Old 12-01-2012, 02:22 AM   #1
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default My 7 day RP sponsored personal website

I shot this back in the summer of 2009. I was thinking then how RP would never take it but the moment was too nice not to record it.

Looking at it the other day I knew it had the same problem with obstructions but I figured two things:

1. What the heck

2. If rejected, it will be on my 7 day RP sponsored personal website for all my friends to see.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...41&key=9809363
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 02:42 AM   #2
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
I shot this back in the summer of 2009. I was thinking then how RP would never take it but the moment was too nice not to record it.
Oh My God... do we really need more then one picture of this engine on RP???

I can see all that I need to see on the head-on shot.

That being said, great shot - it's all the little foreground obstructions that MAKE that shot work so well. I'd crop out the sky since it's white - the only rejection issue worth mentioning.

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-01-2012, 03:09 AM   #3
MassArt Images
Senior Member
 
MassArt Images's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Pittsburgh, PA area
Posts: 718
Default

If I would have won the Powerball, that could've been my Christmas present to myself. That engine should be under steam as a living historical monument.

Thanks for sharing! I never knew that existed.
MassArt Images is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-04-2012, 07:50 AM   #4
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Had the children been outside the chain-link, it would be in for sure.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 01:38 AM   #5
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

The latest addition to my 7day RP sponsored personal website.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...45&key=1339796

Funny, whenever I show this to people, railfans or not, they all go "ooooo". It was my Christmas Card for this year.

The first rejection was for Bad Color.

I brought down the vibrancy of the image but also explained to the screener that the intense red came from a railroad fusee left by the trainman at the crossing to the right of the picture.

The red fusee color makes the shot and it is a Christmas color to boot.

I resubmitted.

Now "unsharpened" and "underexposed"

I can sharpen and up the exposure I suppose. Then the "too much noise" rejection will come. The ISO was very high.

Enjoy for 7 days!
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 04:18 AM   #6
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

I'm speechless. (And---that almost never happens.)

Apparently RP's real screeners have been abducted by aliens, and the images are now being screened by one of Mitch's dogs...
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 04:40 AM   #7
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,008
Default

Honestly....the only legit issue that I see with the Deep River Landing image is the softness. The "Underexposed" rejection is bogus, because with any increase in overall exposure, the Christmas lights would begin losing color and eventually blow out.

Tough location to shoot. Why did you not use the thermo-nuclear flashes that you obviously used in other recent submissions from the Valley? Those all turned out fine.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-29-2012, 04:56 AM   #8
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

I plan to work on it a little when I have time. I have more important things like getting ready to shoot tomorrow. Making pictures is more important!

Kevin, the shot was a grab. The trains are in this position for only a few moments and my lights were not in position. So I did it the old fashioned way.

Thermonuclear? He he!
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 02:44 AM   #9
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

I say this of my own freewill and without compensation from admin:

They have a point! Now if only such standards were held to ALL patrons of RP - all of the time. The photo works fine as is. And it's certainly an oooooh, ahh! shot. I "oooooh'd" when I saw it and cringed when I saw it here as a reject. A comment from the screener is currency that admin should use more often to "buy" quality photos. Course, comments from viewers are currency viewers can use to "purchase" more of your fantastic images yet to see the pages of RP. I'm still looking forward to seeing more that have not yet graced the pages of RP. But, I digress...

There are actually times when admin can have good input - especially when it comes to technical issues vrs composition. Take the advice and if you still disagree, then throw it here on the Forum. Perhaps that's what you did - in regards to the concern with noise with further edit?

Soft is typically an easy fix. Just sharpen a bit more.

Same with exposure - underexpose - explain it or up it.

It did look a little soft, though I would not have rejected on that alone. As for underexposed - I think I (they, too) saw the histogram and there was no "info" on the bright side. Moving the slider in levels would've blown out the whites. Option A would be to selectively brighten the darker areas (shadows and highlights, dodge /burn, selective masks, ect). Option B I suppose would be curves which is what I pretty much did via Option C - a quick Levels adjustment. I brought up the midrange and then darkened the blacks leaving the whites as is.

Pop!

Looking at each alone, not a huge difference, but side by side - not such a bad suggestion.

/Mitch

Last edited by Mgoldman; 12-30-2012 at 02:48 AM.
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 03:02 AM   #10
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,736
Default

I brightened it in Elements 10 very easily using curves and s/h. It doesn't take too much to make it stand out better than it does currently.

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 05:34 AM   #11
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

I followed the advice of all (thanks guys) and did my best with the sharpening and the histogram.

Now I got hit with unlevel.

It is safe to say they are not loving it. Thus we are playing a game of rejection-go-round.

I will work on the level. Of course, it is more than enough level for me and Ron.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...32&key=6847245
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:29 AM   #12
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

We may have to strip Dr Loyd Lowry C.C.W. of his credentials... sad, sad day.

Jim?

