Old 10-18-2006, 11:32 PM   #1
Wonka001
Senior Member
 
Wonka001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Woods Cross, UT
Posts: 203
Default Rejected Cropping

The post:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=299066,

And the original (downscaled to fit).. Where would the best cropping be?
Attached Images
File Type: jpg UPWVC2.jpg (207.3 KB, 299 views)
__________________
Out of 93 pictures in one night I submit three, get one in, and forget about the rest..

Here is a show of my work here on RPN

Another place to look at pictures if there is more to photography than railroading http://www.picpublisher.com/referral/William_Grow
Wonka001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-18-2006, 11:36 PM   #2
Studogg120
Senior Member
 
Studogg120's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2006
Posts: 195
Default

It looks like there is a lot of space under the locomotives that you could get rid of.
Studogg120 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 12:10 AM   #3
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

It's almost a bad angle/composition because if you had moved 2-3 feet right of where you were standing, more of the train on the right would have been shown and the units in the foreground wouldn't have the red switch sign obscurring the second unit...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 12:12 AM   #4
becker
Louis Becker
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 390
Thumbs up

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonka001
The post:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=299066,

And the original (downscaled to fit).. Where would the best cropping be?
Stuart is correct; there is too much dead space on the bottom of the image that takes away from the focus directly on the train. Once you crop out some of that dead space, the photo should look good.

I have attached a sample image which you can use if you like.

--Louis Becker
Attached Images
File Type: jpg UPWVC2.jpg (178.5 KB, 298 views)
becker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 12:15 AM   #5
becker
Louis Becker
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 390
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween
It's almost a bad angle/composition because if you had moved 2-3 feet right of where you were standing, more of the train on the right would have been shown and the units in the foreground wouldn't have the red switch sign obscurring the second unit...
You would then have the shadows on the train on the right as a distraction. In a case like this, it seems better to balance the amount of each train shown in the image. As he did.
becker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 12:31 AM   #6
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by becker
You would then have the shadows on the train on the right as a distraction. In a case like this, it seems better to balance the amount of each train shown in the image. As he did.
That's an interpretation, but the shadow is still there in the current shot. 2 to 3 feet right wouldn't make that big of a difference with the shadow but would make a whole lot of difference with the red switch sign and the fact that there would be some space between the lead units of each train. The train on the right would still be in full sun too...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 01:29 AM   #7
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Senior Member
 
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 1,956
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Blaszczyk (2) Send a message via Yahoo to Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ween
That's an interpretation, but the shadow is still there in the current shot. 2 to 3 feet right wouldn't make that big of a difference with the shadow but would make a whole lot of difference with the red switch sign and the fact that there would be some space between the lead units of each train. The train on the right would still be in full sun too...
BINGO!!! I was about to respond with my thoughts before I read your post, Ween, but you nailed it. At first, I didn't realize there were two trains. I just though there was a light engine on the left track. The angle is awkward and the 2-4 feet would have easily solved that. I also didn't notice the 'flowers' at the bottom of the photo which I think could have livend (sp?) up the photo if shot from a lower angle. Just my input.
__________________
-Andrew Blaszczyk a.k.a. AB(2)
Proud fan of the Sabres, Islanders, Rockies, and Lions.

"My camera is an artistic medium, not a tool of terrorism."

www.ab2photography.com Coming soon!
My photos on RailPictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=960
Andrew Blaszczyk (2) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 01:34 AM   #8
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Senior Member
 
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 1,956
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Blaszczyk (2) Send a message via Yahoo to Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Default

I attached how I would crop the photo, if I had been cemented to the ground in that spot.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg UPWVC2.jpg (220.2 KB, 278 views)
__________________
-Andrew Blaszczyk a.k.a. AB(2)
Proud fan of the Sabres, Islanders, Rockies, and Lions.

"My camera is an artistic medium, not a tool of terrorism."

www.ab2photography.com Coming soon!
My photos on RailPictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=960
Andrew Blaszczyk (2) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 02:16 AM   #9
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,895
Default

I think Ween and Andrew pretty much spoke for me. The only thing I would add is that from this vantage point, the train on the right kinda seems to be protruding from the train on the left. Instead of it being two trains side by side, it looks kinda awkward to me.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 02:25 AM   #10
Chris Starnes
Administrator
 
Chris Starnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 927
Default

I would tend to agree with the cropping/angle comments to this point.

WGrow:

This is a bit off topic but is this the large yard just south of the SLC airport? Last week while on approach to SLC I noticed a large intermodal facility....just curious if this was it or not. Thanks!
__________________
Chris Starnes
Co-Editor, RailPictures.net
Chris Starnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 02:42 AM   #11
Wonka001
Senior Member
 
Wonka001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Woods Cross, UT
Posts: 203
Default

As a matter of fact Chris, that is what you saw. (now don't go gettin any ideas about treading on my territory.. j/k) If the timing is right along those lines, you could get a good shot of a jet flying over a train, because the jets fly low there. But as in all good photos, you have to be at the right place at the right time, and my luck so far, hasn't been so good. But that's a busy, line, so I can go over there and see what I can conjure up.

