Old 06-13-2013, 02:22 AM   #1
strench707
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 66
Default High Sun but nothing obscured?

I understand a high sun rejection is usually because train detail is heavily obscured by shadows but in this case that's not really an issue. Is it purely an aesthetic rejection? I've seen plenty of other accepted photos with much less visible train detail due to shadows.

What helped here was the sun was diffused slightly by a whispy cloud, at the time I thought it was actually kind of a saving grace for the shot (less harsh shadows) but I guess not...


http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...51&key=9282540


Thanks!

Davis
strench707 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 02:55 AM   #2
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

It's 100% high sun, but the type of shot that can sneak in (screener roulette is an issue that I'm sure the screeners admit is true).

If you want to try again, do a little selective shadow lightening, and add a pinch of saturation... but it's not a shoe in by any stretch. Could be a lot of work just to get rejected again.

To me, it's a perfect RRPictureArchives shot (one that railfans want to see, but not necessarily the photographers).
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 03:06 AM   #3
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Also, it has the appearance that you were on railroad property to get this shot...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 04:13 AM   #4
strench707
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 66
Default

Thanks Freericks for the thoughts, I did do an appeal to see if I could have better luck with a different screener. If that fails I'll try some more touchup as you recommended.

The problem with this shot is its only lit during high sun (except winter).


Ween, I can assure you this was taken from a safe location and regardless they would have probably slapped it with a PEQ if there was a dispute.

Davis
strench707 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 05:07 AM   #5
cblaz
Senior Member
 
cblaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marlboro, New Jersey
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween View Post
Also, it has the appearance that you were on railroad property to get this shot...
Quote:
Originally Posted by strench707 View Post
Ween, I can assure you this was taken from a safe location and regardless they would have probably slapped it with a PEQ if there was a dispute.
That's interesting, because with a focal length of 18mm, you weren't standing safely off the bridge and zooming in. Also, since you did not zoom in and there is a black chain-link fence from the middle of the bridge to the east end that does not appear in the photo (can be seen here), you must have been standing on the bridge. Lastly, since I can only see two concrete abutments in your shot and there are four over the highway not counting the end ones, I have to assume you are standing directly over the northbound I-270 local lanes (about where the arrow is on this map).

Please explain how this is a safe location that is not trespassing.

- Chris
__________________
- Christopher Blaszczyk
My shots on RP: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=284
cblaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 05:09 AM   #6
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Wow...that's some balls right there.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 05:28 AM   #7
strench707
Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 66
Default

Track 2 (closest track) has been out of service for the past few weeks during the day for track work; you can see they are running wrong-main as a result. I have known the head maintainer who is working there for a very long time and as the song goes: "I had a little help from my friends..." I do appreciate the concern though. I don't think under any other circumstances I would've been on the property, consequently risking my life, for a mismatched set of GEVO's.

I said I was in a "safe location," not that I was off the property.

Davis
strench707 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 06:55 AM   #8
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

In simplest terms, I think the problem with the photo is the shadows on the sides and the wheels - and the plow.

Further, there is nothing in the image that gives it a sense of time and/or place, consequently, the average person has no clue that this is a detour and/or a special move.

It is just not that interesting of a picture, and the shadows really don't work.

As for how you got the photo, BFD.

There are plenty of people who fudge the rules, some of them even get outed.
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 01:52 PM   #9
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by strench707 View Post
The problem with this shot is its only lit during high sun (except winter).
The track here runs from WNW to ESE and you are on the south side of the tracks. I presume what you mean is that for this particular shot, only possible during the maintenance window because of the on-track location, the sun doesn't get around to this side of the tracks until the high sun part of the day, and by the time it goes back down an EB train would be backlit.

How does this shot look from the parking lot?

Actually, I think the post processing is fine and sufficient detail has been brought up from the shadow without overdoing it. I've seen much worse, including from myself. If you have an earlier frame, I would use that and crop right and top; getting rid of the ugly sky would help a lot.
__________________
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 06-13-2013, 03:41 PM   #10
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Holloran Grade View Post
Further, there is nothing in the image that gives it a sense of time and/or place, consequently, the average person has no clue that this is a detour and/or a special move.
This.

Quote:
It is just not that interesting of a picture, and the shadows really don't work.
I also agree. It's just a wedgie captured under less than ideal conditions. While it can be excited and or interesting to you when you capture a rare movement or something along those lines, it's quite meanlingless to most who are not familiar with the schedule and area.

I'd skip it.

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 06-13-2013, 06:04 PM   #11
nikos1
Senior Member
 
nikos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,775
Default

Should todays top of the day been rejected too because it was illegal to take?
Image © J Neu, Berlin
PhotoID: 439705
Photograph © J Neu, Berlin
__________________


Wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=7861

More wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's http://nikos1.rrpicturearchives.net/

Video wedge shots of blue HLCX SD60's
http://youtube.com/profile?user=nikosjk1
nikos1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 07:28 PM   #12
Indecline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 168
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikos1 View Post
Should todays top of the day been rejected too because it was illegal to take?
Image © J Neu, Berlin
PhotoID: 439705
Photograph © J Neu, Berlin
Oh-oh - have number of photos taken in East Germany of steam trains that a friend took and gave to me.
Indecline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 09:51 PM   #13
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by nikos1 View Post
Should todays top of the day been rejected too because it was illegal to take?
Image © J Neu, Berlin
PhotoID: 439705
Photograph © J Neu, Berlin
What makes you think that he didn't get permission?
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-13-2013, 10:29 PM   #14
tytrain
Member
 
tytrain's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Location: Chicago
Posts: 43
Default

