Old 02-26-2007, 06:46 AM   #1
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default Bad cropping / Poor lighting

RE: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=342648

For those not famaliar with this setting, I am looking due west. Lighting is approx. 10am on Thanksgiving weekend (for time-of-year sake), coming down at a 45° angle (approx.) over my left shoulder. So how...HOW...is this backlit?

I stand 100% that such scenes are not backlit, a definition that appears self-contained by the admins here when the entire scene is not face lit. This may not be "properly" lit (to whom, and why?), but it certainly isn't backlit. Backlit conditions exist ONLY when the sun isn't in correspondence with anything that you are facing directly (when the sun isn't over your shoulder, that is). A silhouette is backlit, for instance.

On the other hand, can I get any feedback on the "bad cropping" rejection? I was actually aiming for the effect of the shadowed elevator to highlight the halo'd light on the cab of the EMD switcher.

Thanks...
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 02:22 PM   #2
ken45
LA&SL Fanatic
 
Join Date: Mar 2004
Location: Las Vegas, NV
Posts: 700
Default

The backlit rejection is for the grain elevator, not the locomotive. The shaded grain elevator takes up a very large percentage of this shot, yet it doesn't really add anything to the shot. You cropped it this way to "...aiming for the effect of the shadowed elevator to highlight the halo'd light on the cab of the EMD switcher." but since this results in essentially dead space occupied by the elevator, the screener hit you with bad cropping. Since the bad cropping resulted in a large area of backlit grain elevator, you got backlit for good measure. By changing the cropping, that backlit should disappear.

As far as a new crop, I'm not entirely sure what to tell you. I shoot at similar angles to you, but there is usually a coal train or something to occupy the sides of the frame after I crop. For a single switch engine at that angle, there's going to be lots of extra space regardless. I'd say go with a vertical crop on this one, unless there is something interesting in the right portion of the frame.
ken45 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 03:38 PM   #3
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

Thanks for the feedback Ken, but that wasn't my initial intention, and therefore I will not be cropping this further, not making a vertical wedgie out of it. I tried to throw a little "incidental light games" in here, and it was taken in vein by the moderation team.

The dead space is a grain elevator, long a stronghold of the port atmosphere. The subject, as is most cases on this website, is the train/locomotive, which is owned by the Albany Port Railroad (and FWIW, properly lit). I cared not to walk 90° and 30-40' to the left, as the background isn't as pleasing to the eye. Sure, it would be 100% lit, but that wasn't the objective. That would have been just another cab-end roster style view of an EMD switcher.

I was aiming for that "Halo" of light" sitting on the end cab, with the looming elevator casting it's lengthy shadows over the rest of the scene. It's not as if I waited there for it, rather it struck me on a right place / right time basis.

Thanks. Keep 'em coming...

Last edited by Fotaugrafee, Ink.; 02-26-2007 at 03:52 PM.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 04:23 PM   #4
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Some serious comments, but first of all, an RP issue, I'm very surprised that they didn't say unlevel also, it looks pretty strongly tilted. I try to always check the verticals closely. Also, I know it's accepted practice, but to me the additional copyright upper left really detracts.

I do find the lighting imbalanced. I personally would not call it "backlit," but I might say "bad motive." One side is dark, the other light. There is no halo here; to me, that would mean the locomotive would be lit and the background not. It's just a picture that is partially lit and partially in shadow in a rather dull arrangement.

This shot would work well for me if a) you had light on the right side of the engine, and b) you put the lit engine more in front of the shadowed grain elevator. Then you would have a halo effect. Even the current lighting (so ignore a) ) would work better for me if you could move the engine toward the camera 20 yards so that it would be in front of the grain elevator at this angle. Alas, you can't.

Also, you are not getting the "looming elevator casting it's lengthy shadows over the rest of the scene" because it is difficult to see the shadow lines formed by the elevator.

Finally, I love grain elevator shots but this one does not work for me. You have cropped in a way that makes the elevator an abstract surface. No problem, but the bad light and the fence don't help make that a vibrant part of the image. Not that it has to be lit up, but there has to be something that makes it interesting, and right now it just isn't, in part for reasons I am having trouble turing into words.

