The difference the icing on the cake makes, lol (NKP #765)

[Mgoldman]

Awesome and mediocre - lol (or in Glenn's case - "sigh").

So - I have to admit to liking Jeremy's shot a little better - warmer, a little more contrast in the plume and maybe a marginally better angle.

But Jeeze... ! Fickle, aren't we!

So - what was the icing - warmth? angle? contrast? Or, front page? Likely all of the above. Worth noting - Jeremy's pic was the "same as previous" shot. Thanks to admin for letting it (slip) in. Again, can't have the best on the 'net if you only accept the first on the 'net. Glenn - bet you could take a fresh and perhaps welcome look at your edit.

PhotoID: 456739 Photograph © Jeremy Lowth

As of the time this thread was created: 39 favorites

PhotoID: 456555 Photograph © Glenn Davis

As of the time this thread was created: 9 favorites

/Mitch


PS - Been there, done that - always nice to have someone "proof edit" your shot. Even if he /she steals the glory (on RP). Happens often especially in the photo charter world.

[bigbassloyd]

I'm fine with both edits. One went warm, one didn't. I bet both were happy with their shot.

I hope Glen finds a way to go on after losing a chance at e-fame temporality.

Loyd L.

[JRMDC]

I had only seen Jeremy's shot. Looking at the thumbnails now, I'd say Jeremy's has a more interesting plume, because of the greater mix of grays in the white.

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I hope Glen finds a way to go on after losing a chance at e-fame temporality

[JRMDC]

Me (no SC):

PhotoID: 341929 Photograph © Janusz Mrozek

Chase (close to "same as previous" 6 months later, SC):

PhotoID: 361239 Photograph © Chase Gunnoe

I happen to prefer Chase's a bit more than mine. I vaguely recall having made this comparison in these forums before.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

I had only seen Jeremy's shot. Looking at the thumbnails now, I'd say Jeremy's has a more interesting plume, because of the greater mix of grays in the white.

They are truly not identical shots, although very close.

The difference is angle and elevation. I too prefer Jeremy's because of the angle and higher elevation he shot at. And the processing is better, or at least more to my liking. Even though there is a slight halo on the front right edge (viewer left) of the locomotive, especially prevalent in the area of the pilot.

They both deserve to be on.

[Mgoldman]

"That shot is soooo 2010", lol.

PhotoID: 339463 Photograph © Mitch Goldman

20 favorites

PhotoID: 455332 Photograph © Mitch Goldman

2 favorites.


/Mitch

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

I happen to prefer Chase's a bit more than mine. I vaguely recall having made this comparison in these forums before.

His is sharp, yours is soft. His shot just pops more.

[Holloran Grade]

This one is tone mapped (HDR'd) which is why the plume is much more interesting.

PhotoID: 456739 Photograph © Jeremy Lowth

It is a bit sharp on the front, and has a couple of hot pixels that I guess past as birds or debris.

[Freericks]

I think that somewhere between the two shots would be better. Jeremy's shot looks fake to me. Glenn's looks a tad blown out.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

"That shot is soooo 2010", lol.

Old luggage cart >> modern bicycle.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by JimThias

His is sharp, yours is soft. His shot just pops more.

Sharpness, maybe. But yes on the pop, and I think that is driven by his having a black sky and more black generally, so more contrast.

If I fix mine now and reupload, can I have my 10k views and my SC ????

[bigbassloyd]

His is sharper, J . Chase will forgo other things (noise, etc.) to assure sharpness. It's his driving passion.

Loyd L.

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by Freericks

I think that somewhere between the two shots would be better. Jeremy's shot looks fake to me. Glenn's looks a tad blown out.

Bingo, Charles! I totally agree. Glenn's shot looks just a tad bright. Maybe not blown out, but a bit bright. Either a slight reduction in brightness or perhaps a click or two on the highlights slider would really make a difference in his version.

On the other hand, Jeremy went just a bit too far on the highlights slider for my liking. Yes, the plume looks dramatic, but it also doesn't look real. I see a lot of steam engines with great plumes but truthfully, Glenn's is closer to reality than Jeremy's.

One of the advantages of digital photography is that we all get to do our own "darkroom", allowing us to customize the image to our own tastes. Some prefer to dramatize, while others prefer to realize. In the end, there is no right or wrong, but the views may tell us which take the majority prefer. From my experience, I think most viewers tend to go for the dramatic vs. the realistic.

Here is another example of two takes on the same scene:

By Dave Taylor, the professional photographer who provides the lighting for many night shoots on the Colorado Narrow Gauge:

PhotoID: 453758 Photograph © Dave Taylor

And mine:

PhotoID: 456934 Photograph © Kevin Madore

Dave elected to go dramatically vertical and did not correct for perspective to accentuate that look. He also went brighter and warmer than I did. I tried to make mine as much like my eye saw it and my first attempt got rejected for being too dark. Of course it was very dark! Can't argue with Dave's results. Over 4500 views, 8 comments and 55 favorites. Mine just posted overnight, but I think I can assure you that it probably won't cover 700 views in 24 hrs. As noted above, I think the majority of our audience prefers a little more drama.

