Another reject question

mumrar · 07-20-2010, 05:20 PM

There's going to be a long explanation to go with this one I'm afraid (mainly to help those not from the UK). First and foremost, this shot is taken at one of the most notorious/ugly/diffucult stations in the UK to photograph at. Birmingham New Street was changed to a vast underground concrete expanse as a 'revolutionary' idea back in 1965ish. It is also in a dug out box surrounded by tall buildings right in the city centre.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=830786456

No doubt after that, you must all be wondering why I chose to try and take a photograph there. Well, when the station was re-opened, due to safety rules with it being classified as an underground station, all steam locomotives were banned from running under their own power at the station. However, on 17th July after some clever rule-bending, for the first time in 44 years a steam engine powered a train out of Birmingham New Street station. That's why the photo had to be taken there.

Secondly, and I was totally up front with the screeners about this, an unfortunately timed normal passenger train (New Street is a very busy station) came into the bottom left corner Click here to see the original and I used Photoshop to help remove it.

Do you think that the rejection is still justified, bearing in mind that it is such an amazingly one off occurence and the station is unfortunately an ugly one? As you can see by the quantity of people on the platforms, a shot there would have been impossible, and just out of sight the loco goes straight in to a long tunnel with no access to the other end of the tunnel.

I just felt that with the screeners being unfarmiliar with all of the compromises the shot represents, thy may thuink differently if they knew (I did include some of this is my 'screeners comment' section with the submission, along with a link to the untouched version).

Go gentle on me, this is my first post on this forum

troy12n · 07-20-2010, 05:28 PM

Too tight at the bottom right.

Also possible foreground clutter (caternary wires) and lighting issues.

mumrar · 07-20-2010, 05:34 PM

I do have this shot that was taken slightly earlier and isn't so tight at the bottom right corner http://img707.imageshack.us/f/img2668k.jpg/

As to the catenary/foreground clutter, there's not much I can do about that to be honest, it's the way the station is, but as explained earlier, the shot really had to be of this station to carry the weight of importance to the steam locomotive being there (or that's what I think anyway)

Thnaks for looking

Joe the Photog · 07-20-2010, 05:36 PM

I didn't need the explanation to tell the cropping was bad. The train is too far to the right and too far at the bottom. Work on the cropping, then worry about the wires. Put in a *short* explanation to the Comment to Screeners section when you reupload a corrected version.

JRMDC · 07-20-2010, 05:41 PM

Empty on the left. Attached is a crop of the rejected version in a 5:4 format. You may be able to get to a more pleasing crop using the other version, give both a go.

mumrar · 07-20-2010, 05:50 PM

Ok, thanks for the suggestion on the empty left of the crop. I didn't crop too much for fear of losing too much smoke. I'll give it a go and see how I get on.

I'd heard how friendly and helpful people could be on here, but it's nice to have joined and found out first hand.

coborn35 · 07-20-2010, 06:08 PM

I liked it as is.

travsirocz · 07-20-2010, 06:11 PM

Take off the top at least down to the roof tops.

mumrar · 07-23-2010, 12:29 AM

Just a quick update to say thanks to all you chaps for the advice on my photo rejection. I chose the one that was moved back slightly, and did the 5:4 crop, and hey-presto it's been accepted. Top work community!
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=332238

P.S. How do you do that fancy thing where the thumbnail appears in the centre of the post and the copyright notice??

Mgoldman · 07-23-2010, 01:19 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by coborn35

I liked it as is.

Me too. I liked the overall space and openess of it, as well as inclusion of
second platform and full plume. The resulting crop was in my opinion no worse then the loss of those items. Glad it's in, still. It's still a unique photo in many ways. Nice job.

If you were asking about imbedding the photo in the forums, it is done this way:

PhotoID: 332238
Photograph © Matthew Wilson

~photoid=332238~ replace the ~ with [ and ]

Not sure what you mean regarding the copyright.

/Mitch

WembYard · 07-23-2010, 06:10 PM

I think he means where the copyright symbols appears with the name under the photo, which is done automatically of course.

It is a nice photo Matthew make the approaches to New Street look quite spacious, I took one of the same trip on the return journey from London - currently in the "pending" file for when I can get round to doing some uploads; it sounded so awesome approaching our vantage point that I nearly forgot to press the shutter!

PS: Should hopefully be having a ride behind said engine next weekend, it is my favourite steamer.

Dennis A. Livesey · 07-23-2010, 11:05 PM

And I also like the shot.

And you did a phenomenal job Photoshopping.

And I am surprised no one has commented on the violation of the "digital manipulation" rule.

JimThias · 07-23-2010, 11:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

And I also like the shot.

And you did a phenomenal job Photoshopping.

And I am surprised no one has commented on the violation of the "digital manipulation" rule.

I must be missing it. I put both photos into separate tabs and toggled back and forth for a bit. Other than the train being in different positions, what was digitally manipulated?