On the note of the shot in question, I was standing on a fence post (about 1 foot diameter) a few feet off the road, any more to the left/right would have put me down in those weeds/flowers you see in the forground. Any closer (more into the yard up on the tracks) would have put me in harms way and on private property, not that standing on that fence post was private property.. but..
__________________
Out of 93 pictures in one night I submit three, get one in, and forget about the rest..

Here is a show of my work here on RPN

Another place to look at pictures if there is more to photography than railroading http://www.picpublisher.com/referral/William_Grow
Wonka001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 03:29 AM   #12
a231pacific
Senior Member
 
a231pacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Walt,

Given the constraints in taking the photo, Andrew's crop is probably about the best you can do. Keep the flowers in the foreground!

Have you considered bringing a step ladder to stand on? Don't know what you drive, but even a three step ladder would help. A friend who railfans in his pickup always keeps a six foot step ladder in the bed. He gets some great shots that way.

Michael Allen
a231pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 04:51 AM   #13
Chris Starnes
Administrator
 
Chris Starnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 927
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Wonka001
As a matter of fact Chris, that is what you saw. (now don't go gettin any ideas about treading on my territory.. j/k) If the timing is right along those lines, you could get a good shot of a jet flying over a train, because the jets fly low there. But as in all good photos, you have to be at the right place at the right time, and my luck so far, hasn't been so good. But that's a busy, line, so I can go over there and see what I can conjure up.
Cool...thanks. We were rather high when we crossed it but with some lower approaches you may be able to get a neat shot...similar to some of the Bensonville, IL shots with landing O'Hare traffic.
__________________
Chris Starnes
Co-Editor, RailPictures.net
Chris Starnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-19-2006, 03:41 PM   #14
Wonka001
Senior Member
 
Wonka001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Woods Cross, UT
Posts: 203
Default

The train on the left kind of caught me by surprise, I thought the train on the right was going to leave first, but the train on the left showed up around the corner.

I'll have to start carrying my ladder with me when I go out, I know there are places where I would like to get some higher profile shots but woudn't be able to unless I had a ladder under me.

here's an interesting note on that photo, that I didn't realize until after upload was the lead engines on the two different trains are numbered in consecutive order. Maybe I'll play around with it and see if I can come up with something better.. I appreciate all the advise and the tips on this one. thanks everyone.

-edit- I don't think the intermodal facility is in West Valley City, but in Salt Lake, I'm going to have to do some more research and find out what uprr calls it. - end edit-
__________________
Out of 93 pictures in one night I submit three, get one in, and forget about the rest..

Here is a show of my work here on RPN

Another place to look at pictures if there is more to photography than railroading http://www.picpublisher.com/referral/William_Grow

Last edited by Wonka001; 10-19-2006 at 03:53 PM.
Wonka001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2006, 01:23 AM   #15
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Looks like having space between the two trains worked...it gives the same effect as having been a few feet to the right since the train on the left is farther to the left than the rejected shot...and the shadow between them is not all that distracting...

Image © WGrow
PhotoID: 162479
Photograph © WGrow
__________________

Last edited by Ween; 10-25-2006 at 01:26 AM.
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2006, 01:46 AM   #16
socalrailfan
Master Railfan
 
socalrailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Riverside, CA
Posts: 714
Default

Am I missing something here? Who took the second photo and I'm guessing it's from the same spot at the same time?
__________________
Thanks,
Dave
www.SoCalRailFan.com
See more of my train photos at:
http://community.webshots.com/user/firehouse16
See my train videos at:
http://www.youtube.com/profile?user=SoCalRailFan
socalrailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2006, 01:58 AM   #17
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by socalrailfan
Am I missing something here? Who took the second photo and I'm guessing it's from the same spot at the same time?
The same guy, WGrow/Wonka001. Apparently he had a better angle in his collection which got accepted...I just posted the accepted shot to close the loop on this thread (I wasn't sure if he was going to post a "Hey, this angle got accepted" reply or not)...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2006, 09:30 PM   #18
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,895
Default

I didn't even notice the numbers -- 4449 and 4450. Nice catch.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 10-25-2006, 11:13 PM   #19
Wonka001
Senior Member
 
Wonka001's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Location: Woods Cross, UT
Posts: 203
Default

I wasn't going to say anything, because I wasn't going to boast myself up on this one, but I guess it did need some closure.. so.. yeah I got a variated version (a couple seconds earlier) of the original reject, it was made it into the database.
Thanks for all the advise and help. it does help to have a good digital camera where you can snap away, just in case the one you thought would be best isn't..

Of course I did open up a new thread in the off topic forums about consecutive ordered engines in one shot.. http://www.railpictures.net/forums/s...ead.php?t=4390
__________________
Out of 93 pictures in one night I submit three, get one in, and forget about the rest..

Here is a show of my work here on RPN

Another place to look at pictures if there is more to photography than railroading http://www.picpublisher.com/referral/William_Grow

Last edited by Wonka001; 10-25-2006 at 11:15 PM.
Wonka001 is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:21 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.