backlit...

sp4009 · 08-02-2011, 07:47 AM

Kinda the point I was shooting for...

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=719849534

I can try it in color, but I feel the B&W makes more of an impact.

Any suggestions?

Thanks,

magicman_841 · 08-02-2011, 12:31 PM

Very nice picture. Perhaps the side of the cars don't "glint" enough for their liking... I could see this one getting a PEQ rejection, too (although I don't agree).

Their loss.

Hatchetman · 08-02-2011, 01:30 PM

Nice work. They should have just said PEQ, short for "we don't want any arty shots."

JimThias · 08-02-2011, 01:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Hatchetman

Nice work. They should have just said PEQ, short for "we don't want any arty shots."

Or perhaps, they don't want THIS arty shot. What makes you think they don't want any arty shots?

Joe the Photog · 08-02-2011, 02:20 PM

I'm not a fan. It should have got a PEQ, like Matthew said, but not because they don't like artsy shots. They should have rejected it because while it's technically captured right, it's not a very interesting shot in my opinion. Part of a tree, part of a rock or a hill, and then nothing but hopper cars. Other than the heat or the mist or dust flying up under the cars, there's not much to look at. The exception might be if you got the head of the train instead.

viper · 08-02-2011, 03:28 PM

Arty shots require a gun and crew. FO is optional but not required for pictures but is highly recommended for an arty shot.

Hatchetman · 08-02-2011, 04:31 PM

i exaggerate to make a point, but shots without locos and/or streaks are few and far between.

the shot in question is a very solid composition IMO.

jnohallman · 08-02-2011, 04:32 PM

It's a pity the car closest to the photog isn't a caboose . . .

Jon

JRMDC · 08-03-2011, 01:44 AM

The glint is nice but when the sky near the glint is only a bit less bright the kick in the shot sort of fades. It needs a better sky, darker or some clouds. The shot is also quite bottom heavy, nothing up in the sky to pull the eye up there.

Also, to my tastes, the extremely black rock cutting off the glinty cars just looks jarring and unnatural.

Sorry to pile on, not my cup of tea!

Ron Flanary · 08-03-2011, 03:29 AM

This isn't a bad shot at all. On another day, it could have been accepted.

sp4009 · 08-05-2011, 10:59 PM

Thanks for the replies. It's interesting to see the differences in opinions. I'll have to admit, it was a quick 'wonder if this would work' grab and turned out a bit over exposed. I think I'll file this one and plan a little better next time. Maybe use a cut, curve, signal or similar. Having the sun a little lower would have been nice as well, but then I would not have gotten this shot...

Dennis A. Livesey · 08-06-2011, 03:32 AM

Vertical B&W is a hard sell here. It does not excite the clicker fingers of most visitors who just want exciting, different, colorful action here.

Thoughtful, artful, sublime monotone just doesn't do it for them.

I like the idea and it has a lot going for it. The simple composition, the juxtaposition of smooth man-made materials and the rough and pointy natural elements in monotone all work well.

However, the two things that kill it for me is the really ugly hot spot and the vertical crop.

For the vertical to work I think dramatic clouds would be needed. However, in absence of that, I suggest this crop. Unfortunately, it is a square crop also a RP no-no.

But hopefully this helps.

sp4009 · 08-09-2011, 06:20 AM

Thanks Dennis, it does look better without the hot sky.

As far as 'Arty' shots... this was what I was working on when I turned and shot the frame above. I shot about 40 frames trying to get the timing/exposure/blur nailed down.

I was actually surprised it got accepted.