Which type of PEQ II - or why the inconsistency? - Page 2

miningcamper1 · 05-29-2015, 02:48 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias

The cones...why did he leave the cones...............

Hmmm....If we're losing the cones, maybe lose some of that foreground gravel as well? And brighten those drivers a bit?

MagnumForce · 05-29-2015, 03:59 AM

You want museum car rosters, that is what rrpa is for. Just my opinion. YMMV and inconsistency with a real policy here appears to be an issue.

I have no interest at all in this stuff or basically anything parked inside some pole barn and while it has a place, I am just not sure that this is it.

I must say though, the stuff Dennis linked is far far far far more visually appealing than the stuff Mitch linked.

Mgoldman · 05-29-2015, 02:30 PM

Thanks Brent.

You cut straight to the chase - consistency.

Admin's comment was most welcomed. "We do not need a roster shot of every single piece of equipment a museum has" implies my shots may have been acceptable individually but perhaps not as a collection. I understand and can appreciate admin's view but on the other hand, it endorses the concept of inconsistent screening.

If RP stopped accepting wrecks, Darwin's, news shots and dull nondescript photos of class 1 railroads, I'd agree with you that rrpa would be the place for museum roster shots as well.

On the other hand, I think RP is an asset to the hobby and to preservationists acting as a one stop source for screened and easily searchable images. I thought the image was good enough based on it's interest, uniqueness and caption info. Maybe it was. Maybe it still can be. If not, maybe someone will be fortunate enough to capture those two cars in better conditions in the future.

/Mitch

wds · 05-29-2015, 11:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Looks like RP management is less than enthusiastic about rolling stock roster shots.

Not even considering the subject matter and RP's noted lack of enthusiasm over non-locomotive shots (thinking back to some of the MofW shots I've had to fight to get accepted which ultimately ended up being well received by the patrons) the shot falls flat in the lighting - or perhaps it's the processing - and that ain't doing it any favors. Compare the vibrancy of the accepted image - even blocking out the bright orange loco - with the dullness of the rejected one. Not only does the car have a "flat" feel to it's tonality, but even the roof trusses are dull in comparison. Now I'm not saying that it would have been accepted had it a bit more life to it, but it may have had a slightly better chance. That's what struck me first off anyway.
FWIW i too am grateful of your attention to this museum which I'd never heard of previously.

Mgoldman · 05-29-2015, 11:40 PM

W.D. Shaw - I concur, thanks.

I believe on it's own, it may have slipped in. Within a group, it (they) were both the least visually appealing of the bunch.

My train of the thought, however, was thinking - it's good enough. While I do not strive for "good enough", the photo was as good as it was going to get with the exception of the roof trusts - I'll admit, I got lazy and hand held the shot at a high ISO.

For context, however, I would assume these were accepted for reasons other then visual appeal.

PhotoID: 532471
Photograph © Steve Patterson

PhotoID: 532358
Photograph © Chris Wallace

Even on RP, it would seem there are times when visual appeal can be overlooked in favor of context. Question is, would either of these photographers had any luck submitting multiples of similar but different images in such short succession? I'm guessing not - yet individually, I think so. Catch 22.

/Mitch

Dennis A. Livesey · 05-30-2015, 04:11 AM

This one has tremendous visual appeal.

PhotoID: 532471
Photograph © Steve Patterson

It is very unusual in that the car is upright, looking normal but is sitting on dirt.

RobJor · 05-30-2015, 01:05 PM

Looking at the two above -
Visual appeal vs Visual interest.

Maybe a distinction without a difference but I view many because I want to want to know what, where not because I think that is a wonderful or even a good photo and I make a distinction(smile) between technically good and good.

http://www.railpictures.net/photo/532607

Here is a recent one with both but of course if you park an old car ......

Bob Jordan

MagnumForce · 05-31-2015, 03:46 AM

I find both of those shots very interesting. The fish car, not at all.

Mgoldman · 05-31-2015, 04:11 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

I find both of those shots very interesting. The fish car, not at all.

You should favorite each one, and then leave a comment to thank the photographer and inspire others to consider posting similar photos that seem to be of interest to you.

Funny - if the "fish" car was outside and well lit it would likely be accepted in a flash - as were the others in what appear to be a nicely received series. In the end, however, the "fish car" would still be a dull subject with a fascinating back story.

/Mitch

RobJor · 05-31-2015, 12:43 PM

I have to say growing up around Chicago every school kid got to the Shedd several times so I found it interesting and I remember reading about it tho didn't know where its was now. Getting out of Catholic School back in the 60's was a big deal, we didn't get too many teacher institute days or field trips.
Of course Science and Industry was much more a favorite. Wonder tho if the car were from another part of country.

Bob