Old 06-27-2009, 08:38 PM   #1
CP990
Senior Member
 
CP990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 149
Default Re-stage the shot

Let's re-stage this shot, hold up traffic for a few hours, or better yet have the accident at dawn or something.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=701686&key=0

I seem to recall another accident shot a couple days back of a car in the side of a train ............ high sun. Then there was the shot of a F9 or something with a car under the front plow .............. high sun. I could go on and on but I suspect you get my drift already.

Dave.
__________________
My Railroad Website: www.davesphotopages.com
CP990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2009, 08:46 PM   #2
nikos1
Senior Member
 
nikos1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2007
Posts: 1,777
Default

Not to mention the Indiana Railroad streetrunning shot with awful hazy high sun that made pic of the day..........
I dont agree at all with this rejection seeing as youve covered the trucks and plow and your colors are well saturated.
__________________


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 06-27-2009, 09:14 PM   #3
Kilroy1313
Senior Member
 
Kilroy1313's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: Luxembourg (Europe)
Posts: 150
Question

Your shot is technically OK ! Everything is clearly visible !
It only seemed not to "hit" the screener's eye.
Its difficult to see where the photo did not match the expectations of RP.net
__________________
Train pictures at RailPictures.Net
Aircraft pic's at JetPhotos.Net & other pictures at www.photogen.lu
Train-Puzzles
Train-Videos




Kilroy1313 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2009, 09:28 PM   #4
raider-15
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 41
Default

I personally would not accept this photo into the database. I see RP as more of a railroad photography site than a railroad news site. I think photographers here should focus on submitting their best train photos, not low quality photos of accidents and such. Now I understand your frustration because I've been seeing numerous high sun shots accepted lately, but I don't think that means we should all submit high sun photos and expect them to be added to the site.
raider-15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2009, 09:39 PM   #5
Chase55671
RailPictures.Net Crew
 
Chase55671's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Nitro, WV
Posts: 2,195
Send a message via AIM to Chase55671 Send a message via MSN to Chase55671
Default

I liked the shot. I think it'd be a shot that the viewers would notice and definitely proceed to click on. Most likely even a Tof24, if you ask me.

Chase
__________________
Chase Gunnoe
Railpictures.Net Crew
Rail-Videos.Net Crew
Click here to view my photos at Railpictures.Net
SLR Night Photography Tutorial | Railpictures.Net Beginners Guide
Chase55671 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2009, 09:40 PM   #6
CP990
Senior Member
 
CP990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raider-15 View Post
I personally would not accept this photo into the database. I see RP as more of a railroad photography site than a railroad news site. I think photographers here should focus on submitting their best train photos, not low quality photos of accidents and such. Now I understand your frustration because I've been seeing numerous high sun shots accepted lately, but I don't think that means we should all submit high sun photos and expect them to be added to the site.

Check around the home page for 2 reasons:

1. There is a whole section dedicated to Derailments.

2. Derailments/Accidents get some of the highest hits on RP.

They are very popular here!

Dave.
__________________
My Railroad Website: www.davesphotopages.com
CP990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2009, 09:41 PM   #7
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CP990 View Post
Let's re-stage this shot, hold up traffic for a few hours, or better yet have the accident at dawn or something.



Dave.
I agree with you that you should re-stage and re-shoot the shot.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2009, 09:48 PM   #8
CP990
Senior Member
 
CP990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz View Post
I agree with you that you should re-stage and re-shoot the shot.

Where do I send the bill? I ain't cheap, so be warned Oh, then there's the cost of the trailer, and bridge inspection/repair, towing, police/traffic control, ...... what else did I miss?
__________________
My Railroad Website: www.davesphotopages.com
CP990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2009, 09:52 PM   #9
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CP990 View Post
what else did I miss?
A couple of girls in bikinis walking down the sidewalk would certainly help.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2009, 09:55 PM   #10
raider-15
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CP990 View Post
Check around the home page for 2 reasons:

1. There is a whole section dedicated to Derailments.

2. Derailments/Accidents get some of the highest hits on RP.

They are very popular here!

