Has RP eased up on PS?

[adickson]

Been awhile since I've posted. I noticed the POTW has a rough rain addition. One of the many tattle tales being the top and bottom edges. Neat shot, nevertheless.

Which leads to my question. In my absence, has RP kind of eased back on Photoshop modification?

[JimThias]

Sure does look fake, eh? And long streaks of rain at 1/800? Hmmm...

Pouring rain at 1/640:

PhotoID: 499546 Photograph © John Doughty

And 1/400:

PhotoID: 506403 Photograph © Chip Allen

And 1/320:

PhotoID: 520936 Photograph © Martin Bennet

Streaks of rain at 1/125:

PhotoID: 523948 Photograph © Charles Daniel

And why are the rain streaks so evenly lit across the entire frame? Also, with it being that gloomy, shouldn't there be rain drops being illuminated by the headlight beams way out in front of the loco?

[EMTRailfan]

Maybe it was a special filter that came from the same place as the blur filter that someone spoke of on here some time ago???

[jdirelan87]

Wow, I'm embarrassed I missed it. Now that Jim point's it out (as did Mitch in comments), what a brutally obvious photoshop job.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by EMTRailfan

Maybe it was a special filter that came from the same place as the blur filter that someone spoke of on here some time ago???

This rain shot is a lot like the fake snow photo of the Canadian Pacific train in Sturtevant, WI., from a few years ago. That was promptly taken down once the admin was notified of the fakery.

[JRMDC]

Image camera settings from EXIF: 1/800 f/10 ISO 800
equivalent settings: 1/400 f/7.1 ISO 200

The latter is a reasonably bright sun setting, no? How do you shoot dark rain conditions at these settings? Maybe using a 3-stop ND filter to lengthen shutter speed? Wait, that makes no sense, that's backwards. I'm confused. Tired, so maybe not thinking clearly.

PS: I am not making any accusation here, I just don't understand the numbers.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

equivalent settings: 1/400 f/7.1 ISO 200

The latter is a reasonably bright sun setting, no?

1/400, f7.1 and ISO 200 in "bright sun" would be a bit overexposed.

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by JimThias

This rain shot is a lot like the fake snow photo of the Canadian Pacific train in Sturtevant, WI., from a few years ago. That was promptly taken down once the admin was notified of the fakery.

They need notified? My 8 year old figured it out in about 5 seconds.

When you can't take a great photo, just make one I guess...

Loyd L.

[nikos1]

I figured there was no way that was real but didnt feel like calling it out, even without the fake rain it was overprocessed.

[Mgoldman]

Sigh...

http://www.photoshopessentials.com/photo-effects/rain/

RP really needs a sister site - Illustrations and creative edits - DOT COM.

William's other work is good, and he's local to me so I'm happy to see him contribute though I think it's time for RP to enforce some rules going forward, or perhaps, once again.

Now - if there were to be a sister site allowing creative edits - would anyone ever come to the original site again? I've seen some amazing edits and HDR's on FB as well as FLICKR and other's personal sites which unfortunately elect to remain vague about what is real and what is not. Lot's of pans out there, lol.

Then again - there are red skies like I've never in my life seen on RP.

Would be nice to have at least one place on the Web grounded in reality, as much fun as a fantasy site would also be.

/Mitch

[KevinM]

I'm not particularly good at shooting in the rain, but I have learned a thing or two. If the shutter speed is much more than 1/250th, the rain no longer looks nice and streaky. Instead, you see the individual raindrops, and there is not much to convey motion. It is akin to photographing a helicopter or turboprop aircraft at a high shutter speed. The resulting image just looks strange. Jacking the ISO and stopping down helps as well.

Rain and snow seldom look uniform, like the blurred noise depicted in the link that Mitch sent. Droplets or flakes closer to the lens will look quite different than ones that are farther away. As someone else pointed out, your ability to see them in the image depends upon where you look in the image. If you look at this one of mine, the rain is most apparent when the background is dark, such as the locomotive tender:

PhotoID: 503816 Photograph © Kevin Madore

It is much harder to see in the lighter areas of the image. Headlights and well-lit smooth surfaces in the foreground will also highlight the rain streaks and the impact splashes that you would normally get in a "gully-washer."

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by KevinM

As someone else pointed out, your ability to see them in the image depends upon where you look in the image. If you look at this one of mine, the rain is most apparent when the background is dark, such as the locomotive tender:

Geez! That's fake, too!!!

[RAILROADFANdotCOM]

1/500 of a second, and can assure you I didn't make the rain streaks in photoshop.
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=285120

PhotoID: 285120 Photograph © Zack Segur - www.railroadfan.com

[JimThias]

Those are blobs, not streaks.

[ShortlinesUSA]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewphot...541204&nseq=13

I thought HDR was off limits, too?

[Mgoldman]

Originally Posted by ShortlinesUSA

I thought HDR was off limits, too?

Sometimes it is... sometimes it's not.

Generally - and thankfully, it's accepted so long as it's not overdone.

An exaggeration of reality vs psychotic.

/Mitch

[bigbassloyd]

Been a whole lot of overdone ones accepted too.

The general consensus with RP is that anything could be accepted at anytime, by anyone of the screeners.

Loyd L.