Old 12-14-2011, 03:18 PM   #1
Jeff Terry
Senior Member
 
Jeff Terry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Newport, Minnesota
Posts: 46
Default Front Coupled

This one was rejected on two counts. One, for grain (I'll give them that...it was a foggy, miserable day). Second, for being front coupled:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=641229938

I can deal with the grain, but is "front coupled" really that much of an issue here? I don't want to spend allot of time on this image if that's what's going to get it rejected again.

Jeff Terry
Jeff Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 03:33 PM   #2
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,900
Default

It is front coupled. The only way around that to get this shot on would be an appeal. Maybe pull out and show that is being towed to go along with the caption as written.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 03:38 PM   #3
WMHeilman
Senior Member
 
WMHeilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Napoleon, OH
Posts: 486
Default

I like it as is. To me, this is one of those times where being "front coupled" does nothing to hurt the value of the shot.

I would appeal, but sadly, I doubt you'll get it on.
WMHeilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 03:40 PM   #4
Hatchetman
Part-Time Railfan
 
Hatchetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

Certainly a unique enough shot to be accepted IMO.
Hatchetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 03:58 PM   #5
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Terry View Post
This one was rejected on two counts. One, for grain (I'll give them that...it was a foggy, miserable day). Second, for being front coupled:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=641229938

I can deal with the grain, but is "front coupled" really that much of an issue here? I don't want to spend allot of time on this image if that's what's going to get it rejected again.

Jeff Terry
The "front coupled" rejection has no merit whatsoever. If this were a CSX or BNSF GE unit----then yes, that would be a reason for rejection. This is a cool shot of an historic piece of railroad equipment that could have only been photographed on the move FRONT-COUPLED.

Bad screening decision....(and a nice shot).
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 04:10 PM   #6
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,900
Default

I go back to my statement of seeing what it is coupled to instead of cutting it off at the coupler. I think that kind of cropping would stand a better chance.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 04:19 PM   #7
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,024
Default

I agree with Joe. I also don't buy the front-coupled rejection. I think the only issue may be with cropping. Show a little bit of what the locomotive is coupled to....as one would do with a normal panning shot.

This is a newsworthy shot of a historic locomotive being dragged dead, in tow....it is not meant to be a calendar shot or a roster shot. The thing can't run by itself, so for any long-distance movement, it is going to have to be front-coupled.

I would ten times rather look at your shot, Jeff, than at some crummy derailment. Recrop and resubmit. If they boot it, then appeal it on the grounds I mentioned above.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 05:39 PM   #8
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,760
Default

I'd work on the noise, and get the image quality up to a better standard before tackling the front coupled rejection. If you can do that, then raise hell.

Loyd L.
__________________
What used to be is no more

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 06:16 PM   #9
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

I'm with Loyd. Fix the noise and then point out strongly in the remarks that what's happening. Once in a lifetime opportunity for a motion shot with this engine. Now if that isn't a unique shot, what is? I honestly think it has a decent chance of getting on, but it may not.
__________________
Peter Lewis | Portfolio | Profile | Flickr | Facebook

Canon EOS 40D
Canon EF 50 f/1.8 II
Canon EF 70-200mm f/4 L USM
Canon EF-S 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM


Quote:
Originally Posted by A Friend
everytime i see non-train photos of yours i think, "so much talent. wasted on trains."
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 07:12 PM   #10
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbassloyd View Post
I'd work on the noise, and get the image quality up to a better standard before tackling the front coupled rejection. If you can do that, then raise hell.

Loyd L.
I'm totally in agreement with Loyd. Great advice.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-14-2011, 07:21 PM   #11
Jeff Terry
Senior Member
 
Jeff Terry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Newport, Minnesota
Posts: 46
Default

Thanks, everyone, for the advice. I made the recommended changes and resubmitted (although honestly, there wasn't much of the lead unit in the shot - I purposfully cut it out). We'll see what happens.

Jeff Terry
Jeff Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 01:02 AM   #12
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

I did some quick and very dirty work on this. I removed the "front coupled" issue, added some smoke, an engine crew, restored the engine's missing main rod, added blur to the crosshead, and came up with this. You might try some variation like this next time.

Attached Images
File Type: jpg PannedRF.jpg (82.2 KB, 366 views)
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 01:15 AM   #13
lock4244
Senior Member
 
lock4244's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2006
Location: The City Below Vaughan
Posts: 1,048
Default

Needs some snow added, too
__________________
Mike Lockwood

Insert witty comment here

Hot girl on girl action here!