Dave.
I stated that photographers shouldn't focus on submiting low quality photos of accidents and such. I'm fine with derailment photos being accepted as long as they are good quality derailment photos. Your shot has poor lighting and a couple of other issues such as the bottom half of the locomotive being covered by the bridge. You're expecting your shot to get on the site just because it was of an accident and that's not always how it goes here.
raider-15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2009, 09:56 PM   #11
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

A recrop and color adjustment helps.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	zzzzzzzzz.jpg
Views:	177
Size:	519.2 KB
ID:	4282  
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2009, 09:56 PM   #12
CP990
Senior Member
 
CP990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
A couple of girls in bikinis walking down the sidewalk would certainly help.
Where the hell you gonna find 2 girls with bikinis in Alliance?
__________________
My Railroad Website: www.davesphotopages.com
CP990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2009, 10:01 PM   #13
CP990
Senior Member
 
CP990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz View Post
A recrop and color adjustment helps.

............. but it's still "high sun" which is the reason for the rejection. There's plenty of high sun shots here.

Dave.
__________________
My Railroad Website: www.davesphotopages.com
CP990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 01:15 AM   #14
cassfan3
Senior Member
 
cassfan3's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 172
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by CP990 View Post
............. but it's still "high sun" which is the reason for the rejection. There's plenty of high sun shots here.

Dave.
There are indeed a lot of other high sun shots here, many of which may not deserve to get on, but I'd follow Travis's advice with the shot. Merely having high sun is not enough to get an otherwise appealing shot canned. Improving the shot like Travis mentioned may make it acceptable as a whole. It's certainly interesting.
__________________
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=13200

-Nick McLean
Greenville, NC
cassfan3 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 01:18 AM   #15
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,843
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz View Post
A recrop and color adjustment helps.
You forgot to level it.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 02:28 AM   #16
Doug Wolfe
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 181
Default

Why not simply appeal it?

Shots on bridges like this are at times rejected because you can't see the trucks on the train....but this might be an exception.

Make a reasonable argument and maybe it gets accepted.
Doug Wolfe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 02:37 AM   #17
John Ryan
Senior Member
 
John Ryan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Ann Arbor, Michigan
Posts: 497
Send a message via AIM to John Ryan
Default

Appeal it. It's a very interesting shot; one that will probably climb to the top of the day in term of views.
John Ryan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 03:08 AM   #18
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raider-15 View Post
I stated that photographers shouldn't focus on submiting low quality photos of accidents and such. I'm fine with derailment photos being accepted as long as they are good quality derailment photos. Your shot has poor lighting and a couple of other issues such as the bottom half of the locomotive being covered by the bridge. You're expecting your shot to get on the site just because it was of an accident and that's not always how it goes here.
But its not LOW QUALITY.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 03:20 AM   #19
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Another vote for appeal. It seems to fit within the quality range of wreck shots 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 06-28-2009, 03:47 AM   #20
raider-15
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by coborn35 View Post
But its not LOW QUALITY.
I think I pointed out two major issues with the photo, did I not? Not to mention the fact that it was initially rejected. If you want to blatantly make a statement you'll need some sort of evidence to prove your point. And I'm sure I will get some sort of reply about how interesting the photo is. It is indeed interesting and would probably get a large number of views - but that doesn't mean it's a great photo.

Yes, I'm a complete nitpicker.

Last edited by raider-15; 06-28-2009 at 03:51 AM.
raider-15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 04:59 AM   #21
khalucha
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Phoenix, Arizona
Posts: 425
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raider-15 View Post
I stated that photographers shouldn't focus on submiting low quality photos of accidents and such. I'm fine with derailment photos being accepted as long as they are good quality derailment photos. Your shot has poor lighting and a couple of other issues such as the bottom half of the locomotive being covered by the bridge. You're expecting your shot to get on the site just because it was of an accident and that's not always how it goes here.
I am dumb, what is considered "Low Quality"?

As for the bottom half of the loco being covered by the bridge, what about all the shots from a distance, or any of the shots on bridges that you can not see the trucks? You say they should not have been accepted then?