It would appear a to be unlevel by a pubic hair. I found a discussion board with this informative thread on the Web which was very helpful in this regard: Here.
I've not had one single unlevel rejection once I understood the principles and techniques discussed.


As for your new edit - I think it's no better nor worse - brighter, maybe added noise that you feared. Loss of contrast. Try going into "Levels" and slide the midrange slider so the image gets a little brighter and then slide the "low"? range (darks) slider so the darks get darker (blacker sky, less noise, more contrast and definition) and then maybe move the slider to the right (lights /whites) just a, uh, public hair towards center. Viola!

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 06:59 AM   #13
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Not apropos of anything, but I find things right-weighted a bit, and i find the red-lit box on the left distracting and it detracts from the theme I am envisioning, which is red on the right, orange down the middle, and white (lights) on the left. To cut the left would entail some off the top, though, to fit RP format norms. Just a thought.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 07:57 AM   #14
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb My thoughts.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
......... i find the red-lit box on the left distracting .......
I concur.

Level it and then see what happens - I guess.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 01:17 PM   #15
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

OK, all good points. When I get back from work, I will take care of that.
Thanks!
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 04:30 PM   #16
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post

Jim?
No comment.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-30-2012, 05:39 PM   #17
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,736
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
We may have to strip Dr Loyd Lowry C.C.W. of his credentials... sad, sad day.
When I replied, there was no rejection for it being unlevel.

Now that there is, I will confirm the unlevel rejection, and offer a solution:



PSE10 > Filters > Correct Camera Distortion > Vertical Distortion -10, Horizontal Distortion -7, Angle 359.0

I can only collect fees on valid RP rejections, not undiagnosed rejections

In all seriousness Dennis, I hope it gets on. I really like the idea and your execution.

Loyd L.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg DennisLevel.jpg (481.0 KB, 199 views)
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 03:59 PM   #18
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

I see it was finally accepted. There's no appreciable* difference between the accepted version and the first rejection. There's just far too much fretting over unnecessary details. Either a shot is good, or it's not good. This was a great shot as first submitted....and it deserved to be accepted. Congrats, Dennis.

*Large or important enough to be noticed.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 04:29 PM   #19
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

Image © Dennis A. Livesey
PhotoID: 419485
Photograph © Dennis A. Livesey


Thanks Ron!

And all you guys Mitch, Jim, Lloyd, Kevin and Jamusz for your help and patience.

This was the fifth try. I really was not able to think of another thing to do after this last submission but hang it up.

All good lessons I think in the end.

While we should all follow our muse as to what we want to do in our photography, it is unavoidable that we want some public acceptance. Even Link had issues for decades with that. So learning what constitutes at least one version of mass acceptance taste is, (the RP aesthetic as it were) it is at least some form of a gauge of your work. You then have some idea of what works for the mass market when venturing outside your own little world of camera and computer.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 04:59 PM   #20
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

And a final note.

When it comes to the deep red part of the visible spectrum, the rays become rather long and thus are very hard for photograph systems to resolve to precise focus. You will find this phenomena has been an issue for photographers/cinematographers ever since the beginning of the art. So saying the red is not sharp is akin to saying "the fog is not sharp." This should be recognized as a known problem by the screeners.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 05:50 PM   #21
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

My congrats also! Personally, I feel the cropping-out of the equipment box to the left made all the difference between a "nice shot" and a "great photograph". I'm giving this a PCA vote, hope many others do too.
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 06:03 PM   #22
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

Thanks WDS! I truly appreciate that.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 06:16 PM   #23
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
And a final note.

When it comes to the deep red part of the visible spectrum, the rays become rather long and thus are very hard for photograph systems to resolve to precise focus. You will find this phenomena has been an issue for photographers/cinematographers ever since the beginning of the art. So saying the red is not sharp is akin to saying "the fog is not sharp." This should be recognized as a known problem by the screeners.
Since I never had any photography education, that is something I've never been aware of. Are you saying that red gives the illusion of soft or OOF when the subject is indeed in focus? Good to know for future reference (and to avoid banging my head on my computer desk as I try to figure out why my lens didn't focus properly. )
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 07:16 PM   #24
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

Jim, take a look at night shots of train signals where the red light is hitting some object. You will see lots of red but details within the area that is red will be dim, ill-defined and soft. You can see the same in movies. If there is nothing but red light, no objects within it will look sharp even though technically they are.
On old manual focus film camera lenses, sometimes there was a dot on the lens on the focus scale. This was used if you were shooting infrared film. After you had manually focused, you then moved the focus mark to that dot. This was to accommodate the difference in where the long dark red light would land normally and then properly on the film plane.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-31-2012, 08:25 PM   #25
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Since I never had any photography education, that is something I've never been aware of. Are you saying that red gives the illusion of soft or OOF when the subject is indeed in focus? Good to know for future reference (and to avoid banging my head on my computer desk as I try to figure out why my lens didn't focus properly. )
I didn't understand that either. See--even a crotchety old fart like me can learn new things!
Ron Flanary 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 07:24 PM.


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