"Going Away"

[abr]

With the following photo, I wanted to set up more of a profile view of Amtrak's Autumn Express running some rare mileage on the west shore of the Hudson River. This submission captures the rear of the train, which featured one of Amtrak's Heritage P42s and an ACS-64 electric engine dead in tow: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...50&key=4626818

It was rejected as "going away," which technically is true, as you get the slight angle of the rear of the P42 on the very end of the train. At least for purposes of future submissions, I wanted to get your thoughts on the following questions:

1. Was this likely just the angle or are you seeing anything else that might have played into the rejection (e.g., lighting)?

2. For profile views, are the screeners consistent in rejecting shots that have a slight away angle like this or is it more the luck of the draw?

3. For shots with more of a true away angle, would an extra item of interest like a sail boat or a conductor climbing into a locomotive be compelling enough to stand a chance with the screeners?

Finally, for the more scenic shots, are advice on judging how loose of a composition is too loose (e.g. comparing the relative size of other objects in the scene)?

Thanks,
Adam

[KevinM]

Hi Adam,

I'll certainly defer to the opinions of others here, as I don't shoot diesels, and the rules that apply to steam seem to be somewhat looser....

I don't see it as a bad photo. If it has issues, these are the ones I see:

1. Train is a bit low in the frame for "Rule-of-Thirds." I've seen plenty of similar compositions that worked fine, so I don't see this as a killer.
2. Nose of the train is perhaps too close to the left side of the frame. It helps to have a little more margin in my view.
3. The train "merges" with the home just above it. A "merge" happens when two major elements, particularly the subject, appear to "touch." The best photos avoid merges.
4. It appears to be a cloudy day, common power shot, which is sometimes the kiss of death, but often not. In this case, I think that the presence of fall foliage is mitigating. Often, cloudy day foliage shots can be as good as sunny day shots of the same subject.

Perhaps it was a combination of negatives, none of which were killers, which in the end, left the screener not liking it. He had to hit a button and he hit the "Going Away" button.

[Joseph Cermak]

I really don't see this as a going away shot, much worse has gotten on that is going away. Do you have some more room on the left side as Kevin mentions? I think some more room there or perhaps an earlier frame, along with some other editing tweaks, could get this on. The lighting isn't dark and cloudy, looks like filtered sun, not including the sky in this composition also helps as it may have been blown out. The fall colors, while not at peak, are a nice element as well. I definitely see this as having a good chance of getting on with a few tweaks and a little screener roulette.

[Decapod401]

In my opinion it is going away, but I am not looking to debate the merits of going away shots. I have taken my share of them, but as often as not, it is to capture locomotive numbers, or to record an unusual trailing unit. I almost never consider them for presentation purposes.

I would rather suggest that you have a takeaway that planning the shot in advance might have taken you to explore the possibilities of an access point a few hundred yards to the left of where you took this photo. Always look to have the nose of the lead locomotive in the shot, or at worst case shoot dead broadside.

[Mberry]

I agree with Doug, to me this qualifies as a going away shot.

[RobJor]

I am going with Kevin on this one. The photo gives the hint of a great scene but only contains what is necessary. The train is up against all the edges. No way of knowing what is past the edges but when you have nice scenery you want to show it. As far setup, it as almost location was picked for lead units going left to right and as an after thought the tail end was shot??

Bob

Oh, getting confused on heads and tails and not sure the screenerdid not also, but this is a going away version but with the nose showing and cloudy skies.

PhotoID: 634402 Photograph © Robert Pisani

Here is the high sun version

PhotoID: 634239 Photograph © Chris Kieley

This is fun, here is the lead unit but actually going away at this location . Pisa is nothing.

PhotoID: 634687 Photograph © Matt Donnelly

There are more but probably wearing out my welcome, the rejected photo is probably one of the more pleasing and if the nose were visible??

Bob

[abr]

Originally Posted by RobJor

No way of knowing what is past the edges but when you have nice scenery you want to show it. As far setup, it as almost location was picked for lead units going left to right and as an after thought the tail end was shot??

For reference to the wider scene and the other end of the train (which reversed direction upon return via the eastern side of the Hudson): http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...31&key=8093300. That rejection made me a little more averse to submitting another wide shot from this spot.

The light shifted somewhat as the train passed through. I have various shots of it along the shoreline, in differing light, including some where the nose of 145 is facing me also. Some a little more loosely composed and some a little more tightly composed, so any suggestions any of you have on picking one that strikes the right balance would be greatly appreciated.

[Joseph Cermak]

Originally Posted by abr

For reference to the wider scene and the other end of the train (which reversed direction upon return via the eastern side of the Hudson): http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...31&key=8093300. That rejection made me a little more averse to submitting another wide shot from this spot.

The light shifted somewhat as the train passed through. I have various shots of it along the shoreline, in differing light, including some where the nose of 145 is facing me also. Some a little more loosely composed and some a little more tightly composed, so any suggestions any of you have on picking one that strikes the right balance would be greatly appreciated.

I think this shot looks much more cloudy than the "going away" shot. It also helped that the gray sky was cropped out. As I said before, i think it stands a good chance with a looser composition and some other tweaks.