More Pics Here
lock4244 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 04:51 AM   #14
Jeff Terry
Senior Member
 
Jeff Terry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2007
Location: Newport, Minnesota
Posts: 46
Default No Dice

Most of the noise was taken care of, but it was rejected again for being front coupled:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=984269760

Oh well, I tried. I'm not going to waste any more time with this one.

Ron, I loved your Photoshop job!

- Jeff Terry
Jeff Terry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 05:21 AM   #15
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Jeff Terry View Post
Most of the noise was taken care of, but it was rejected again for being front coupled:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=984269760

Oh well, I tried. I'm not going to waste any more time with this one.

Ron, I loved your Photoshop job!

- Jeff Terry
Jeff, appeal! Point out that in their explanation of the front-coupled rejection it states simply that "blah-blah...are generally not accepted. To me the word "generally" being the operative one here and there ain't nuthin' "general" about this shot. It's worth a try, greater minds have been known to prevail in the past.
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 05:54 AM   #16
DWHonan
Senior Member
 
DWHonan's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2009
Location: Issaquah, WA
Posts: 590
Default

Or go back to the original crop and use some of that marvelous blurry background to clone out everything around the engine's own front coupler.


...I'm waiting for Mitch to start yelling about the rods not being down, whatever special connotation that has...
__________________
Dave Honan
Issaquah, WA
View my portfolio at RailPictures.net
View my portfolio at Flickr Not quite so new anymore!
DWHonan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 11:57 AM   #17
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
I did some quick and very dirty work on this. I removed the "front coupled" issue, added some smoke, an engine crew, restored the engine's missing main rod, added blur to the crosshead, and came up with this. You might try some variation like this next time.

You are getting pretty good at the whole digital processing thing, dont sell yourself short...
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 02:07 PM   #18
WMHeilman
Senior Member
 
WMHeilman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2011
Location: Napoleon, OH
Posts: 486
Default

Appeal the second rejection.
WMHeilman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 02:57 PM   #19
Mr. Pick
Senior Member
 
Mr. Pick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 662
Default

I think part of the problem may be that there are already a handful of pics accepted of this same engine being transferred. All the ones accepted show the lead power as well as this engine, so they may not be real motivated to bend the front coupled rule to accept this one.
Mr. Pick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 03:31 PM   #20
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,807
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
You are getting pretty good at the whole digital processing thing, dont sell yourself short...
I agree. The image really pops. If Jeff decides to try again with this picture some day he should process it like Ron did.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 07:39 PM   #21
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
I agree. The image really pops. If Jeff decides to try again with this picture some day he should process it like Ron did.
Seriously, Ron did a nice job with that shot. The only thing that could maybe use a bit of tweaking is the plume, but it is otherwise very believeable. If Jeff had shopped that way to start with, I think it would be in. A pan shot in the fog? Not many of those in the DB.

Quote:
Originally Posted by DWHonan View Post
...I'm waiting for Mitch to start yelling about the rods not being down, whatever special connotation that has...
Folks who shoot steam typically do attempt to catch the rods in the middle of a power stroke as opposed to at the end of one. For those who understand how a steam engine works, it is just more pleasing to the eye to see the crank pins offset 90 degrees from the direction of rod movement. It conveys power and motion. The most pleasing is rods down (in the middle of a push-stroke) as opposed to rods up, but either is preferable to rods straight across the wheel, which doesn't send the subliminal power/motion message at all. In order to catch the rods down, most of us shoot in burst mode as the train passes us. I usually inspect the frames in the field and delete any "rods-straight" frames, unless that's all I have.

Image © Kevin Madore
PhotoID: 382812
Photograph © Kevin Madore

I guess it's like shooting a picture of a marathoner running the last mile to the finish line. You want a shot of the guy or gal with legs fully extended, one forward, one back, conveying a last burst of power toward the finish.....not a shot of the persons legs passing each other....looking like he/she is about to fall over! Same idea.

Most photo viewers would understand the mechanics of a runner and thus the value of getting the proper frame there, but many people are oblivious to how a steam engine works.....so they wonder why we foam over rods-down.

The hard drive in my computer likes it best when I shoot Shays!
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.

Last edited by KevinM; 12-15-2011 at 07:49 PM.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 08:23 PM   #22
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,807
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
I guess it's like shooting a picture of a marathoner running the last mile to the finish line. You want a shot of the guy or gal with legs fully extended, one forward, one back, conveying a last burst of power toward the finish.....not a shot of the persons legs passing each other....looking like he/she is about to fall over! Same idea.