I hope you understand that I am expressing personal preferences regarding your photograph and not trying to be authoritative. Please take it all in stride.
__________________
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 02-26-2007, 05:11 PM   #5
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Some serious comments, but first of all, an RP issue, I'm very surprised that they didn't say unlevel also, it looks pretty strongly tilted. I try to always check the verticals closely. Also, I know it's accepted practice, but to me the additional copyright upper left really detracts.
I don't allow my images online without at least some semblance of credit. I've already had my share of scavengers in another industry I partake in.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
I do find the lighting imbalanced. I personally would not call it "backlit," but I might say "bad motive." One side is dark, the other light. There is no halo here; to me, that would mean the locomotive would be lit and the background not. It's just a picture that is partially lit and partially in shadow in a rather dull arrangement.
Bad motive is a vague reason overall, that's about as close as it gets to "I don't like it because...I can't think of a specific reason" (as Ed eluded to in another thread). Abstract might be a good, loose term for what I was aiming for here. Bad motive was the reason for rejection on I received the same for this shot.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
This shot would work well for me if a) you had light on the right side of the engine...
Since I can't move the unit as you suggested in "B", that's out. As for "A", people would then complain that by moving to the right & taking in more of that side of the engine, that it wasn't lit. They're the same people who don't take photos in angular nosey light most times, sticklers for 3/4 light.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Also, you are not getting the "looming elevator casting it's lengthy shadows over the rest of the scene" because it is difficult to see the shadow lines formed by the elevator.
Nearly everything behind the fence, and about 20' in front of the locomotive is shadows cast by the elevator. I don't quite understand what you're not seeing here?

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Finally, I love grain elevator shots but this one does not work for me. You have cropped in a way that makes the elevator an abstract surface. No problem, but the bad light and the fence don't help make that a vibrant part of the image. Not that it has to be lit up, but there has to be something that makes it interesting, and right now it just isn't, in part for reasons I am having trouble turing into words.
There is nothing that can be done about the fence, it's a casualty of the photo. I still don't see where bad light is an issue, since the sun is shining on as much of the locomotive as it's going to get without sacraficing the backlit elevator, or crossing the tracks for a different background entirely.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
I hope you understand that I am expressing personal preferences regarding your photograph and not trying to be authoritative. Please take it all in stride.
Indeed, and I thank you, but I'm not looking for personal preference. From a generalized point of view, I'm wondering where backlit and poor cropping are coming from (since the elevator isn't what this site should be focused on, it's just a prop). I could understand bad motive - "this is not the kind of material we're looking for" - rather than the reasons given. If that were indeed the case, then it would be the preferencial discretion of the screener(s), not the overall artistic basis of the submissions they receive.

Last edited by Fotaugrafee, Ink.; 02-26-2007 at 08:34 PM.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 05:58 PM   #6
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Well, I think I simply wasn't being as RP-focused as you were looking for.

Bad lighting, one possibility - you have a shot with siginficant areas in shadow without also achieving the halo effect you desired. Making half the shot in shadow does not make the composition more interesting in this case, for me it detracts. Remember that the text given as the reason is the default coded into the system; they don't write out a reason specific to each shot. In my view the lighting simply detracts from the composition, just as a strong halo effect might contribute to a composition.

Bad cropping - to me this is caused by the bad lighting. Since the elevator in doesn't work, to my eye, necessarily there is too much of it and one reason for rejection is then that one should get rid of part of it.

In my view, the rejection is all about the left side of the image simply not carrying its weight.

As for your other comments:

You claim that shadows are an important compositional element in the shot. You have dark areas and light areas, certainly, but you don't have anything that can be characterized as "casting its lengthy shadow." To me that means one should see some shadow edges relatively distinctly. Here you have dark and light areas without particularly distinct transitions.

I certainly realize you can do nothing about the position of the engine or the presence of the fence. For me they don't work, and so I mentioned them in discussing the shot overall.

Also, you say you were aiming for an abstract. Having an ugly fence on the left side puts a jarring element in front of what could have been an abstract series of vertical gray cylinders. Its presence pushes the mind away from thinking abstract toward thinking of reality.

