What is going on here ???

[JRMDC]

Travis didn't say Dennis drew anything and, knowing Dennis, I'm sure he did not.

This

It looks like a natural occurrence that was made more noticeable by a little post work.

does not mean drawn in. It means the adjustments made in post, contrast, whatever, had the effect of emphasizing the natural occurrence to some extent.

Seriously, you are making too big a deal of this. This is a combination of monitor and 8-bit color issue, full stop.

[SFO777]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Travis didn't say Dennis drew anything and, knowing Dennis, I'm sure he did not.

Yes, I agree. The monitor thing has been established. I think older, cheaper monitors demonstrate the problem I captured in my picture above.

But if I was going make this through adjustments in post, your phrase, what would be the process?

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by SFO777

But if I was going to draw this in, what would be the process?

I don't know, because I've never felt the need to draw anything in and I've never communicated with anyone else who did.

Certainly a sky like that one does not get drawn in. Putting aside RP, in general one does not draw in a sky like that because it is perhaps impossible to get the entire frame to match in color and tone. I suppose there are professional illustrators who can do this.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by SFO777

So it most certainly was drawn in but only noticeable on my computers. Does anyone know how to draw in that bell around the sun and blend it so it doens't look the way it looks in my picture of the picture?

Originally Posted by SFO777

But if I was going to draw this in, what would be the process?

[SFO777]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

I don't know, because I've never felt the need to draw anything in and I've never communicated with anyone else who did.

Certainly a sky like that one does not get drawn in. Putting aside RP, in general one does not draw in a sky like that because it is perhaps impossible to get the entire frame to match in color and tone. I suppose there are professional illustrators who can do this.

Well here's how I think I could do it to get that shape. It would be impossible to add color of course, forget that. But it is possible to not add color i.e. not dress up the raw, or dress it down a little a bit.

I could use the adjustment brush with some feathering or something, maybe do a few passes, and just remove color from the corners of the frame. As you suggested, contrast could help. Etc. Thoughts?

The trick is not having it look the way it looks on my computer monitor, which I think is not so forgiving as the fancy iMacs you are using.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by SFO777

It would be impossible to add color of course, forget that.

Sure you can.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by SFO777

Well here's how I think I could do it to get that shape. It would be impossible to add color of course, forget that. But it is possible to not add color i.e. not dress up the raw, or dress it down a little a bit.

I could use the adjustment brush with some feathering or something, maybe do a few passes, and just remove color from the corners of the frame. As you suggested, contrast could help. Etc. Thoughts?

The trick is not having it look the way it looks on my computer monitor, which I think is not so forgiving as the fancy iMacs you are using.

a) this does seem to have become a bit of an obsession for you

b) at the moment I am on a lenovo laptop. I have also viewed the image on a low-end ($500) Dell laptop and on a 21" standard-issue (non "retina" or whatever) monitor

c) if you want to develop useful photography skills, spend your time in composition or in general PS-type processing. Not drawing. Figure out how to shoot it the way you want it, with a bit of adjustment in post.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

While I have had Photoshop on my computers since circa 1999, and have invested in classes to the tune of $1000, I am a Photoshop incompetent. I can no more draw and color a bell shape in PS then do a cartwheel.

Since Apple introduced Aperture 2 in February 2008, I have used that platform and have been thrilled by it. I only go to PS now when I need architecture perspective correction. Sadly, Aperture is a dead application and I see LR in my future.

With the photo in question I exposed using the ETTR technique. In Aperture I did my usual exposure, curves, highlights, shadows and color balance. The color and the bell shape you see is what came up out of the image. As Kent, Travis and J have said, the result was the action of the sensor and processing, not me. BTW, the saturation slider was not touched at all and while I pushed the Vibrancy, it only affected the blue color.

Way, way back in film school, I recall studying a movie, and reading about all the metaphors, symbolisms, and motivations the director had intended.
Then I saw an interview with the director and he was absolutely astonished when asked about all the hidden meanings in the movie he made. His reaction was along the lines of, "Where in the hell did you dig all that up? We just were just trying to make a good picture!"

Drawing, bell curves, PS, coloring, puddles...I admit I am tickled that any shot of mine would be analyzed like this.

All I was trying to do was make a good picture.

