So what are they basing this on? LOL

MagnumForce · 08-20-2012, 03:27 AM

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...89&key=1837713

I just have to laugh sometimes, it's heading directly into the setting sun, I picked the shadowed side on purpose and I get overexposed.

Does anyone see overexposed only thing that I could see is the casing around the headlight.

stlgevo51 · 08-20-2012, 04:34 AM

The sky looks really bright to me. In addition, it's unlevel and I don't see the crop passing on RP (all of the action is on the left).

As for the shadowed side on purpose...Why? It doesn't make it more dramatic, and with the engine on the curve I don't see why backlit is good here. If it was a more telephoto shot, I think it might look better. But even with the coal dust, this version looks like a backlit, head-on shot (I would say wedgie, but it isn't technically). Some of your more recent stuff on RP is nice (better than my recent stuff), but this isn't really impressive.

Just my opinion. It doesn't mean anything.

JRMDC · 08-20-2012, 04:36 AM

a) it looks a touch overexposed. I don't have software at hand, but I'd like to see things notched down a bit and see if it looks better, and in particular the color a bit richer. Remember that RP is picky and it may not be overexposed, in their view, by that much. A slight adjustment may be all it needs. The headlight casing appears to me to be simply reflecting the sunlight directly towards the camera.

b) I am no engine aficionado but I believe that is an ES44AH, not AC

MagnumForce · 08-20-2012, 05:16 AM

It is leveled off the antenna in the background and the corner of the pole barn on the left which are the only things straight in the photo, put a grid on them, the photo is level. This is right down the road from home and the shaded side was to simply so something new when the light is practically down the pipe as it is here and knowing they were an eastern coal train on track 1 I figured the dust would be flying as it is here and wanted to capture that. I will darken it a bit even if I still don't see it, sticking with the crop, if they don't like it then I don't care to put it here.

MagnumForce · 08-20-2012, 07:21 AM

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=406686&nseq=0

In the database.

adickson · 08-20-2012, 08:12 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

a)
b) I am no engine aficionado but I believe that is an ES44AH, not AC

That is correct

Mr. Pick · 08-20-2012, 04:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...=406686&nseq=0

In the database.

I see Tom Heck liked it, so it has that going for it....

(I liked it to...)

loomus78 · 08-20-2012, 06:27 PM

As far as the dark side... I like it. It accentuates the coal dust.

JimThias · 08-20-2012, 11:34 PM

Brent, what's up with the ratio? 3:2 works great for this image. It feels like there is too much sky. But hey, a screener liked it, so it doesn't matter.

MagnumForce · 08-21-2012, 01:37 AM

Jim, we have been through this before For years and years and years 1024x768 was the standard... when it changed to 3:2 (1024x683) I have no idea but I still use 1024x768 when I feel the need. You cut off sky you center the subject, no thanks.

khalucha · 08-21-2012, 03:23 AM

Off topic, they (City or what ever it is called out their) does not get up in arms with all that dust blowing off like that?

MagnumForce · 08-21-2012, 03:38 AM

Rural communities rarely get in up in arms about the railroad the way Yuppie Surburbia does. People here take personal responsibility if they buy a house next to a track with 60 trains a day.

JimThias · 08-21-2012, 06:47 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

Jim, we have been through this before For years and years and years 1024x768 was the standard... when it changed to 3:2 (1024x683) I have no idea but I still use 1024x768 when I feel the need. You cut off sky you center the subject, no thanks.

Cut off the sky, cut off some of the ground, lower the subject. But that's neither here nor there because the screener already accepted it.

Also, when was 1024 x 768 the standard for DSLRs? As long as I've been using them, their format has been 3:2, which translates directly to 1024 x 683. And as long as I've been a member of RP, the standard has been 3:2. This "years and years and years" must have been years and years and years before my time here.

And I don't remember when we've been through this before. Refresh my memory.

MagnumForce · 08-21-2012, 08:12 PM

Unless you shoot Olympus where the frame is 4/3

JimThias · 08-21-2012, 10:11 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

Unless you shoot Olympus where the frame is 4/3

Prior to upgrading to the 60D for my job a year ago, I was using an Olympus C-5060 for about four and a half years. I always hated the more square ratio of that camera. If it works for you and the screeners like it, then that's all that matters.

MagnumForce · 08-21-2012, 11:40 PM

Before Widescreen Monitors the screen ratio was 4:3 FWIW. 1024 x 768 is also very close to film, closer then 1024 x 683.

I do normally do a 3:2 crop but I also use the full frame of my camera when I feel it warrants it.

JRMDC · 08-22-2012, 01:46 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

1024 x 768 is also very close to film, closer then 1024 x 683.

??? HUH ???

35mm = 36mm x 24mm = 3:2, not 4:3

I guess you were a medium format or other format shooter. But wait, 120/220 firm, for example, allows for a variety of formats, depending on camera used.

So I find your comment totally confusing.

JimThias · 08-22-2012, 02:47 AM

chris crook · 08-22-2012, 02:55 AM

So what does all that extra sky add to the photo?

MagnumForce · 08-22-2012, 03:13 AM

So you can do basic math and I can't, good for you.

The fact of the matter still stands that until widescreen formats computer monitors, tv's etc were all 4:3.

As for what the sky adds I really do not feel I need to prove anything else about the photo.

Holloran Grade · 08-22-2012, 03:32 AM

I am suprised they accepted it - they seem very ridgid with dark side images.

And, I am glad that coal dust is no where near my house.

JimThias · 08-22-2012, 03:52 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

The fact of the matter still stands that until widescreen formats computer monitors, tv's etc were all 4:3.

Yep, and all respectable DSLRs are 3:2. So what's your point?

JRMDC · 08-22-2012, 03:57 AM

Hey Jim, you said you upgraded from an Oly to a 60D for work. I thought you used the 5D for work. Do you have separate equipment for work and personal?

JimThias · 08-22-2012, 04:10 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Hey Jim, you said you upgraded from an Oly to a 60D for work. I thought you used the 5D for work. Do you have separate equipment for work and personal?

Yes and no. I used an Olympus for my job for 4.5 years. Meanwhile, for personal use, I had 350D and a 5D. Last year, my boss bought me a 60D (my request...and I paid him back) because I needed to upgrade, and now I rarely use my 5D any more. The 60D gets quite a work out between my job and personal. I'm probably pushing 80,000 shutter clicks in one year. I think the shutter is close to dying, though. Occasionally it'll "clunk" and my image will be way over exposed. I'd say that happens once every 300-400 shots.

JRMDC · 08-22-2012, 04:14 AM

Nice ... and too bad. Isn't a shutter about $250 to repair?