Perhaps this spot simply isn't suitable for achieving your vision.
__________________
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 02-26-2007, 07:06 PM   #7
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,899
Default

In the grain elevator, I'm not sure from looking at the picture, what I'm supposed to be seeing. The loco, and you know I love buttheads, is too far to the right of the frame leaving a lot of fence and grain elevator. Maybe if there was something happening in the shot near the elevator, even a truck parked or something. But right now, all I see in the cab end of an end cab.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 07:08 PM   #8
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,899
Default

FWIW, the egineer in the GP16 shot surprises me that it did not get in as I've seen many shots like that in the database. I even got one in there somewhere. The only difference I can recall between those shots and your shot is that the person in the train was not looking at the camera. In the mind of the screener, this might smack of a staged snap shot instead of a railroad photograph, but that is speculation on my part.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 07:41 PM   #9
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quoting myself

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Remember that the text given as the reason is the default coded into the system; they don't write out a reason specific to each shot.
I just looked again, and noticed that the full text string is:

"Poor lighting (Backlit): The image is backlit or doesn't feature enough nose light on the subject."

Perhaps you should focus on the first two words, "poor lighting" rather than the third (and the rest). Perhaps the screener doesn't have a separate choice of "Poor lighting (other than backlit)". These are catch-all categories, after all, and perhaps yours simply doesn't fall in the normal slots so they chose one with the closest fit.
__________________
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 02-26-2007, 07:48 PM   #10
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

Janusz,

There was no "vision" or "aim" for abstract, it's just there. And that is as best I can label it, inadvertantly. I wouldn't call this "poorly cropped", just because there is an dark elevator with no other substance to fill what you perceive as a void.

I live 250 miles away, and was on the road ~ this was lit "as is", and I worked with it. I didn't wait around, or plan for this shot. There is no bad lighting here, only what you perceive as a distraction in the dark confines of elevator ~ whereas I created an image where the light toys with the image. Call it bad lighting until you're blue in the face, but my shooting doesn't always revolve around the choo-choo train (just as your shooting with the out-of-focus weeds didn't 2 weeks ago), nor lighting up the entire scene.

As for the sharpness of any shadows, I was shooting at ground level. Therefore, the shadows aren't going to be ever present as you're describing. If I were elevated 20-30', that would be a different tale to tell. In addition, noting the height of the elevators, the shadows are going to be about 45**° to the object they are cast from this time of year. If you can't determine shadows -v- dark spots, it's obvious you don't know what you're looking at.

As I read it, you're saying the shot wouldn't be badly cropped if the elevator were lit on "this" side. Why? What makes that a worthwhile photograph (non-subjective, but general) whether the elevator is lit or not. If it's "badly cropped", it certainly has nothing to do with how the elevator is lit. Moreso, the only time this elevator will be lit is in the early AM / late PM hours of summer ~ not my concern, just a statement based on the elevator's position.

I think the best solution given here, is to have possibly moved to the right. It probably will would have been turned down due to the dark side of the locomotive being exposed in the frame, but "oh well", you can't please everyone. The whole idea of shooting / cropping the engine out to a vertical format defeats the purpose of the effect that I captured initially. The vertical crop is worthless, and to crop laterally any deeper into the shot ruins the environment. The real issue here seems to be that the entire shot wasn't in FULL light, as opposed to the alleged bad light. Both edits are attached below.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Bad lighting, one possibility - you have a shot with siginficant areas in shadow without also achieving the halo effect you desired. Making half the shot in shadow does not make the composition more interesting in this case, for me it detracts. Remember that the text given as the reason is the default coded into the system; they don't write out a reason specific to each shot. In my view the lighting simply detracts from the composition, just as a strong halo effect might contribute to a composition.

Bad cropping - to me this is caused by the bad lighting (?). Since the elevator in doesn't work, to my eye, necessarily there is too much of it and one reason for rejection is then that one should get rid of part of it.

You claim that shadows are an important compositional element in the shot. You have dark areas and light areas, certainly, but you don't have anything that can be characterized as "casting its lengthy shadow." To me that means one should see some shadow edges relatively distinctly. Here you have dark and light areas without particularly distinct transitions.