Drama vs. realism.....art vs. documentation. This is one of the things that I find fascinating about photography.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

His is sharper, J . Chase will forgo other things (noise, etc.) to assure sharpness. It's his driving passion.

Loyd L.

I should have been clearer. Yes, Chase's is sharper. My "maybe" revolves around what contributes to the RP-success of a shot. I would say it is his better contrast, and a bit better engine positioning which reduces the feel of the artificiality of the light, less of the frame being covered with artificially lit metal surfaces. I think that has much more to do with his "pop" than his sharpness does.

[JRMDC]

Views come from thumbnails. Dave's may have a sense of -what the heck is that - that might attract some clicks. Of course, the comments and favorites are done when viewing the full image. We don't know the extent to which he is linking, of course, and for that matter linking is not necessarily the primary drive. (My recent WMSR/street rod cars shot got over 100 FB linked views, but since it is over 3000 after just a couple of days, the FB exposure is not the primary driver.)

My personal preference is for yours, Kevin, as his is weirdly compressed at the bottom, the perspective lines are weirdly tight - past drama to off-putting - and the sky is a nice field of stars but is not strong enough to justify the amount of frame space allotted to it. But that is one personal preference.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

I should have been clearer. Yes, Chase's is sharper. My "maybe" revolves around what contributes to the RP-success of a shot. I would say it is his better contrast, and a bit better engine positioning which reduces the feel of the artificiality of the light, less of the frame being covered with artificially lit metal surfaces. I think that has much more to do with his "pop" than his sharpness does.

I definitely think sharpness contributes to "pop." A good example is the difference above between Dave's and Kevin's photos. Kevin's, being much sharper, has that pop to it that Dave's doesn't.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by KevinM

Drama vs. realism.....art vs. documentation. This is one of the things that I find fascinating about photography.

I'll take your realism vs. his art, since yours is sharp and his is soft.

[bigbassloyd]

Dave did a much better job at capturing the milky way, so I prefer his.



But I'm biased towards stars and galaxies.

Loyd

[CSX1702]

Originally Posted by KevinM

And mine:

For the record, I like yours better. Like you said, you were going for more of "real" look and that's what I've always liked. I also love how the sky in yours has more of a "blue night" feeling to it.

[MagnumForce]

I think when it is uploaded makes all the difference, too.

[Chase55671]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

His is sharper, J . Chase will forgo other things (noise, etc.) to assure sharpness. It's his driving passion.

Loyd L.

I would like to formally hire you as my official PR speaker.

I'll give you a salary increase of 50% from your current salary. It's a good deal, and I'd love to talk details.

PM me please.



Chase

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Dave did a much better job at capturing the milky way, so I prefer his.

But I'm biased towards stars and galaxies.

Loyd

Now THAT is a photo of the MW that I can appreciate. That's excellent!

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Now THAT is a photo of the MW that I can appreciate. That's excellent!

I would be curious to know how one makes something like that.

[Mgoldman]

Chase's shot has more contrast and is also sharper both foreground and background.

As for your FB link only providing about a 100 links relative to 3000 or so to date, you only need enough whored views to bump you onto the front page. Seems a good percentage of the RP audience will only click a photo on the front page.

*

Kevin - what assurances will you give us that you will not hit 700 views in 24 hours? You're at 650 with some 3.5 hours to go! You want views? Link or get lucky on your timing - or don't be unlucky, lol. Views, shmiews, look at the favorites and comments to gauge interest. Of course, you need those views to get those... Too bad admin has not taken the suggestion to put a top favorite on the front page vs only most lin... um, popular.

No disrespect to Charles - but, your steam and star image apparently can not hold a candle (in view count) to his offering:

PhotoID: 456937 Photograph © Charles J Freericks

I like your image vs Dave's, BTW. Dave should do a "V-8" thump on the head when he sees yours and re-edit for temperature. Way too warm. Perspective correctly is likely not possible - assuming he did not have a wide enough lens or a good enough wide angle. Looks tight as is, correction might entail cropping what he wanted to keep.

He's got you on the Milkyway. Your shot is great but your no... I mean, you did not catch the Milkway Galaxy which was there to capture. Time to toss that crappy D4 and get a better camera, lol. Or choose your compromise.

*

Me - New Hope depot - I think it was new then, an old composition now, though the cart is a plus. I'll bring that shot back, you wait!

*

Loyd - kind of curious myself! How on Earth did you do that? Specifically, I always thought (wrong or right) that the Milkyway was seen vertically in the sky, and I'm impressed that you captured it under 45 seconds, I'll assume, otherwise there would likely have been star trails.

/Mitch

[bigbassloyd]

11mm on a crop body and a series of 9 vertical images of 45 seconds each from Northeast to Southwest during the early Summer, while it's still relatively low in the sky.

Location has a big part of it too, as I head into dark sky territory (Class 2 on the Bortle scale) at an elevation in excess of 4500 feet AMSL for my best Milky Way photos.

I Love WV.

Loyd L.