Old 04-25-2013, 11:54 PM   #1
baggydave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 228
Default Your thoughts gentlemen, I know what mine are

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...37&key=9396658
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...36&key=8372972
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...35&key=3836783
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...34&key=7152268
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...33&key=6494525
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...32&key=3129833
Just trying something different and all I sent were rejected. as I said I know what I think, just wondering what improvements I could make.
Best wishes All
Hope to be over in the US in a couple of weeks and get some real pictureshttp://forums.railpictures.net/images/smilies/icon_smile.gif
Dave
baggydave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 12:12 AM   #2
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

first: no blacks, reprocess to spread the histogram more to the left
second: not my cup of tea, with the fence the shot has little RR to it; the steam plume could be from any source
third: see first
fourth: unlikely for RP, which just doesn't like shots with light from this direction relative to the subject
fifth: it would help a lot if you spread the histogram more, get more darks, then applied shadow treatment just to the inside of the shelter
sixth: too loose on the right, too tight on the left, maybe a bit tight up top also

since when are "real pictures" only possible in the US? heck, I've spent years proving they are not!
__________________
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 04-26-2013, 03:04 AM   #3
Noct Foamer
Senior Member
 
Noct Foamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 571
Default

I actually like the first one a lot. I spent 2-3 weeks in Scotland last summer and loved it! While your diesel engines looked like shoe boxes to me, the steam operations I saw were wonderful! Worth coming back for, even. (As were the subways in Glasgow and London.) First shot is obviously a digital photo that you tried to make look like something older. You have partially succeeded. What the screener didn't understand is that there's SUPPOSED to be low contrast. I don't think this particular one understands "vintage" at all.

I take similar shots, but with a twist. Instead of trying to simulate the vintage look, I get the real thing. I've been using cameras from the 1920s and 1930s, or lenses that date back to the 1840s on my 4x5 (or is that a 5x4? ) I think you might enjoy doing that! It's not hard at all. First, you want to find a camera that was made before WW2. Those will all have uncoated lenses, and that's a big part of the "vintage" look. Second, I'd suggest you find a camera with either a Tessar (Zeiss) or a Heliar (Voigtlander) lens. Some great cameras to consider are a 1930s vintage Leica IIIa, IIIc, or IIb with an uncoated 5cm Elmar lens. In the 1930s 120 format roll film really took over, especially shooting huge 6x9cm frames! Great but relatively inexpensive cameras are the Voigtlander Bessa (look for 10.5cm Heliar,) the Zeiss Ikon "c" (with 105mm Tessar,) as well as a host of other great German folding cameras. England had a thriving camera business then too, with names such as Butchers, Hougton, etc. Eric Treacy used a Miroflex 9x12cm for his classic photography, but that might be a bit "involved" to learn on. (He started with a Leica.) What quickly gave your shot away as digital was the lens "signature." It was crisp edge to edge for starters. Older lenses are typically sharp in the center and then quickly become soft as you move towards the edge. The fact the lenses were all uncoated gives images a nice soft glow, partly from "veiling flare." Shoot something like Kodak Tri-x or Fomapan 400, or Rollie Retro films. You can find places that will process the film and scan them to a CD for you if you don't want to scan them yourself. Using vintage equipment has really taught me a lot about photography, and is very enjoyable. I do think you might like it. If you're into historica stuff, why not use the appropriate camera gear?


Kent in SD

Last edited by Noct Foamer; 04-26-2013 at 03:10 AM.
Noct Foamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 02:34 PM   #4
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Noct Foamer View Post
First shot is obviously a digital photo that you tried to make look like something older. You have partially succeeded. What the screener didn't understand is that there's SUPPOSED to be low contrast. I don't think this particular one understands "vintage" at all.
Or this screener understands it quite well but simply doesn't want that look on RP.
__________________
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 04-26-2013, 02:45 PM   #5
Noct Foamer
Senior Member
 
Noct Foamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Or this screener understands it quite well but simply doesn't want that look on RP.