On top of everything else it looks grainy to me, but maybe it is truly just to me since no-one else has mentioned it.
__________________
my photos
tytrain is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 12:42 AM   #15
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

When you have permission to be on railroad property, it's not a bad idea to include that in the comments. (See what Craig Walker does for good text.)
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 01:29 AM   #16
Trainman24210
Junior Member
 
Trainman24210's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2013
Posts: 15
Default

I agree with the high sun, however it is not the mission of members to rule on the legality of the photographers location. Do any of you want to have to prove the legality of all your photographs? You will need a certificate stating that you were not trespassing when you are on ANYBODY's private property, not just the railroad's. What about that shot from Food Lion's parking lot or the back yard of someone's house. A friendly "what the hey?" may be in order but let's not get crazy.
Trainman24210 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 02:55 AM   #17
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Trainman24210 View Post
I agree with the high sun, however it is not the mission of members to rule on the legality of the photographers location. Do any of you want to have to prove the legality of all your photographs? You will need a certificate stating that you were not trespassing when you are on ANYBODY's private property, not just the railroad's. What about that shot from Food Lion's parking lot or the back yard of someone's house. A friendly "what the hey?" may be in order but let's not get crazy.
Show me a railfan who hasn't trespassed for a shot and I will show you a Cubs fan who has celebrated his team winning the World Series, but the issue isn't necessarily being "holier-than-though."

If trespass is condoned railfans frankly become even more of a nuisance to the railroads. The question isn't if one person stepped in the gauge or not - the question is will the railroads become even less friendly to photographers if the perceived trespass was reckless.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 04:11 AM   #18
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

I'm sure the OP can go shoot this when the light is shining right
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 04:13 AM   #19
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cblaz View Post
That's interesting, because with a focal length of 18mm, you weren't standing safely off the bridge and zooming in. Also, since you did not zoom in and there is a black chain-link fence from the middle of the bridge to the east end that does not appear in the photo (can be seen here), you must have been standing on the bridge. Lastly, since I can only see two concrete abutments in your shot and there are four over the highway not counting the end ones, I have to assume you are standing directly over the northbound I-270 local lanes (about where the arrow is on this map).

Please explain how this is a safe location that is not trespassing.

- Chris
I see the trespassing police have arrived

I dont think he owes anyone here an explanation of where he was standing.

It used to be very, very, very common for railfans to be hanging from signals, crossing apparatus, lineside pole lines, etc. Somehow the world was able to keep spinning.

Last edited by troy12n; 06-14-2013 at 04:16 AM.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 05:31 AM   #20
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

This shot of mine is obviously a high sun shot:

Image © Ron Flanary
PhotoID: 439618
Photograph © Ron Flanary


and this one certainly is!

Image © Ron Flanary
PhotoID: 439821
Photograph © Ron Flanary


Why were these accepted and yours rejected? That's 100 percent screener subjectivity, of course. I suspect the railfan ga-ga over the NS F-units was a factor as well. Your shot could have been accepted with a little work, but to 99.999999 percent of the world, it's just an everyday CSX train on a bridge.

I had a cool shot of an NS stack train rejected for foreground clutter yesterday---but it wasn't worth whining about or appealing, so I used a more pedestrian version instead. Naturally, it was accepted. Common wins over unique most every time.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 02:58 PM   #21
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
This shot of mine is obviously a high sun shot:

Image © Ron Flanary
PhotoID: 439618
Photograph © Ron Flanary


and this one certainly is!

Image © Ron Flanary
PhotoID: 439821
Photograph © Ron Flanary

Terrible shots Ron, you should be ashamed to have submitted those
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 03:02 PM   #22
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
......Why were these accepted and yours rejected?
Due to the paint on the NS units, the shadows are not as noticeable and as stated, they are F units.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
....... so I used a more pedestrian version instead. Naturally, it was accepted. Common wins over unique most every time.

Most had real problems with this one, but I finally found a sympathetic advocate - thanks!

Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 439657
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography
Holloran Grade is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 03:23 PM   #23
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 Holloran Grade View Post
Most had real problems with this one, but I finally found a sympathetic advocate - thanks!

Image © EL ROCO Photography
PhotoID: 439657
Photograph © EL ROCO Photography
Why? I think it's one of your better shots. It's an excellent composition.

Who are "most"? I'm your advocate, but I'm not sympathetic. I only speak praise when it's deserved.

"Sympathy" is found the same section of the dictionary as "shit" and "sweat." That's something my father used to say...
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-14-2013, 03:54 PM   #24
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

El, I like the shot, but I do wonder what it would look like with a bit more space top and left. Love code line shots, nice one!
__________________
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 06-14-2013, 04:02 PM   #25
Holloran Grade
Banned
 
Join Date: Mar 2010
Location: In the California Republic
Posts: 2,774
Lightbulb

Wider view

Name:  Deep at Ash Hill 900.JPG
Views: 211
Size:  384.0 KB

Last edited by Holloran Grade; 06-14-2013 at 04:05 PM.
Holloran Grade 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 12:29 AM.


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