Also, you say you were aiming for an abstract. Having an ugly fence on the left side puts a jarring element in front of what could have been an abstract series of vertical gray cylinders. Its presence pushes the mind away from thinking abstract toward thinking of reality.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 051123_apr13albanyny001b.jpg (58.9 KB, 139 views)
File Type: jpg 051123_apr13albanyny001c.jpg (51.0 KB, 119 views)

Last edited by Fotaugrafee, Ink.; 02-26-2007 at 08:15 PM.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 08:13 PM   #11
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

Joe,

That shot was indeed impromptu, as when the engineer saw me framing up the shot, he looked at the camera & smiled. He is a friend, and probably knew what I was up to. I didn't request a single thing of him, or propose a particular position in order to constitute the shot as "staged". If anything, "casual posed" perhaps? Either way, I think it's a damn good shot of a YorkRail veteran.

I'd say that "playing the role" (in this case, of a locomotive engineer ~ looking intently out the window towards the movement, etc.) is more staged than the shot I displayed above, since by instinct most people "smile for the camera" when they notice it's being pointed in their direction, rather than just acting like nothing is there. From my experience, popping off candid shots takes (1) a really long lens, (2) being so casual about your shooting that they don't notice, (3) being staged, or (4) all of the above.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
The only difference I can recall between those shots and your shot is that the person in the train was not looking at the camera. In the mind of the screener, this might smack of a staged snap shot instead of a railroad photograph, but that is speculation on my part.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 08:22 PM   #12
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Hey, first of all, I am percieving some hostility here in tone. If so, ease up! I am intending only to provide helpful responses to the issues you raise.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Janusz,

There was no "vision" or "aim" for abstract, it's just there.
I was just quoting you, fairly, I believe. You put "abstract" and "I was aiming for" in the same sentence!

Quote:
And that is as best I can label it, inadvertantly. I wouldn't call this "poorly cropped", just because there is an dark elevator with no other substance to fill what you perceive as a void.
That's fine, I am suggesting a reason that the screener might have clicked on "poorly cropped." I think my hypothesis of the screener reaction is a) just that, and b) valid. Personally, I don't think cropping improves the image.

Quote:
I didn't sit around, or plan for this shot. I live 250 miles away, and was on the road. It was lit "as is", and I worked with it. There is no bad lighting here, only what you perceive as a distraction in the dark confines of elevator ~ whereas I created an image where the light toys with the image. Call it bad lighting until you're blue in the face, but my shooting doesn't always revolve around the choo-choo train (just as your shooting with the out-of-focus weeds didn't 2 weeks ago), nor lighting up the entire scene.
In response to you, let me be a bit rude in tone and say - CHILL. Don't be so touchy!

And we ALWAYS work with the situation "as is" unless we are providing our own light setup.

Putting aside my predictions of what the RP screener what thinking - your original question, as you pointed out yourself - my response to your statement is simple. You have failed in your intent to create "an image where the light toys with the image." The "toying" simply does not work. What you have is, on the right, a conventional train image of an engine, and on the left, a side of an elevator in shadow. To my eyes, those two just don't work together.

For purposes of this discussion, I don't care about the emphasis on the choo-choo or about how much light is on the scene. I don't care about what your shooting revolves around. I care about whether a picture is successful. In my one opinion, this one is not. In the opinion of one RP screener, this image fails to make the grade for RP acceptance. Maybe you are just taking the rejection and this discussion very personally. I don't know.

Quote:
As for the sharpness of any shadows, I was shooting at ground level. Therefore, the shadows aren't going to be ever present as you're describing. If I were elevated 20-30', that would be a different tale to tell. In addition, noting the height of the elevators, the shadows are going to be about 45**° to the object they are cast from this time of year. If you can't determine shadows -v- dark spots, it's obvious you don't know what you're looking at.
Agreed with all of this, and I know exactly what I am looking at. But the issue is that, in my opinion, you have failed to either convey "incidental light games," create a "halo of light," or make an image where the "light toys with the image." Good intentions, just didn't work out, in my opinion.


[quote]As I read it, you're saying the shot wouldn't be badly cropped if the elevator were lit on "this" side. Why? What makes that a worthwhile photograph (non-subjective, but general) whether the elevator is lit or not. If it's "badly cropped", it certainly has nothing to do with how the elevator is lit.[quote]

Whether something contributes to an image, or doesn't and should be cropped out of it, depends on how it is lit (not how much it is lit, mind you, just whether its lighting contributes to the composition). As the light changes, so does the basis for a successful composition.

Quote:
Moreso, the only time this elevator will be lit is in the early AM / late PM hours of summer ~ not my concern, just a statement based on the elevator's position.

