In Cab PAQ?

[Joe the Photog]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...25&key=4091123

Any thoughts?

[Mberry]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...25&key=4091123

Any thoughts?

Somewhat surprising as rp.net seems to love cab shots, but somehow it doesn't do it for me. I know not much choice, but photo is pretty cramped for one thing.

[adickson]

No ear plugs or safety glasses. I wonder if that may be a contributing factor.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by adickson

No ear plugs or safety glasses. I wonder if that may be a contributing factor.

Why would that be a contributing factor?

Is railpictures now the safety police?

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

If this is why, this would have been a great spot for a three word comment from the screener to take away all doubt -- "no safety vest"

That would take effort... got to commend RP administration for their increased involvement they promised. Guess the updated rejection reasons is enough to pacify the masses for the next year or 2?

I was going to throw my 2 cents in here and say I think they should rejected it for PIQ. Try a B&W conversion, it might look better, but I dont see it as-is

[Joe the Photog]

Crap. Could be. I didn't think about that. I shared this with the engineer last night and asked if he minded me posting here and to Flickr. If this is why, this would have been a great spot for a three word comment from the screener to take away all doubt -- "no safety vest"

It's a new rule if that's the case. Admittedly from five years ago --

PhotoID: 277641 Photograph © Joey Bowman

[CSX1702]

Is there seriously a rule about having a safety vest inside the cab?

I like it though. Should be in.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by CSX1702

Is there seriously a rule about having a safety vest inside the cab?

I like it though. Should be in.

As far as I know, the railroads dont even require them to have the vests on while they are operating the locomotive and in the cab...

[bigbassloyd]

I can't put my finger on it, but the shot just isn't working for me. Technically speaking, there's a fair amount of fine noise in the dark areas and on his left hand. The top two corners are pretty soft as well. That could be a lens related issue.

Loyd L.

[Harry Gaydosz]

Totally absurd if this was rejected due to no ear plugs or eye protection.
Now for dark and blurry on the other hand...

[miningcamper1]

99% of the screen team and 1% of the RP viewers are deeply concerned about the issues raised here.

[JRMDC]

I think the thread is getting carried away; there is no evidence here that work rules are the issue.

One thought that comes to mind is that maybe the screener doesn't care for the in-your-face hand and the large forearm.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

I think the thread is getting carried away; there is no evidence here that work rules are the issue.

One thought that comes to mind is that maybe the screener doesn't care for the in-your-face hand and the large forearm.

Maybe whomever screened it could speak up and speculation wouldnt be necessary. Like I said, I think personally the shot has other issues, but if they did reject it for the reasons speculated, that's ridiculous

[Freericks]

The picture is all engineer and not enough train. I think you needed a winder lens to get more of the cab and to make him smaller. (This is all in regards to framing.)

[B7BBQ]

Originally Posted by Freericks

The picture is all engineer and not enough train. I think you needed a winder lens to get more of the cab and to make him smaller. (This is all in regards to framing.)

Honestly, that's kind of how I felt as well. I've tried quite a few shots that were more like portraits of various railroad employees doing their job, and they've all been PAQ'd. When including humans, I generally try to think about if the shot would still work if the person wasn't in it.

[MagnumForce]

Originally Posted by B7BBQ

Honestly, that's kind of how I felt as well. I've tried quite a few shots that were more like portraits of various railroad employees doing their job, and they've all been PAQ'd. When including humans, I generally try to think about if the shot would still work if the person wasn't in it.

Well that doesn't work, sometimes the human makes the scene and without them you simply don't have a shot.

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

Well that doesn't work, sometimes the human makes the scene and without them you simply don't have a shot.

This is true - but there is a difference (perhaps just in the mind of the beholder) between an image of railroading with a human at the center of it and a picture of a human who happens to be railroading - and I see that is the difference in Joe's image... he caught the latter.

Now, is that easily defined, like had he been pulled out 10mm more to make the operating stand more prominent? Not really, but there is something there to that. It is more about capturing the interaction between man and machine than it is about capturing man.

[BobE]

Your subject is stiff, like he's enduring something worse than his last root canal. If you got him to loosen up, show a little personality, photo would improve hundredsfold.

[Mgoldman]

One screener simply didn't like it. That's the grounds enough for a rejection.

No rules and never mattered whether there is similar and worse in the database.

You can appeal and see if another screener likes it.

Personally, I don't like it either - looks either staged or posed, (even if not).

I'd have accepted it - it meets rules and guidelines in place and was nicely captured, the composition is nice, angle appealing, perfectly exposed and sharp, but again, this is RP - none of that seems to carry enough weight.

/Mitch

[Joe the Photog]

I'll look through other shots. Not staged or posed; train was rolling down the tracks. I am having lens issues though. Not sure why I chose to carry that one, but it's not in my bag anymore.

Is the attachment any better?

[MagnumForce]

Mitch, I respect the hell out of you but good god your black helicopter stuff gets old.

There are a lot of issues with this photo and it simply doesn't work in my eye. So instead of giving a long laundry list of items to fix and then someone getting pissed off when they fix each one and get another they give it a PAQ right off the bat.

Seems to me they are doing EXACTLY what you have wanted them to do all this time, flat out say we don't want this, don't waste our time.

Or we could make a ginourmous conspiracy theory out of the whole thing, I guess that is way more fun.

And Joe, not digging the second one either.

[Joe the Photog]

Originally Posted by MagnumForce

There are a lot of issues with this photo and it simply doesn't work in my eye.

Feel free to list them all. That was kinda the point of this thread.

[Mgoldman]

If it was a lens issue - don't you think they would tell you.

I mean it - don't you go ahead and think they would tell you - they won't. Lol.

PAQ I think is the call here - and perhaps because it simply looks staged. You can
be running down the track at speed and still have an uncomfortable look captured
when a person knows they are being photographed.

Or, it is soft, noisy and looks like it was taken by a cell phone. Yeah, that's it -
that seems to be the call with every photo that is ever rejected eventually.

/Mitch

[JRMDC]

Second one could be a worker handling a valve or other setting just about anywhere. Not obviously RR enough for my tastes.

From a non-RR perspective, no oomph in it, nothing that says "interesting".

[MagnumForce]

Color, Grain, Crop, Noise, Soft, Blurry, Angle, Exposure, Lighting.

I really dig your stuff, Joe and this is in no way representative of your work. The color noise in his shirt and face is really glaring, maybe has something to do with the image being dark and you trying to make something out of it?

[Joe the Photog]

So you're saying Wyatt would cuss at me and call me names if I posted this to his little FB group?



In any event, I'll put this one in my personal collection for the time being.