Game rules for "foreground clutter"

[Daniel SIMON]

Sometimes I find it hard to understand why the rules of the game for "foreground clutter" can vary from one member to another. I have choosen these two examples, but I could have found others.

REJECTED:
https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...21&key=9162581

ACCEPTED:

PhotoID: 724878 Photograph © Ddrennenphoto

PhotoID: 725350 Photograph © Ddrennenphoto

[miningcamper1]

PhotoID: 725163 Photograph © Tom Farence

I won't repeat what I said when I saw this one!

[bigbassloyd]

Your rejected image is the textbook definition of obstruction. The grass, tree, house, fence, etc. is not supporting the composition. The shot could easily be cropped to lose the left third of the image and not lose anything.

The first image you linked, while highly obstructing to the locomotive, does have composition interest to it. Not sure it deserves a spot here because of that however. I can understand why the second image was accepted because the foreground blur does offer more support to the composition in a panning shot.

So in conclusion, The screener(s) do whatever they see fit and we just accept it or move on. Judging by the site activity over the last couple years, the latter seems prevalent.

Loyd L.

[Daniel SIMON]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Your rejected image is the textbook definition of obstruction. The grass, tree, house, fence, etc. is not supporting the composition. The shot could easily be cropped to lose the left third of the image and not lose anything.

The first image you linked, while highly obstructing to the locomotive, does have composition interest to it. Not sure it deserves a spot here because of that however. I can understand why the second image was accepted because the foreground blur does offer more support to the composition in a panning shot.

So in conclusion, The screener(s) do whatever they see fit and we just accept it or move on. Judging by the site activity over the last couple years, the latter seems prevalent.

Loyd L.

Many thanks for your comments Loyd. How would you judge this one ?

PhotoID: 725368 Photograph © Bill Edgar

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by Daniel SIMON

Many thanks for your comments Loyd. How would you judge this one ?

This unit is not moving so that is only view available short of a weed wacker plus the weeds supplement the abandoned story so I am OK with it.

As far as yours, given the type of line it is I consider weeds part of expected scene which is pleasant so could be accepted.

I am not a fan of posing tractors, cars, cute kids etc in front of subject or backsides of fans taking photos(ok for your loca show) but will own up to this one which was complete serendipity.

PhotoID: 589896 Photograph © Robert Jordan

Bob

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by Daniel SIMON

Many thanks for your comments Loyd. How would you judge this one ?

The weeds do support the composition as it lends credence to it being an abandoned / broken / forgotten locomotive that hasn't moved in some time. I would have probably accepted it.

Loyd L.

[Grewup on the CW]

Originally Posted by RobJor

This unit is not moving so that is only view available short of a weed wacker plus the weeds supplement the abandoned story so I am OK with it.

As far as yours, given the type of line it is I consider weeds part of expected scene which is pleasant so could be accepted.

I am not a fan of posing tractors, cars, cute kids etc in front of subject or backsides of fans taking photos(ok for your loca show) but will own up to this one which was complete serendipity.



Bob

Just cannot go wrong with a classic Mustang (sorry Chevy lovers, umm not), especially one like this that appears to have been maliciously restored. The train still holds it own.

To the OP - Loyd hit the nail on the head. Weeds in general is gonna kill a "normal" pic especially a loco that is in operation while something that is abandon or rusting away that may hold historical significance will get a pass.

[need2foam]

I like this one:

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/727800/

PhotoID: 727800 Photograph © Doug Boudrow

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by need2foam

I like this one:

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/727800/

In this case, the fallen tree is part of the story. Otherwise, it would be another run-of-the-mill head-on shot. I'm OK with it.

[RobJor]

With the emphasis on quality photos I find it interesting to look at top of last week:
1) a drone shot of tie plates and a yellow thing
2) scrunched up shot(as viewed in top shots) with an odd format of a tree fallen over
3) backsides of a bunch of guys in green vests.

While I understand somewhat the why they are top shots, I chuckle when people bad rap other venues.

Bob

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by RobJor

With the emphasis on quality photos I find it interesting to look at top of last week:

2) scrunched up shot(as viewed in top shots) with an odd format of a tree fallen over


While I understand somewhat the why they are top shots, I chuckle when people bad rap other venues.

Bob

WRT that #2 shot, it seems that the home page displays of Top Shots, SCs, PoTW, To24, etc. don't properly handle vertical format shots. The taller and narrower, the more distorted they look. I'm sure Chris K. could probably wax poetic about the technical challenges associated with that. For that reason, I tend to REALLY avoid submitting verticals, unless the shot is really compelling and a reasonable-looking landscape crop just isn't possible.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by KevinM

For that reason, I tend to REALLY avoid submitting verticals, unless the shot is really compelling and a reasonable-looking landscape crop just isn't possible.

I do the same thing, but what I find interesting is that railroad verticals usually sell better than landscapes (for me anyhow)

Loyd L.

[Joseph Cermak]

Not to be that guy but....

PhotoID: 728424 Photograph © Mark Turkovich

[Daniel SIMON]

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak

Not to be that guy but....

Really nice weeds !!

[RobJor]

I don't have a problem with above photo but is V2.0 or 3.0. I have this odd vision of several people crouched behind this small clump of grass vying for position.

On another note, I understand SC selections to some extent featuring creativity but question the value of a fixation on backlit photos with a train somewhere in the background. Today 3 out of 3. In my world view you might want to include some variety plus encourage other types of photography.

Bob

[KevinM]

Originally Posted by RobJor

I don't have a problem with above photo but is V2.0 or 3.0. I have this odd vision of several people crouched behind this small clump of grass vying for position.

Amen! I had exactly the same mental picture, when V2.0 and V3.0 suddenly appeared several months after the first one got the SC/PoTW/PCA. IMHO, V1.0 was the best, by far. It's not always that the first of several similar photos is the best, but that was the case this time.

[bigbassloyd]

Gotta have something on the main page, and from my standpoint the volume (or lack thereof) of incoming material is making it a bit harder to do so.

Loyd L.

[TedG]

PhotoID: 728424 Photograph © Mark Turkovich

Strikes me as being "unbalanced", although it's nothing that 2 or 3 additional watermarks, in the upper half of the frame, couldn't rectify.
/Ted

[miningcamper1]

Originally Posted by TedG

Strikes me as being "unbalanced", although it's nothing that 2 or 3 additional watermarks, in the upper half of the frame, couldn't rectify.
/Ted

Ah yes, watermarks.
I seem to recall RP had a rule against large, distracting watermarks (except their own, of course!)
Smaller and fewer is better!

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Gotta have something on the main page, and from my standpoint the volume (or lack thereof) of incoming material is making it a bit harder to do so.

Loyd L.

Deleted Loyd, LOL.


Bob

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by RobJor

Deleted Loyd, LOL.


Bob

Did I miss a funny from you Bob?

It was probably true.

Loyd L.

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd

Did I miss a funny from you Bob?

It was probably true.

Loyd L.

Not a funny, Congratulations on your Screeners Choice.

Bob

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by RobJor

Not a funny, Congratulations on your Screeners Choice.

Bob

Thank ya sir!

Loyd L.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by TedG

Strikes me as being "unbalanced", although it's nothing that 2 or 3 additional watermarks, in the upper half of the frame, couldn't rectify.
/Ted

Unbalanced...and pointlessly contrived.

[miningcamper1]

Yet another!

PhotoID: 729454 Photograph © Alex Gillman