Two Out Of Nine Ain't Bad

Joe the Photog · 12-31-2007, 03:48 PM

When I sublitted my first shot today, it was the 99th picture in the que. When it got screened, only 22 shots made the database. 22 out of 99. So far I'm one out of 4.

Joe

Joe the Photog · 12-31-2007, 03:51 PM

Here are two of my shots that didn't make it.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=463529&key=0
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=463528&key=0

I shot these last week. Probably took 20 shots in this area of rails and spikes including a spike on the track that was about to come out as a train psed over it. Only when I got home did I realize I had shot all of them on ISO 1600. I felt pretty dumb.

Time for a do-over.

Joe

Andrew Blaszczyk (2) · 12-31-2007, 04:15 PM

At least they were stationary objects and not once-in-a-lifetime chances!

I've shot an entire weekend at 800 so I know the feeling. BTW, I got a great idea for a shot when I read about the spike about to come out as trains pass. Now I gotta keep my eye out for one up here!

JRMDC · 12-31-2007, 09:22 PM

Joe, on the first one, the depth of field throws me off a bit. Behind the rail the ballast is all OOF, in front a good bit is in focus, seems out of balance overall. Also, the (over?) exposure makes the ballast bright and pulls the eyes away from the rail to some extent, especially up top.

J

rustyrail · 01-01-2008, 01:16 AM

Neither do much for me.

There are numerous shots of rail taken at the exact same angle here that have better lighting and are more interesting. As far as the second one- how about putting some thought into the composition? All I see is a close-up of a rusted spike that looks like feces shoved in my face. Or am I missing the symbolism? Even if the intent was avant-garde, it still looks like no thought went into the shot other than, "Look, here's an old rusty spike."

Joe the Photog · 01-01-2008, 01:19 AM

Hey, Rusty;

How might you shoot this old spike? It's embedded in rock and I did not want to move it. I'm OK with the rejection on both of these shots. I can go back later when the light is better and I know what ISO I'm shooting. But since you think the composition is so bad, I was hoping maybe you could enlighten me on how you would have done it.

Joe

rustyrail · 01-01-2008, 01:28 AM

I'll grant you it's a tough one since it's sitting in the ground, but I'd get down smack down on my stomach on the ground and attempt to show some depth of field by shooting it long ways with something in the background. I'm not sure if this was possible here because I cannot tell exactly where that was taken, because well, I'm staring right at the ground. Just because it's a spike embedded in the ground doesn't mean you can't show more of it's surroundings other than ballast. Also, use the texture of the rust to your advantage.

If nothing else would work, I'd move on and try something else. Secondly, if I all I could come up with was that, I wouldn't have bothered uploading it.

Joe the Photog · 01-01-2008, 01:39 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by rustyrail

I'll grant you it's a tough one since it's sitting in the ground, but I'd get down smack down on my stomach on the ground and attempt to show some depth of field by shooting it long ways with something in the background. I'm not sure if this was possible here because I cannot tell exactly where that was taken, because well, I'm staring right at the ground. Just because it's a spike embedded in the ground doesn't mean you can't show more of it's surroundings other than ballast. Also, use the texture of the rust to your advantage.

If nothing else would work, I'd move on and try something else. Secondly, if I all I could come up with was that, I wouldn't have bothered uploading it.

I do plan on going back at some point. I'll ty the ground level shot and see what I come up with.

Joe