Examples of some shots I have as favorite:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...10&favsearch=1

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...258284&nseq=64
__________________
Kevin
Phoenix, Arizona

Webshot Photos

flickr stuff
khalucha is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 05:05 AM   #22
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Thumbs down

Quote:
Originally Posted by raider-15 View Post
I stated that photographers shouldn't focus on submiting low quality photos of accidents and such. I'm fine with derailment photos being accepted as long as they are good quality derailment photos. Your shot has poor lighting and a couple of other issues such as the bottom half of the locomotive being covered by the bridge. You're expecting your shot to get on the site just because it was of an accident and that's not always how it goes here.
Quote:
Originally Posted by raider-15 View Post
I think I pointed out two major issues with the photo, did I not? Not to mention the fact that it was initially rejected. If you want to blatantly make a statement you'll need some sort of evidence to prove your point. And I'm sure I will get some sort of reply about how interesting the photo is. It is indeed interesting and would probably get a large number of views - but that doesn't mean it's a great photo.

Yes, I'm a complete nitpicker.
Incorrect. AT BEST, you presented 1 hazy argument. You said it was "bad light", and a myriad of other things. The example for the myriad was the trucks covered. As has been since addressed, that is not an RP issue. As for the light, it looks fine to me, and in either nit-picking case, having a tad bit of high sun does not make it "low quality".
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 05:58 AM   #23
raider-15
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 41
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by khalucha View Post
I am dumb, what is considered "Low Quality"?

As for the bottom half of the loco being covered by the bridge, what about all the shots from a distance, or any of the shots on bridges that you can not see the trucks? You say they should not have been accepted then?
I didn't mean any shot that you can't see the trucks in is low quality. You're taking it to an extreme. To elaborate on what I said: the fact that half the train is covered by a steel object doesn't particularly appeal to me in any way. The photos you provided as examples are both great images in my opinion.


Quote:
Originally Posted by coborn35 View Post
Incorrect. AT BEST, you presented 1 hazy argument. You said it was "bad light", and a myriad of other things. The example for the myriad was the trucks covered. As has been since addressed, that is not an RP issue. As for the light, it looks fine to me, and in either nit-picking case, having a tad bit of high sun does not make it "low quality".
The sun seems to be at a pretty high angle, causing long shadows that aren't pleasing to the eye. Also, it is actually lit from the wrong side. And the trucks being covered can most definitely be an issue. Maybe that's not what it was rejected for, but "obstructing objects" is a rejection you can receive. Now I believe I have made my main arguments clear to you.
raider-15 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 06:59 AM   #24
CP990
Senior Member
 
CP990's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2009
Posts: 149
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by raider-15 View Post
I didn't mean any shot that you can't see the trucks in is low quality. You're taking it to an extreme. To elaborate on what I said: the fact that half the train is covered by a steel object doesn't particularly appeal to me in any way. The photos you provided as examples are both great images in my opinion.

The sun seems to be at a pretty high angle, causing long shadows that aren't pleasing to the eye. Also, it is actually lit from the wrong side. And the trucks being covered can most definitely be an issue. Maybe that's not what it was rejected for, but "obstructing objects" is a rejection you can receive. Now I believe I have made my main arguments clear to you.
1. In all your replies you have profoundly stated that this shot is "low quality". Indeed, that has been the primary reason of your dislike for this shot. I really have no objection to your dislike for this shot but because you cannot see the trucks does not automatically make it low quality. If that is a criteria for your work, that's fine. I have no problem with that. But to condem all shots, which obviously you will, shows a lack of vision, because you can only see in a constrained tunnel vision, or, are unable to experiment and think outside the box because it doesn't fit your preconceived idea of what is good or bad.

2. I'm not seeing these long shadows you are refering to? Long shadows happen early or late in the day, not when the sun is overhead. There are no long shadows in this shot.

Dave.
__________________
My Railroad Website: www.davesphotopages.com
CP990 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2009, 07:18 AM   #25
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Long shadows vertically, dave.
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 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 08:12 PM.


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