Old 08-06-2010, 03:24 AM   #101
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

I would certainly shy against suggesting each and every photo be screened twice! The staff at RP does an excellent job on screening photos in a timely, if not expedited fashion, and this makes for a very enjoyable experience.

Some things will always be discretionary and should not be omitted by simple rules. Fortunately we have the appeal process, in addition to the "notes to screener" when we think there is a reason to stray from the guidelines in place.

There do, however, remain a few inconsistencies that should be discussed among the staff and addressed so certain easily identified issues do not continue.

I'll address the three CORRECTABLE issues find most aggravating:

1) Foreground clutter - some bridge shots get in and other (IDENTICAL) bridge shots do not. I'm not talking about composition or whether then nose is visible but rather photos of train on a bridge where the truss or girder blocks the bottom part of the train. Some well composed photos get in and some do not.

2) Foreground clutter II - trains behind a fence. Yes or no? I had a round of Northern Pacific steam engines rejected (with no other examples in the database) while Dennis was more fortunate and had similar photos get in.
2a) Since wrecks and roster shots get in, it is apparent that RP is more then just the "best photos on the 'Net", but rather the best database on the "Net.
2b) Fences are a part of real life. They are as they exist. A train behind a fence is an accurate rendition (if captured correctly) of the actual and likely appealing scene.

3) Abstract shots (within reason) - If it was accepted once, it should be assumed it will always be accepted until the guideline is changed. An example I will use is a rejected photo of a plaque I submitted from Princeton that made note of an historic speed record set on the NEC (yet to be broken). That was not accepted yet a plaque noting the location of the first rail laid in NJ was, as well as EMD builders plates and even stickers and such listing builders /engine specs.

Oh, and dogs on trains , there are just not enough dogs ON trains.

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 03:44 AM   #102
Chris Z
Senior Member
 
Chris Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Libertyville, Il
Posts: 937
Send a message via Skype™ to Chris Z
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Anyone here into shooting planes? Most of them look the same to me, outside of 747's and A340's and the now practically non-existant DC10/MD11/L1011's and 727's. I guess the 737 would be treated like an NS -9 widecab or GEVO among the jetphotos crowd.
I try sometimes, but am not that interested in shooting planes. Although, I have a bunch of stuff from the early nineties taken at Oceana Naval air station. Mostly AWACS and Tomcats.

Chris Z
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Navy acrobat copy.jpg
Views:	93
Size:	309.0 KB
ID:	5692   Click image for larger version

Name:	F15 eagle.jpg
Views:	92
Size:	278.4 KB
ID:	5693  
Chris Z is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-06-2010, 03:59 AM   #103
DWHonan
Senior Member
 
DWHonan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA
Posts: 590
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Anyone here into shooting planes?
A little bit every now and again... not always with success.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=793473938

On the other hand, "Planes on a Train" is always fun:
Image © David Honan
PhotoID: 279787
Photograph © David Honan
__________________
Dave Honan
Issaquah, WA
View my portfolio at RailPictures.net
View my portfolio at Flickr Not quite so new anymore!
DWHonan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2010, 07:07 PM   #104
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
...[portion omitted]...This would be an example of a historic photo that I think deserves to get on, despite it's faults just because it contains so much stuff in the scene that does not exist anymore. No amount of money could bring it back. The same could not be said about a couple busted up SP tunnel motors.
Image © Bob Krone
PhotoID: 333382
Photograph © Bob Krone
Yes, and I find that I spend as much time, if not more looking at things in the backgrounds of Mr. Krone's photos.

They are like museum pieces.

*******
Actually, the 1978 photo in the Pass at Silverwood would fall in this category too.

However it is rather esoteric since you need to have looked at that stretch of track often and know the contours of the hills and the layout of the tracks to see why the photo is significant.

I notice that scans of old color photos tend to be over saturated and under sharpened.

Interesting how people scan then and then fail to clean them up in PS or some other editor.

Last edited by Holloran Grade; 08-07-2010 at 07:11 PM.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-07-2010, 08:56 PM   #105
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

In regards to the original image that started this thread - it's very, very hard to get a scan of a color print to look good enough to post (unless it was shot in stunningly perfect conditions).

Sadly, much of the stuff from the mid 70s and very early 80s was also printed on that pebbly paper, which seems to have even less dynamic range and also has an unwanted texture.

On the other hand... there's nothing like having a 34-year-old slide that you've frankly only looked at in a small slide viewer over the last three and a half decades, thinking it's gorgeous... and then scanning it up to find out it's blurry. The medium doesn't really matter all that much if the operator is a monkey.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-08-2010, 06:32 AM   #106
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb How Low Can You Go????

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
....[portion omitted].....Oh, and dogs on trains , there are just not enough dogs ON trains. /Mitch
Ok, so the dog has to be on the train?

I know a blind lady that frequents Fullerton, are you daring me to figure out how to get my dog on an Amtrak train as a "seeing eye" dog for a photo?



I could stoop that low you know.....

Last edited by Holloran Grade; 08-08-2010 at 06:36 AM.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-10-2010, 07:54 AM   #107
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Ok, so the dog has to be on the train?

I know a blind lady that frequents Fullerton, are you daring me to figure out how to get my dog on an Amtrak train as a "seeing eye" dog for a photo?



I could stoop that low you know.....
I wasn't daring but I will! Must be dated later then this post.

And, yes, the dog has to be on the train - off is cake.

Image © Mitch Goldman
PhotoID: 284346
Photograph © Mitch Goldman


Image © Mitch Goldman
PhotoID: 314508
Photograph © Mitch Goldman


/Mitch
Mgoldman 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 12:27 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.