I think the best solution given here, is to have possibly moved to the right. It probably will would have been turned down due to the dark side of the locomotive being exposed in the frame, but "oh well", you can't please everyone.
The best solution depends on your intentions. To make a shot acceptable to RP? To make a shot that plays with lighting in a particular way? To make a treasured image for your personal collection? I think you are being a bit inconsistent in how you discuss this.

I continue to hope that you find this discussion useful and informative. I'm not attacking you, I am addressing issues with your image, I think in an informative way. Obviously I don't think the image is especially successful as a photograph, but I am not trashing you, I am spending a heck of a lot of time going into detail in discussing it. You are free to disagree, but ease up on your tone a bit, please. I don't feel like actually becoming blue in the face.
__________________
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 02-26-2007, 08:47 PM   #13
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

Different strokes for the different folks, and in this case...you're already blind. If your definitiion of success is being published here (and only here, obviously), that's perfectly fine. I took my chances with the shot, and it's submission, now I'm asking for a reasonable "why?", and you haven't supplied one based on photographic merit, only how you personally would compose it.

I think you should get the stick out of your @$$, Janusz, I don't take rejection of my photos as a big deal. So, please, drop trying to analyze & label me with the "rejected, angry, and in denial" vibe. I posted it here to create discussion, and the only thing you've done is denounce it through your self-important scale of what creates successful photography. Your own images are no more special than mine.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
For purposes of this discussion, I don't care about the emphasis on the choo-choo or about how much light is on the scene. I don't care about what your shooting revolves around. I care about whether a picture is successful. In my one opinion, this one is not. In the opinion of one RP screener, this image fails to make the grade for RP acceptance. Maybe you are just taking the rejection and this discussion very personally. I don't know.
This is about the most general thing you've said the entire thread. Your opinion means nothing to me, nor do those of the screeners at RP. I don't strive to have every last photo I take published here, I just thought it was an interestingly lit scene. I'm just trying to understand why it was rejected for reasons other than alleged photographic composition. The lighting isn't ideal, sure, but that is the only thing wrong with this shot. Just because you don't like dark features or so-called "dead space" in your photos, doesn't merit that is this a bad lit photo ~ cropped, or lit otherwise. I like the shot for the reasons already stated. As for the "halo of light" scenario, that doesn't mean the subject has to resemble shooting a tunnel portal from the inside. Your reasons for denial haven't been based on a single merit of photographic composition, rather, only opinions of your own & others and their values of what comprises a "good photo". I requested a generalized statement on "why?", and below is about as cut & dry as you able to give obviously. Thanks, uh, kind of...

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Agreed with all of this, and I know exactly what I am looking at. But the issue is that, in my opinion, you have failed to either convey "incidental light games," create a "halo of light," or make an image where the "light toys with the image." Good intentions, just didn't work out, in my opinion.
Nah, sorry, that doesn'y fly with me. Your entitled to your opinion of your own work as concerns "good photographs", but don't cast that same narrow-mindedness on the work of others. Not every last detail of the photo need be illuminated, plain & simple, unless you're an overly anal railroad photographer (lol). I could easily pick apart work of yours using the "what was the mod thinking" approach & reasons I'd deny them without a second thought. But rarely do I bother...because I shoot in conditions that are pleasing to me, not to those of others.

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC
Whether something contributes to an image, or doesn't and should be cropped out of it, depends on how it is lit (not how much it is lit, mind you, just whether its lighting contributes to the composition). As the light changes, so does the basis for a successful composition.

Last edited by Fotaugrafee, Ink.; 02-26-2007 at 09:10 PM.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 09:38 PM   #14
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

What happened? Why such a response? Why the hostility?

Let's go back to the beginning, your opening post. You asked two questions. The first was "HOW" the shot was backlit. My response is that the shot is poorly lit in my opinion, and that is why the generic "poorly lit (backlit)" reason was given. It's not backlit, but it is poorly lit, in my opinion.

Second, you wanted "feedback" on the bad cropping rejection. My response is that part of the image is poorly lit and does not contribute to the composition otherwise, so it doesn't belong in the image. That's my opinion.

Two specific responses to your specific original questions. There's the reasonable "why." You can disagree with them, of course, and it is clear you do, but I suggested an answer to your questions. Isn't that what you posted for?

