Maybe not for Railpics

[Amtrakdavis22]

So do you think this was just not for Railpics? You got the brand new concrete ties out in Davis, I-80 in the background, the signals. Well I know you will probably eat me alive over this but just a little feedbak would be great!

[WKUrailfan]

I think you may have forgotten to post a link to the rejected photo..

[Amtrakdavis22]

Originally Posted by WKUrailfan

I think you may have forgotten to post a link to the rejected photo..

Oops!

Here it is:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=359870867

[Ween]

It's just...boring. To me anyway.

Perhaps you could have gotten more of a side shot of the rail to show the text there to make it a tad more interesting.

[cblaz]

Originally Posted by Amtrakdavis22

So do you think this was just not for Railpics? You got the brand new concrete ties out in Davis, I-80 in the background, the signals. Well I know you will probably eat me alive over this but just a little feedbak would be great!

One thing you should make a note of is that you were more descriptive in your post here than on your caption. Why are concrete ties in Davis more interesting than concrete ties anywhere else? I guess I-80 is the reason for the fuzzy blobs of light in the distance? What about the signals made you include them? None of those things were mentioned in the caption. The screeners can't know about every spot in the world, so they need more information on why this shot should get in.

All that said, there's really nothing that makes this shot stand out; it's just a stretch of double-tracked concrete-tied mainline in Anytown, USA. You had great light, but the execution wasn't there. A side profile showing the brand-new tie clips and a date on the rail would tell the story of the track rehab much better.

- Chris

[WembYard]

Agree with the above comments, but the PEQ rejection could also apply to the fact that you are very close (or appear to be) to the nearest rail.

[khalucha]

Just my 2 cents. Unless you were using a telephoto, you were trespassing. I bet it was the second one.

[bigbassloyd]

90mm per the exif

Loyd L.

[Amtrakdavis22]

Originally Posted by khalucha

Just my 2 cents. Unless you were using a telephoto, you were trespassing. I bet it was the second one.

I was actually lying down behind the crossing sign and using my telephoto lens. I had to be 5 or 6 feet from the track when I took that.

[travsirocz]

Originally Posted by khalucha

Just my 2 cents. Unless you were using a telephoto, you were trespassing. I bet it was the second one.

So what? Who cares? If he was, it is his risk. That shot could easily have been taken from a public crossing.

[khalucha]

In the past it has always been a big to-do for shots of people trespassing.

[troy12n]

Considering the vast numbers of photos taken here by people tresspassing, this has to be one of the "tamer" ones. That is, if he was tresspassing, like someone else said, he could have taken that from a road crossing. If you want my 2 cents, these types of pictures dont do anything for me. It's a picture of rail with concrete ties.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by troy12n

Considering the vast numbers of photos taken here by people tresspassing, this has to be one of the "tamer" ones

No truer words spoken in this thread.

[Amtrakdavis22]

Originally Posted by JimThias

No truer words spoken in this thread.

Very true. Besides Railfans for the most part are very alert and use caution around trains. It's the drunk bum who wonders onto the tracks and falls asleep who is the real problem. Besides, many people I'm sure have said I took this with permission but really did not. How would you prove you had permission?

[travsirocz]

Why would you need to prove you had permission? Only time you really need to prove you have permission is when you are there with the person that gave it to you.