Night/Snow Shots - Too Dark

[abr]

I have two rejected images from the other night that were taken early evening during a snow storm:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...32&key=9734721

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...53&key=2219605

Given the conditions, would going brighter have actually produced an exposure that would have made it acceptable for the screeners or were these just difficult conditions to get the right shot, especially given the type of equipment in the image? My concern on going brighter would be washing out a lot of the lighter details in the scene, taking away the luster of the stainless steel on the Arrow IIIs and making the images appear more like cloudy day shots than ones depicting an early evening snowfall setting.

For those with experience, are night shots depicting stainless steel equipment with little paint/decaling like this less likely to make it past the screeners with night shots because the equipment itself lacks vivid color?

Thanks in advance!

[miningcamper1]

Both look fine to me, although considering that the station lights are on, maybe they should be even darker.
If they were mine, they would already be on Flickr.
And I would not brighten them and I would consider it RP's loss.

[Joseph Cermak]

Doesn't look too dark to me, it looks like a good capture of what was really seen in that type of setting. RP seems to always want stuff like this brighter in my experience though.

[JRMDC]

Second one is not worth additional effort. It seems to been leveled somewhere near the left edge. But, it also appears to have focused on the very-near ballast, leaving much of the image not sharp at all. The green lump on the left is distracting, as is the red light fighting its way through. Overall, the light is blah.

the first one, I agree with both miningcamper and joseph. Also, the shot does not look sharp.

[ShortlinesUSA]

Going away (indicated by the red markers) could be an influencing factor, as well. I think MUs and cab cars are often a difficult sell with the screeners, so any technical flaws just have the shot rejected and they move on to the next one.

I concur the lighting is "as is" for the given situation. Brighten the image, and it'll look blown out IMO.

[Greg P]

I think Shortline may be correct. If you fix the lighting, they may ding you for the going away shot.

"Going Away" shots generally need someone extra in terms of the scene to get accepted.

[abr]

So based on everybody's feedback, I tried #1 again with a little brightness added and with a touch more sharpening and that did the trick:

PhotoID: 599381 Photograph © Adam Reich

I have gottten a few photos with Arrow IIIs accepted before, but this is the first "night" shot of them I've gotten through. Guess I'll just have to lean in favor of having the equipment a touch on what I might initially have thought was on the overly bright side when I try to submit night/sunrise/sunset shots with Arrow IIIs. At least this can serve as a reference point in trying to calibrate that balance.

Thanks everyone for the great advice!

[miningcamper1]

Glad they didn't force John to brighten this twilight shot...or did they?

PhotoID: 598673 Photograph © John Crisanti

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Glad they didn't force John to brighten this twilight shot...or did they?

I was going to use this exact photo as an example of how some people can get on any photo they want, while they nitpick the shit out of others...

[Joseph Cermak]

Originally Posted by troy12n

I was going to use this exact photo as an example of how some people can get on any photo they want, while they nitpick the shit out of others...

This is why I think photos should be screened on merit without the photographer's name present. Then it's more about the photo.

[John West]

Comments about whether a photo is too light or too dark, or whether there is foreground clutter are highly dependent on the photo's overall interest and artistic merit. Admittedly that is a judgement call, but that is what "good" photography is all about. What you like may be different from what I like, or what the screeners like. In this case the screeners' opinions are the only ones that matter. As somebody else pointed out this is the screeners' gallery, not our personal gallery. In both recent cases being discussed, I think the accepted images taken as a whole "work" and the rejected images less so. I don't think it has anything to do with the photographers name.

[John West]

Originally Posted by miningcamper1

Glad they didn't force John to brighten this twilight shot...or did they?

Well, whatever happened they picked it as a POTW. And I think very deserving.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by troy12n

I was going to use this exact photo as an example of how some people can get on any photo they want, while they nitpick the shit out of others...

Your opinion on this? Should I darken or lighten it before submitting?

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by John West

And I think very deserving.

I'd beg to differ, but I am an asshole. I normally delete subpar shots yet others do their editing voodoo and attempt to elevate them.

The quality here has taken the nose dive to where I almost yearn for more LTEX and derailment shots.

Loyd L.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Your opinion on this? Should I darken or lighten it before submitting?

Miles above and beyond the current POTW as it stands.

Loyd L.

[John West]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

I'd beg to differ, but I am an asshole.

I guess it is safe to say you don't like the shot. Can you expend on your comment about editing?

[ATSF666]

I'm not a fan of the digital grain on the POTW. There are plenty of cameras out there now that won't do that. I'd rather see some Tri-X grain if I'm going to see grain in a photo.