Likely true. There is an orthodoxy to what they are after here. On most classic camera forums the highly saturated sunny photos preferred by RP screeners would appear as jarring. I guess it all depends on the context, and personal taste.


Kent in SD
Noct Foamer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 09:48 PM   #6
baggydave
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Mar 2009
Posts: 228
Default

Well thank you both for your interest. I am still learning processing raw shots so that advice was great. With regard to old cameras I have had those during my life and now am very happy with the digital nikon I have now. But thanks anyway. I did try with the first shot and tried to get a more oldtime feel about the shot. Got rejected for "bad color" ! I guess I am too old to go back into education. Teaching for 30 years was enough for me.
I really would like someone to educate me as to what RP actually want from me. Last week everything I sent in was rejected as a PEQ. I chose what I thought to be the best one and resent it the following day and it was accepted without question. Now in my eyes it is either a PEQ or a picture worth putting in the database. Not both. I am at a loss.
baggydave is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-26-2013, 10:00 PM   #7
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggydave View Post
I really would like someone to educate me as to what RP actually want from me. Last week everything I sent in was rejected as a PEQ. I chose what I thought to be the best one and resent it the following day and it was accepted without question. Now in my eyes it is either a PEQ or a picture worth putting in the database. Not both. I am at a loss.
Dave, PEQ => subjective, the most subjective of all the rejection reasons, so you will get even less consistency than usual (of course, there are shots that RP wouldn't accept in a million years so PEQ for those is consistently no).

In general there are only general principles and experience to guide you, it just isn't as set in stone as one would like. One could argue whether or not it should be, and whether or not it can be done more consistently than it is, given the amount of time each screener spends looking at each shot.

So don't look for a defined standard that is not in fact there and in some dimensions may not be possible to define.

Of course, level is one standard that is easily definable to the pixel, as Ron Flanary could lecture you on should he choose to do so.
__________________
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

Last edited by JRMDC; 04-26-2013 at 10:02 PM.
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-27-2013, 02:48 AM   #8
Noct Foamer
Senior Member
 
Noct Foamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by baggydave View Post
1. With regard to old cameras I have had those during my life and now am very happy with the digital nikon I have now. But thanks anyway.

2. I did try with the first shot and tried to get a more oldtime feel about the shot. ...I really would like someone to educate me as to what RP actually want from me. Last week everything I sent in was rejected ... I chose what I thought to be the best one .... I am at a loss.

1. I too am happy with my Nikon DSLR stuff, but have also begun exploring historic gear as well. From my POV, more cameras = more happiness! Now on to another idea. Being from England I bet you know that Fox Talbot (not Daguerre-NO-O-O!) invented photography in 1839. England began making camera lenses almost immediately--Ross, Crosse & Thronwaite, Dallmeyer, etc. The lens that was really hot stuff in that era was the Petzval. They made them in all sizes, from teeny tiny to coffee can size! I found a teeny tiny one (about 3.5 inch flange focal length), maybe a Darlot, circa 1870s. It came with a cute little leather pouch containing a set of Waterhouse stops (stops marked "AD," for Alphonse Darlot.) They go into the slot on the top of the lens barrel. (BTW, these are the very "stops" that our modern word "stops" come from.) Anyway, I just LOVE the soft and unmistakeable look you get from a Petzval portrait lens, so I had S.K. Grimes in Rhode Island, USA fabricate a Nikon F-mount adapter for my teeny tiny lens. IT'S GREAT! I get the genuine look of an 1870s lens with the convenience of a state of art Nikon camera! I mount it to my camera, focus with the little brass knob, and .....Bob's your uncle! You might consider this if you are really into the vintage look with your photos. You just can't Photoshop-fake what a Petzval does.






2. My advise is to just be true to yourself. Shoot & post what you like, and if someone else likes it so much the better, eh?


Kent in SD
Noct Foamer 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 01:23 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.