[SFO777]

Well, Dennis, as I've said, I think this must just be solely a monitor issue. I still can't beleive it myself, as you've seen the picture of the picture as it appears on my monitor, but I guess we should consider the matter settled.

Did you see this picture? Does it look blurry/out of focus to you? This is another one I'm confused by:

PhotoID: 518522 Photograph © Chase Gunnoe

[SFO777]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

a) this does seem to have become a bit of an obsession for you

b) at the moment I am on a lenovo laptop. I have also viewed the image on a low-end ($500) Dell laptop and on a 21" standard-issue (non "retina" or whatever) monitor

I'm looking at it now on a Dell Vostro laptop you can see the captain crunch hat shape, although when you angle the screen away from you it disappears gradually

[SFO777]

delete delete delete delete
delete

[SFO777]

Here's a Vostro and a Lenovo showing two different angles. the lower pic is a more oblique angle. This shows that the effect is not limited to just the one computer monitor, but suggests that it may just have to do with a filtering by the monitors angle of view of the fine colors that a sunset likely creates, hence creating the articifial captain crunch hat shape.

Why and how this happens is a mystery, but if proves I'm not crazy, JRDC!

But it does appear that it is simply a funny effect of these monitors rather than the drawing thing, Dennis.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by SFO777

Did you see this picture? Does it look blurry/out of focus to you?

Yes, but some photographers are like the DT&I railroad...

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

I can no more draw and color a bell shape in PS than do a cartwheel.

Are you going to be in Lake Forest next weekend? If so, I expect to see some cartwheel attempts....after a few drinks, of course.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Originally Posted by SFO777

Well, Dennis, as I've said, I think this must just be solely a monitor issue. I still can't beleive it myself, as you've seen the picture of the picture as it appears on my monitor, but I guess we should consider the matter settled.

Did you see this picture? Does it look blurry/out of focus to you? This is another one I'm confused by:

Glad to hear it is settled!

Yes, Chase's shot is blurry. But it still works as a shot.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Are you going to be in Lake Forest next weekend? If so, I expect to see some cartwheel attempts....after a few drinks, of course.

Yes, I will be in Lake Forest Jim!

I will attempt cartwheels, sober or no, and fail.

You will attempt to take pictures, sober or no, of the campus buildings while standing on your head and we all get to critique how level the shots are.

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

Yes, Chase's shot is blurry. But it still works as a shot.

Well, I'll give him credit for going out in such foul weather...

[SFO777]

So this proves that neither the blurry photo nor the captain crunch photo are a fault of my monitor. I'm not crazy JRDC!!!!

It's heartening to know that RP accepts blurry photos. I think what got this one over the hump is the rain in the photo. I will go out and shoot next time it rains and try to get one on. It makes it a lot easier if these photos can be completely blurry especially when you're shooting in the rain--it's a pain to take phtoos with a tripod AND an umbrella AND trying to focus AND using the remote!!! A lot of people don't understand that it's very difficult to get everything right in a night photo like that--I think that may have played role in this blurry photo acceptance. Screeners know that contributors work hard and feel attachment to their work even with it's flaws. They obviously allow some imperfections to us in order that we be able to express ourselves artistrically and share our work with the RP community. After all, we provide all of their content and we do it for free. It's only right that they show some understanding to us re: difficult conditions or unusual approaches to rail photography.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Originally Posted by SFO777

It's only right that they show some understanding to us re: difficult conditions or unusual approaches to rail photography.

The only consideration that need be applied regarding the value of a photograph is whether or not it works. Generally, RP could give a hoot how hard it was to make the image; they only care if it is a good photo. And I agree with that.

Yes, our favorite photos are like our little babies and when we send them out into the world we are proud when they are accepted and devastated when not.

I am very much for letting your newest shots marinate a while. Then you can look at them more objectively. All the emotion, effort and memory of making the shot fades and you can be more accurate in your personal assessment.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by SFO777

So this proves that neither the blurry photo nor the captain crunch photo are a fault of my monitor. I'm not crazy JRDC!!!!

The extent of the Cap'tn Crunchiness of the effect is very much due to your monitor. Only in the screen captures you have provided has it been so evident.

It's heartening to know that RP accepts blurry photos.