JRMDC · 07-24-2010, 12:13 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

I must be missing it. I put both photos into separate tabs and toggled back and forth for a bit. Other than the train being in different positions, what was digitally manipulated?

I think it is evident when you look at the link to the original in post #1. However, the accepted version is from a different frame and that "thing" being digitally manipulated may no longer have been in the frame.

There is another frame on that website without anything in need of manipulation, but that isn't the original frame for the accepted shot either. (Yes, I am being mysterious about just what it is that may be in need of manipulation.

troy12n · 07-24-2010, 12:22 AM

The accepted shot is obviously a different frame than the original, but looking at the original will show you what was removed, lol

JimThias · 07-24-2010, 12:55 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

I think it is evident when you look at the link to the original in post #1. However, the accepted version is from a different frame and that "thing" being digitally manipulated may no longer have been in the frame.

There is another frame on that website without anything in need of manipulation, but that isn't the original frame for the accepted shot either. (Yes, I am being mysterious about just what it is that may be in need of manipulation.

Ahh, ok. I didn't look at the "original," as I just compared to the two rejected shots. Pretty simple "fix" if you're using a tripod. Just take another shot after the passenger train clears and then blend that part with the other one and you're good to go.

Looking at the shot closely again, I'm actually surprised it didn't get rejected for foreground obstruction.

Dennis A. Livesey · 07-24-2010, 12:58 AM

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/...14559eca_b.jpg

JRMDC · 07-24-2010, 01:31 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4136/...14559eca_b.jpg

Wow, identical plumes! He really did manipulate the entire train out!

If he was using a tripod and had not moved the camera, it could be a simple splice of two half-shots, I suppose.

I suppose the accepted one is a different frame without the foreground, but one never knows. If that had been sitting there the entire time ...

bigbassloyd · 07-24-2010, 02:06 AM

Interesting.

Loyd L.

JimThias · 07-24-2010, 03:38 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Wow, identical plumes! He really did manipulate the entire train out!

If he was using a tripod and had not moved the camera, it could be a simple splice of two half-shots, I suppose.

I suppose the accepted one is a different frame without the foreground, but one never knows. If that had been sitting there the entire time ...

Definitely two frames blended. One of the most simple "cheats" in photoshop to do.

Dennis A. Livesey · 07-24-2010, 06:03 PM

Jim

I have been messing with PS for years and I couldn't do this trick if my life depended on it.

My head just doesn't work in PS protocol.

So what is, I'm sure, a snap for you is a flummox to me. (And many others.)

I figured out a long time ago that everything is easy if you have the:

1. know how
2. the right equipment
3. the money
4. the manpower
5. the time

JimThias · 07-24-2010, 08:48 PM

Here, let me explain it to you.

-Put camera on tripod
-Take picture of key subject with offending subject in the scene
-Take another picture with offending subject gone from scene (key subject gone as well)
-Open both photos in photoshop. Copy and paste on of them into the same file
-Put photo with key subject and offending subject on top layer
-Put photo with offending subject removed on the layer below
-Erase away the offending subject on top layer, exposing layer below without offending subject
-Combine layers
-Save

mumrar · 07-24-2010, 09:22 PM

When I started this thread, and also when I got originally rejected, I made mention of the manipulation, and nobody said anything, either on here or the screeners. So it seems I've broken the rule, and I'm sorry.

As to the 'How I did it', it certainly wasn't a tripod or gorillapod, the wall I shot over is near 6 feet tall, and the shot was taken at 10mm, so I'd have needed a 15 feet tripod to avoid the wall blocking the bottom corner. All shots were taken handheld, and I'd taken an exposure check shot earlier on while the train was in the platform, and then used the feature 'Photomerge' usually reserved for panorama stitching, but great at replicating details between two identical shots. When it had finished this, the two layer masks were way out, i.e. I only had a plume of smoke from the loco departing, but no train. So, with judidcious use of the white and black brushes on the layer masks, I got want I wanted to be showing.

I'm not normally keen on all of this myself either, but this was a total one-off shot, totally unrepeatable (the excrement of a rocking horse perhaps?) and I certainly wasn't going to let a bit of bad timing at a station that sees nearly 400 departures in a day spoil it. Obviously, this will spark off another debate I'm sure but, should I remove the shot as I don't want to upset the screeners/mods etc??

milwman · 07-25-2010, 02:33 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by mumrar

I certainly wasn't going to let a bit of bad timing at a station that sees nearly 400 departures in a day spoil it. Obviously, this will spark off another debate I'm sure but, should I remove the shot as I don't want to upset the screeners/mods etc??

I would forget about it, Its on and I am sure they read so if they want it will get pulled. On the other hand I didn't mind the other train in the shot so upload that one in place of the PS one? if you feel like you need to fix it.

Holloran Grade · 07-25-2010, 08:42 AM

Nice photo shop job.

I am impressed, and based on what we did with film and printing, I think that is totally legal.

It is not like the scene didn't exist.