taken a cloudy-day photo and posted it to RP.

3) You have never, ever benefitted from so-called "inconsistent screening?"

I think just about everyone here lives in a glass house of some sort. Why are we casting stones? Travis managed to produce an interesting photo. Those whining about irrelevant technicalities here are invited to spend some time taking an even-more-interesting photo of their own.

These would all be valid points if we were bashing Travis for taking the picture. I, for one, am not, and I don't think the OP is either. For me, it comes back to the statement Chris Kilroy made about photos that "appear to be trespassing" will be disqualified for PEQ, etc. Someone else quoted those statements earlier. That's the issue here - not Travis.

Jon

[asis80]

deleted because going around and around in circles is pointless.
Ben

[bigbassloyd]

It's the same story with me. I have absolutely nothing against Travis. I questioned the shot being allowed because of the apparent trespassing, and the qualification of the person who gave the permission. I can throw rocks at my glass house because I carry terrific insurance.

Loyd L.

[jnohallman]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I can throw rocks at my glass house because I carry terrific insurance.

Loyd L.

I built mine out of plexiglass.

Jon

[Freericks]

Um... I just want Travis to send me his 40D.

Travis?

[travsirocz]

I expect a 7d in return!

[Freericks]

Never mind.

[Joe the Photog]

I just want Jake Delhomme benched.

[stevenmwelch]

I've stayed out of this for a few reasons, just because I know I've trespassed before...

Was Travis's shot worth the risk of damaging his equipment?
Depends on how much he values his equipment for a shot of a GEVO. I know I wouldn't do that.

Was it smart?
Not really, for a few reasons.

Is it a good shot?
It's unique.

The world is seriously getting out of control, when people wory about taking a picture near the tracks... Guys. Calm the heck down.

Did Kilroy contradict himself?
Yes.

I know I'm going to be banned for this, but... If someone says something, I expect them to live up to it. If a shot that is blatantly trespassing is submitted, it should be rejected. Permission granted or not. Even if Travis DID have permission, if I was the screener I still would have rejected it, just for this reason:

I wouldn't want Travis to get the employee in trouble.

[John Ryan]

Originally Posted by asis80

I agree 300% with Jon's reply there. Travis isn't the issue here, it's the unclarity of the statements made by an Administrator that aren't being upheld and used for such photos, and/or videos that may/may not have been taken by trespassing.

You cannot both agree with this statement; "Why would anyone assume that Travis did NOT have some sort of permission or escort when this photo was made? " and also complain about the screening.

If Travis is "not the issue here," then there is no issue with the photo, and if there is no issue with the photo, then why complain that the screeners accepted it?

It's time to stop going in a circle. Where is the inconsistency? This is not a photo that "appears to be trespassing." This is a photo that appears to be taken in a controlled, supervised situation. The Screeners will reject obvious trespassing shots, but there is no need to reject photos taken with permission. That's the crux of the issue; who some people are having difficulty with this is totally beyond me.

I'm all for a good debate, but please remember that acceptance and rejection are at the sole discretion of the Screeners. It seems to me that a contributor whose body of work demonstrates a creative eye and an innovative approach is going to have more "luck" than another contributor who spends his time casting stones.

[Ween]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

I just want Jake Delhomme benched.

Delhomme to Newman: the new Montana to Rice! Thanks, Panthers, you helped get Romo out of the doghouse (or out from between the tracks as it were)...