At best, a gross overcharacterization. Occasionally a blurry shot will slip through, either due to other aspects of the image or due to screener lack of thoroughness. Saying "accepts" instead of "rarely accepts and even then, there may be no rational explanation why it happened" is, well, "crazy" comes to mind.

I think what got this one over the hump is the rain in the photo. I will go out and shoot next time it rains and try to get one on. It makes it a lot easier if these photos can be completely blurry especially when you're shooting in the rain--it's a pain to take phtoos with a tripod AND an umbrella AND trying to focus AND using the remote!!! A lot of people don't understand that it's very difficult to get everything right in a night photo like that--I think that may have played role in this blurry photo acceptance.

Good luck with that! I have seen enough rejects of nice photos with what I will call "weather blur" (Loyd, I've coined another one! ) to know it wont be so easy. "these photos can be completely blurry" HA HA HA

They obviously allow some imperfections to us in order that we be able to express ourselves artistrically and share our work with the RP community. After all, we provide all of their content and we do it for free. It's only right that they show some understanding to us re: difficult conditions or unusual approaches to rail photography.

Forget "crazy", how about INSANE !!! Seriously, things do get in, but, well, let's try to find a neutral way to put it. RP has a strong tendency towards limiting acceptances to shots that are, hmm, let's call it "technically thorough." Lacking in imperfections (yet at the same time, the screening can be annoyingly inconsistent in that regard!). I will leave it to other commentators to opine on "show some understanding" as, I would suggest, it is a controversial topic.

[a231pacific]

This entire discussion is why a lot of people have given up on RP. Too much concern about the technical details and not enough concern for artistic merit.
I like Dennis' shot and so did the screener.

The blooming effect in the sunset is a common result of pushing the highlight slider a bit further than works for all monitors. I used to edit on a CRT and found when I started editing on a LCD monitor, my images looked dark when I viewed them on my CRT monitor.

Regarding Chase's shot. He states that both trains were moving and clearly he chose a slow shutter speed to emphasize the falling snow/rain. A higher shutter speed might have made the trains sharper, but the snow/rain effect would have been lost. I think he managed a good compromise. In this case, it was nice to see the RP screener go for artistic merit. Hopefully they will extend the same courtesy to all members.

Michael Allen

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

The only consideration that need be applied regarding the value of a photograph is whether or not it works.

Hi Dennis,

I always cringe when I hear/read someone using this phrase. What is meant by "works?" Does that mean that it meets some set of written or perhaps unwritten criteria for generalized acceptance.....or does it just mean that someone happens to "like it?"

"Works" sounds like such a universal stamp of approval, but I think that when folks use the term, what they really mean is: "It works for me." Those two extra words take the term out of the realm of the OBjective, and place it firmly in the world of the SUBjective....which is right where it really lives, in my humble opinion.

[SFO777]

Well I think you have to have a set of criteria to explain, criticize, talk about train pictures. JRDC knows that, having posted a link to his nice commentaries on photos.

Of course Railpictures says that part of the bargain with the people who supply all of their content is receiving criticism from the screeners.

They can't just say "works, accepted" or "doesn't work, rejected". Because that would violate the bargain, wouldn't provide guidance to their content-providers, their content-farmers.

That's why to provide criticism, guidance, feedback they need the terms like "bad hue" "low aesthetic quality" "composition" etc. These help tell their readers-photographers--who both provide the content for free and consume the ads that pay the site's owners--how to improve their photography. It completes their side of the bargain. It is the good faith in the relationship.

Otherwise they are just vampires, demanding the best photos from their readers without offering really anything in return. They have to provide true workable feedback, and appear to do so.

Of course they can't spend all the time required to be real specific. That's why this forum. People can come here and the folks here will provide in-depth criticism and tips free of charge (brilliant, RP, wish I had thought of that!).

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Well, I'll give him credit for going out in such foul weather...

An umbrella works wonders.

[SFO777]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

The extent of the Cap'tn Crunchiness of the effect is very much due to your monitor. Only in the screen captures you have provided has it been so evident.

Didn't you see my photo of the two laptops? It shows it apparent in both of them. I think a poster below explains that it comes not from monitors but from the in-camera and pp choices. But only shows up on certain monitors...