Most photo viewers would understand the mechanics of a runner and thus the value of getting the proper frame there, but many people are oblivious to how a steam engine works.....so they wonder why we foam over rods-down.
While I understand and appreciate what you are trying to explain to us ignorant few, I really don't see a difference, physically, between rods-up or rods-down, other than essentially a mirror image. However, there is a huge physical difference between a photo of a runner with his legs fully spread in stride as opposed to passing each other.

To me, the sight of "rods-up" gives a charging forward feeling to the locomotive.

Is a photo like this "tainted" to a steamhead because of the placement of the rods?
Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 347001
Photograph © Jim Thias


Oh look...whoops! Purely by accident:
Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 195142
Photograph © Jim Thias


__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias

Last edited by JimThias; 12-15-2011 at 08:33 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 09:03 PM   #23
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,024
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
While I understand and appreciate what you are trying to explain to us ignorant few, I really don't see a difference, physically, between rods-up or rods-down, other than essentially a mirror image. However, there is a huge physical difference between a photo of a runner with his legs fully spread in stride as opposed to passing each other.

To me, the sight of "rods-up" gives a charging forward feeling to the locomotive.

Is a photo like this "tainted" to a steamhead because of the placement of the rods?
Image © Jim Thias
PhotoID: 347001
Photograph © Jim Thias
Hi Jim,

I personally am not a complete nazi with respect to steam engine shots not being rods-down. Rods-up is OK too. Both are middle of the power stroke. It is only shots that have the rods in the center that just look odd. Also, the more one gets away from a "locomotive shot" or a "train shot" and into the realm of a landscape shot that includes a steam engine, the position of the rods becomes less obvious and less important. The color shot you reference is a very nice shot. Who cares about the rods at that range?

Exhaust plume is another effect that steam people care about. One could have perfect light, great scenery and a beautiful train, but if the engine is not producing at least some visible plume, you can forget selling that shot to a calendar buyer. It doesn't matter that a properly fired steam engine doesn't smoke much. What matters is that the photo critics who select calendar images (who often aren't steam experts) want the shot to convey the impression of power and speed and a grey haze doesn't do it. They also figure their customers expect a steam engine to blacken the sky.

This photo was always a disappointment to me:

Image © Kevin Madore
PhotoID: 301969
Photograph © Kevin Madore

Without a nice plume to lead your eye, the train sort of disappears into the landscape. Interestingly, the railroad later contacted me and wanted to use the shot for a report to a Government agency for precisely that reason!!!

I don't think that steam-heads are that different from diesel-shooters. I've seen folks here rant about how a perfect shot was KILLED by a door being open, or a "pole growing out of the locomotive" or some other minor issue.

We all strive for perfection and have to learn to live with whatever we actually get.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.

Last edited by KevinM; 12-16-2011 at 01:02 AM.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 09:05 PM   #24
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Well, I read Kevin's explanation as applying to what I will call "rods middle" as opposed to up or down, so the analogy to the marathoner makes sense.

But he also says rods down is more pleasing than rods up, and offers no explanation for that.

BTW, same issue applies to pictures of cyclists, particularly from the front (as when they are sprinting for a finish, the front shot is a cliche in those cases), where one does not want to catch the cyclist with both feet at the same middle level (one front, one back in the stroke, a distinction not evident when shooting from the front) but rather one wants one leg down, one up.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 12-15-2011, 09:10 PM   #25
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
Exhaust plume is another effect that steam people care about. One could have perfect light, great scenery and a beautiful train, but if the engine is not producing at least some visible plume, you can forget selling that shot to a calendar buyer. It doesn't matter that a properly fired steam engine doesn't smoke much. What matters is that the photo critics who select calendar images (who often aren't steam experts) want the shot to convey the impression of power and speed and a grey haze doesn't do it. They also figure their customers expect a steam engine to blacken the sky.
Hey, wait a second, I know a bit about how steam works and I know they aren't supposed to smoke much. I am an informed image viewer/shooter. But I want that plume!!!!!! (And, I suspect, so do you! Maybe I am wrong, maybe you are a purist who is desensitized to the visual impact of a plume. Maybe you are just stuck at all those d*mned photo charters, where they push all that gunk into the air, against your purist will.)

Quote:
I don't think that steam-heads are that different from diesel-shooters. I've seen folks here rant about how a perfect shot was KILLED by a door being open, or a "pole growing out of the locomotive" or some other minor issue.
I don't care about the door. But the pole critique does apply, perhaps by tradition but I think for greater reasons, the more a shot is "roster-y" by nature.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC 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 08:44 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.