You think it is an "interestingly lit scene," and now you have run across someone else who thinks it isn't. That's all. We both have opinions, 'tis all.

In your various follow-ups you made various statements of intent - halos of light and so forth - and I have commented on those. This is a discussion forum, after all, and you continued the discussion, and so did I.

Seriously, in what way am I not discussing your picture? And also, what are these categories of "photographic merit" that you are invoking and who decides what governs? Do you want us all to pledge allegiance to the rule of thirds, for example?

And if my opinion means nothing to you, why did you post, and why did you follow-up? I'm not telling you how to be a photographer, I am discussing the questions you raised! I just don't get it, why are you pissed? Why? I have not told you how to take pictures. I have never been self-important (did you read the last two sentences of post #4 in this thread, or other things I have said on those lines?). I've never said I am a great photographer or a better photographer than you. I have never said that sucess means acceptance at RP. I have never said that every last detail of a shot needs to be illuminated. From where are you getting all this?
__________________
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 02-26-2007, 10:30 PM   #15
Railfan Ohio
Senior Member
 
Railfan Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Fredericktown, Ohio
Posts: 334
Default

Okay, this is a lovely forum, let's throw a curve ball.

Now, remember this is just my opinion and everyone is entitled to theirs, like you've said.

First, as to the poor lighting, backlit. Maybe it is backlit because there could be two subjects in teh picture, the engine and the elevator. One of these is in shadow, and therefore backlit.

Second, the bad cropping. Yes this probably wouldn't happen if the elevator was in sun. The bad cropping may be caused by the elevator taking up too much room, pretty obvious and corrected in the tight vertical crop. The bad cropping could also be caused by the elevator being cut off in the picture. You see nothing but a dark wall, not a large looming elevator over a small engine.

I'd prefer if I didn't get the attitude as well, this is just my opinion. Have fun with this and hope it adds a different look to this discussion.
__________________
Andy Toms

B&O: the First, the Best
Pennsy: the Standard, but still #2

My pix:http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=11344
Railfan Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 11:23 PM   #16
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Senior Member
 
Andrew Blaszczyk (2)'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2004
Location: Marlboro, NJ
Posts: 1,956
Send a message via AIM to Andrew Blaszczyk (2) Send a message via Yahoo to Andrew Blaszczyk (2)
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotaugrafee, Ink.
RE: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=342648

For those not famaliar with this setting, I am looking due west. Lighting is approx. 10am on Thanksgiving weekend (for time-of-year sake), coming down at a 45° angle (approx.) over my left shoulder. So how...HOW...is this backlit?

I stand 100% that such scenes are not backlit, a definition that appears self-contained by the admins here when the entire scene is not face lit. This may not be "properly" lit (to whom, and why?), but it certainly isn't backlit. Backlit conditions exist ONLY when the sun isn't in correspondence with anything that you are facing directly (when the sun isn't over your shoulder, that is). A silhouette is backlit, for instance.

On the other hand, can I get any feedback on the "bad cropping" rejection? I was actually aiming for the effect of the shadowed elevator to highlight the halo'd light on the cab of the EMD switcher.

Thanks...
To start, you're absolutely correct in saying the scene is not backlit because as you defended very well, it is not. Everyone must remember that at times the queue backs up to 100+ photos and personal comments about why it was rejected are just not possible. For shots that have this lighting a screener may just put "Nose-lit" or explain that "The sun is down the tracks and the angle doesn't work" in the comments box. Since the side is dark as it would be in a backlit photo the screener just chose this to show that the lighting does not work. I hope that clears up the WHY that reason was chosen.

As for the bad cropping, I disagree with it. It follows the rule of thirds, which I am a stickler for but AM NOT LIMITED TO LIKING, and there is nothing that is "out of place in the photo". What I mean by this is that there are no branches sticking into the shot, no random poles or wires, etc.

As for highlighting the halo lighting of the cab, it would have better to put it against the dark surface of the elevator. That of course would make the dark side more noticeable and cut down on the surface area of the cab shown in the photo, so it is a lose-lose. It is a very well done, and I disagree with it being rejected as it is not a poorly done photo at all. Like you said, why stand on the opposite side and get a boring background? I know exactly what I'm looking at.
__________________
-Andrew Blaszczyk a.k.a. AB(2)
Proud fan of the Sabres, Islanders, Rockies, and Lions.

