Pile O Rejects - ACWR

cassfan3 · 03-02-2011, 04:33 PM

Had a recent fun chase on the ACWR on an unusual daylight weekend run, and my luck with RP has not been kind. I've gotten the 3 most recent submissions on, so I'm not really married to the rejects nor will I be broken hearted if they are universilly hated. But what the heck...I though I'd just get some opinions.

First:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=352581940
I know this type of shot has been on RP before but probably with a lot more reach than my sad equipment (150mm) allows. I thought it was somewhat interesting for topographic reasons if not for the train. I'm guessing it's really a 'train too far away' reject. Thoughts?

Second:
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=506037867
This is a case of me agreeing with the reject reason on technical terms but I don't think it detracts overall. Thoughts?

Third:
This one I also agree with and I have plenty of closer views to post later, but I thought I'd post this for those of you like me who enjoy structures to take a look at before the reject link goes bad. Prior to my visit I'd wanted to see a shot of the entire length of the Pee Dee dam/trestle at Mt Gilead, so here one is...unfortunately, the train ends up pretty tiny in the frame. oh well
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1064123698

Thanks for looking folks!

bigbassloyd · 03-02-2011, 04:40 PM

First - I kinda like it, but I think it needs something more (dramatic lighting, weather, etc.) to help it out.

Second - The industry just turns to clutter on the side of the scene to me. Not a big fan.

Third - Good idea, but nothing stands out. The train and bridge just fade into the dam to create a scene that's hard to understand, and appreciate. The bottom of the scene isn't too exciting either.

Loyd L.

Joe the Photog · 03-02-2011, 05:14 PM

1.) I shouldn't comment on this one because I'm not a fan unless it's a steam engine with a big plume of smoke.

2.) Not bad. I might try a B&W conversion.

3.) I've wanted to shoot this location for years, but have never caught a train here. I'd go wide too, wider than Scott Ridenhour here --

PhotoID:
Photograph ©

Now for the million dollar question: did you shoot any tighter at this location?

cassfan3 · 03-02-2011, 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

Now for the million dollar question: did you shoot any tighter at this location?

Not to worry, Joe. I shot from superwide to super tight. I was going to post the two extremes ...but now I think I'll just go in the middle

Joe the Photog · 03-02-2011, 05:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by cassfan3

Not to worry, Joe. I shot from superwide to super tight. I was going to post the two extremes ...but now I think I'll just go in the middle

Good man. I should have known all along!

cassfan3 · 03-03-2011, 11:54 PM

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=633211299

any ideas on this one? nothing special but I'm not sure I get the reasoning behind PEQ on this one.

Joe the Photog · 03-04-2011, 01:02 AM

That UP motor is a new one to me. Didn't know they had it. As for the PEQ, I don't get that one for tis shot either. (But then my last five shots have been PEQ'ed, too.) It reminds me of my shot here

where I went out of my way to make sure the reporting marks were of the motor in the background even though the blue SW900 was the one working.

jb1408 · 03-04-2011, 03:09 AM

Love the first one. Its just fun!

cassfan3 · 03-05-2011, 04:32 PM

anyone else got any thoughts on that last one - the PEQ with the UP slug? I appealed on the basis of it's really not that esthetically different and is clearly like the material that RP typically "publishes". Still rejected on appeal with no comments. Any other thoughts? Doesn't really make much since to me.