[miningcamper1]

Hair-splitting going away gets rejected.
Whole-hog-no-doubt-about-it going away gets on:

PhotoID: 630419 Photograph © Steve Schmollinger

PhotoID: 631341 Photograph © Steve Schmollinger

Why don't they just be honest and implement a "Screener doesn't like it" button?

[Joseph Cermak]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Why don't they just be honest and implement a "Screener doesn't like it" button?

Wouldn't that be the PAQ? At least that's kind of what I interpret it as.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak

Wouldn't that be the PAQ? At least that's kind of what I interpret it as.

PAQ can have different meanings, but "Screener doesn't like it" gets right down to it.

[RobJor]

I don't know the inner workings of Railpics but as I looked into this I found multiple images of this train from different people including one of yours. So the question becomes how many photos of the same train are you going to include. I had a 1003 photo rejected that didn't make sense except that I already had two accepted and of course others also so I just dropped it.

to answer your question as has been noted, no grey sky, more landscape, kick up the vibrance, get rid of the dull look but as I surmised you set up for the head end .

Bob

[JimThias]

Sure looks enough like a profile shot to me. To mark that "going away" is probably one of the most nitpicky rejections I've ever seen here.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Sure looks enough like a profile shot to me. To mark that "going away" is probably one of the most nitpicky rejections I've ever seen here.

I would agree...

[abr]

Thanks to all who contributed! I was able to get one with that end of the train just up the river with the nose visible accepted (taken from the same location):

PhotoID: 634836 Photograph © Adam B. Reich

For those who would consider the rejected image I posted at the beginning of the thread to be an acceptable profile shot, would the position of the train in this shot be an improvement? Note that I'd probably do some fine tuning on the exposure, brilliance, etc. settings if I were to submit it.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by abr

Thanks to all who contributed! I was able to get one with that end of the train just up the river with the nose visible accepted (taken from the same location):


For those who would consider the rejected image I posted at the beginning of the thread to be an acceptable profile shot, would the position of the train in this shot be an improvement? Note that I'd probably do some fine tuning on the exposure, brilliance, etc. settings if I were to submit it.

Why didn't you level it first?

JIM!!!!

[abr]

Originally Posted by troy12n

Why didn't you level it first?

JIM!!!!

Troy,

Looking at grid lines on some of the vertical objects nearer the center, I thought I had it at the level where it needed to be. It's possible that the distant objects on the diverging shore line gave me some trouble. If there is a particular reference point I should take a closer look at, please let me know, as I'd be happy to make a correction.

-Adam

[Noct Foamer]

There's an old saying: "If your photo lacks impact, move in closer."


Kent in SD

[Wendel Moran]

Originally Posted by Noct Foamer

There's an old saying: "If your photo lacks impact, move in closer." Kent in SD

A friend of mine used to state that a bit differently, but with the same meaning: "When in doubt, zoom in, not out."

[ShortlinesUSA]

I was surprised to see this photo get rejected, but then remembered the dreaded "going away." I rarely appeal, and if I do with this one, I think it would be my second time in nearly 20 years of participating on this site.

I say I was surprised because "going away" never crossed my mind with this shot. The train is stopped, and I only saw the "thirds" with my photo eye-- loco on the left, loadout in the center (to demonstrate a revived customer) and crew and shipper meeting on the right.

I guess the loco is truly in the "wrong direction" but I like the emphasis it places on the RJ Corman logo.

I'm not upset at all, just wondering what y'all see when you look at this photo-- going away, or an interesting photo? Worth appeal, or just let it ride?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...11&key=5510282

[Grewup on the CW]

Originally Posted by ShortlinesUSA

I was surprised to see this photo get rejected, but then remembered the dreaded "going away." I rarely appeal, and if I do with this one, I think it would be my second time in nearly 20 years of participating on this site.

I say I was surprised because "going away" never crossed my mind with this shot. The train is stopped, and I only saw the "thirds" with my photo eye-- loco on the left, loadout in the center (to demonstrate a revived customer) and crew and shipper meeting on the right.

I guess the loco is truly in the "wrong direction" but I like the emphasis it places on the RJ Corman logo.

I'm not upset at all, just wondering what y'all see when you look at this photo-- going away, or an interesting photo? Worth appeal, or just let it ride?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...11&key=5510282

I like the shot and what your trying to do with it in terms of both your descriptions but as I've been told before on the forums when I asked a similar question to my rejection/pic, without the description the pic does not convey the story and with it going away I dont see RP letting it in. Different angle maybe.. IMHO

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by ShortlinesUSA

I'm not upset at all, just wondering what y'all see when you look at this photo-- going away, or an interesting photo? Worth appeal, or just let it ride?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...11&key=5510282

"Going away" rarely bothers me, but "too close to the edge" usually does.

[ShortlinesUSA]

Good point; I hadn't thought of that one. I might have enough room on the scan to loosen that up a bit, but not likely not enough to overcome the tight crop.

[Grewup on the CW]

Originally Posted by ShortlinesUSA

Good point; I hadn't thought of that one. I might have enough room on the scan to loosen that up a bit, but not likely not enough to overcome the tight crop.

You mentioned scan, what year is the pic? Your description said 3/2017.
Going away doesn't bother me either, if fact most my favorite shots are the going away shot, as I was usually on the train riding. What could be better?

[ShortlinesUSA]

Yep, that's right-- March 2017, and still shooting slide film...