"My camera is an artistic medium, not a tool of terrorism."

www.ab2photography.com Coming soon!
My photos on RailPictures:
http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=960
Andrew Blaszczyk (2) is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 11:44 PM   #17
Bill
Senior Member
 
Bill's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Posts: 234
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Your opinion means nothing to me, nor do those of the screeners at RP.
Am I missing something? Aren't you the one who started this thread? If none of this matters, why did you submit it...and even further, why did you start a post on the RP forum to question it?

If nothing else, it's amusing watching you trip over yourself trying to justify your intentions.

Thanks,
Bill
Bill is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2007, 11:54 PM   #18
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

Dear halfwit,

I didn't ask for an opinion, I asked for an educated form of feedback. Learn the difference.

I got your "trip over yourself" right here.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Bill
Am I missing something? Aren't you the one who started this thread? If none of this matters, why did you submit it...and even further, why did you start a post on the RP forum to question it?

If nothing else, it's amusing watching you trip over yourself trying to justify your intentions.

Thanks,
Bill
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 01:23 AM   #19
Railfan Ohio
Senior Member
 
Railfan Ohio's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Location: Fredericktown, Ohio
Posts: 334
Default

Could you please explain the difference between the two? You seemed to have voiced your opinion quite a bit here, what's wrong with other people's opinions?
__________________
Andy Toms

B&O: the First, the Best
Pennsy: the Standard, but still #2

My pix:http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=11344
Railfan Ohio is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 01:55 AM   #20
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

Is your brain so vestigal that you can't figure out the difference, or you just want to hear my rendition for shits & giggles?

"Accepted practice" -v- "what you like", it's not hard to understand. Nothing in the wide world of photography says that my photo is poorly cropped or lit. Maybe to Janusz it is, but that means absolutely nothing to me.

I didn't ask for an opinion, but he gave it. That's fine, but his brand of photography is narrow & certainly not gospel. Nor is mine, that that matter, which is why I ask, "why (is my shot considered "badly lit" or "poorly cropped")?" Sure, half the population is going to take issue with the elevator, another half may actually like it. Who decides what is right?

I think the photo is perfectly fine. If you don't, plainly put: Screw you. I'm not interested whether you like it or not, I'm asking what's with process of thinking that because the engine does not occupy more than 50% of the frame, or that the elevator isn't illuminated on the side which I shot it...since when does that equal a "bad photo"?

I'm asking for an "accepted practice" & "why". If that's not suitable to you, kindly replace the tree limb back in your rectum & move on to the next thread.


Quote:
Originally Posted by Railfan Ohio
Could you please explain the difference between the two? You seemed to have voiced your opinion quite a bit here, what's wrong with other people's opinions?

Last edited by Fotaugrafee, Ink.; 02-27-2007 at 02:05 AM.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 02:01 AM   #21
Fotaugrafee, Ink.
Banned
 
Fotaugrafee, Ink.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2006
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 93
Default

Ooops, duplicate post.
Fotaugrafee, Ink. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 03:42 AM   #22
Chris Starnes
Administrator
 
Chris Starnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 927
Default

It would seem that someone still hasn't managed to keep their hostile personality to themselves. There is no reason for this sort of post to get to the point where it has. I personally thought the suggestions offered were well intentioned and well put and didn’t seem to require any “screw you” attitudes.

Hopefully with the removal of one member of this debate things will return to a friendlier and more welcoming atmosphere.
__________________
Chris Starnes
Co-Editor, RailPictures.net
Chris Starnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 03:55 AM   #23
jdirelan87
Senior Member
 
jdirelan87's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Metro DC
Posts: 725
Default

Would didn't see that ban coming for the last month?
jdirelan87 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 04:40 AM   #24
Mike B.
Banned
 
Mike B.'s Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 1,343
Default

Sounds like some one was hoping for a certain answer and refuses to accept a different one.
Mike B. is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2007, 01:43 PM   #25
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,899
Default

I wish Eric would learn to play well with others again. He's actually very railroad knowledgeable and has some good ideas on photography. He's enthusiastic about railroading and railfanning and seems to travel a lot. It's a shame he keeps tripping over himself on various forums and YahooGroups.


Joe
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog 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 03:21 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.