Old 07-20-2010, 05:49 PM   #1
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default Forum exclusive - another sweet reject

Ladies and gentleman, pan fans everywhere - I present this PEQ for an exclusive private viewing on the Forums.

Unlike my WM 1/3' pace which was indeed flawed with a slight doubling of one number board - this 1/5th second pan was on the spot. In an attempt to further mix things up a bit in the pan world, and inspired by a photo taken by Ron Flanary (which happened to get an SC), I submitted the following photo.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=836393&key=0

Several shots were fired off in an attempt to keep the nose clear of obstruction. Note I was able to capture the full train as well as appealing windows through the woods that allowed the logo, windows and cab to be seen.

As a reference, here's is Ron's well received photo - in the database.

Image © Ron Flanary
PhotoID: 166130
Photograph © Ron Flanary


/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 06:09 PM   #2
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

In the fall your winter your shot would have worked much better.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 06:25 PM   #3
Diamond D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 191
Default

I guess I'll chime in here, I didn't like your nose-zoom-pan at all, but this one is pretty cool! The flat light might be the killer though.

And you're not alone is trying to get a shot "through the trees" into the db, I've given up on this one though after a few attempts...

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=147583051

When the railroad runs through Pinetown, it seems like good environmental portrait might include some trees, but oh well...
Diamond D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 06:30 PM   #4
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Diamond D View Post
And you're not alone is trying to get a shot "through the trees" into the db, I've given up on this one though after a few attempts...
Got mine in ...

Image © Janusz Mrozek
PhotoID: 302099
Photograph © Janusz Mrozek


Nick, one interesting thing about yours (nothing to do with rejection) is that neither the engine nor the car have lettering or a logo on them. It looks a little like one of those pictures modified for advertising with all brand names removed.
__________________
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

Last edited by JRMDC; 07-20-2010 at 07:15 PM.
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 06:37 PM   #5
Diamond D
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Location: Denver, CO
Posts: 191
Default

There's a tiny "CLNA" under the cab window, but I agree, it's a little strange not seeing any big road names. The rejects were for "foreground clutter" but I would be the high sun is the real reason, with better light it might have a shot. Sorry Mitch, didn't mean to hijack!
Diamond D is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 07:34 PM   #6
coborn35
Senior Member
 
coborn35's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2009
Location: Duluth, MN
Posts: 1,398
Default

Not a fan Mitch.
__________________
I personally have had a problem with those trying to tell us to turn railroad photography into an "art form." It's fine for them to do so, I welcome it in fact, but what I do have a problem with is that the practitioners of the more "arty" shots, I have found, tend to look down their nose's at others who are shooting more "mundane" shots.
Railroad photography is what you make of it, but one way is not "better" than another, IMHO. Unless you have a pole right thought the nose of the engine! -SG
coborn35 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 07:54 PM   #7
cblaz
Senior Member
 
cblaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marlboro, New Jersey
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
...this 1/5th second pan was on the spot. In an attempt to further mix things up a bit in the pan world, and inspired by a photo taken by Ron Flanary (which happened to get an SC), I submitted the following photo.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=836393&key=0

Several shots were fired off in an attempt to keep the nose clear of obstruction. Note I was able to capture the full train as well as appealing windows through the woods that allowed the logo, windows and cab to be seen.

As a reference, here's is Ron's well received photo - in the database.

Image © Ron Flanary
PhotoID: 166130
Photograph © Ron Flanary
Mitch, you're overlooking the major difference between Ron's pan and yours. In Ron's shot, I can see the entire nose and lead truck of the CSX unit. In fact, I can almost read the engine model on the side of the cab. How is your 722 pan "on the spot" if most of the nose and trucks are covered by brush? If the nose was clear, you might be able to overlook the poor light Nick mentioned, but as is, I don't see how this could get on.

- Chris
__________________
- Christopher Blaszczyk
My shots on RP: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=284
cblaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 08:28 PM   #8
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cblaz View Post
Mitch, you're overlooking the major difference between Ron's pan and yours. In Ron's shot, I can see the entire nose and lead truck of the CSX unit.- Chris
I see a giant tree trunk but the photo was so creative and otherwise well captured I overlooked that. If there were fewer leaves obscuring the B&O unit, it would be just another pan. When I said on the spot, I meant razor sharp even at 1/5th.
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 08:56 PM   #9
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Foreground clutter...

And you are comparing it to a pic accepted 4 years ago
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 10:13 PM   #10
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

Yeah, The problem with your foreground clutter is that it is obscuring the front of the engine: a no-no.
__________________
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 07-20-2010, 10:27 PM   #11
Heymon
Senior Member
 
Heymon's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2008
Posts: 125
Default

I like it. I think the panning has blurred the trees enough so that they are easy to look through and see the locomotive almost in its entirety. I like the engineer still being slightly hidden (adds some mystery, IMO) and I like the originality (always appreciated). I think the biggest fault is that the leading truck and plow are really not visible. I can see why it was rejected, but to me it is a quality effort.

Andre
Heymon is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 10:45 PM   #12
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

I figured the headlight, number board and windshield were enough of a visible front to work - these are some mighty high standards to comply with and I'll accept them though in all honestly, if all photos on RP were held to the same standards, aside from the perfect wedges, I think we'd more then halve the collection. I refer not specifically to pans, but levelness, perspective, foreground issues, noise, and such...

Thanks for the comments, points of view and critique(s).

/Mtich
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 10:47 PM   #13
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Speaking of foreground clutter, this got on for whatever reason

Image © Mitch Goldman
PhotoID: 331963
Photograph © Mitch Goldman
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 11:00 PM   #14
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
And you are comparing it to a pic accepted 4 years ago
I was comparing it to a photo I liked very much. One I commented on. One that was well recieved. One with an SC.

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Speaking of foreground clutter, this got on for whatever reason
Image © Mitch Goldman
PhotoID: 331963
Photograph © Mitch Goldman
Speaking of clutter - why would you even bother to bring up an unrelated negative response? And, FYI, simply type "fellow" in the search field and you'll find a bunch of similar photos (and far from all such examples).

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-20-2010, 11:03 PM   #15
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Speaking of foreground clutter, this got on for whatever reason
Making friends for the world to see....
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 06:40 AM   #16
cblaz
Senior Member
 
cblaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marlboro, New Jersey
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
...these are some mighty high standards to comply with and I'll accept them though in all honestly, if all photos on RP were held to the same standards, aside from the perfect wedges, I think we'd more then halve the collection. I refer not specifically to pans, but levelness, perspective, foreground issues, noise, and such...

/Mtich
So, what you're saying is that it's unfair that shots are screened to see if they conform to a pre-established set of criteria (such as leveling or foreground clutter) by the administrators of a rail photography website?

Maybe a formal introduction is in order: Mitch, meet the RP screeners. Screeners, meet Mitch (or Mtich, or Mcith, or Micth). Just for future reference, screeners, when the name Mitch Goldman pops up under contributor's name on the screening page, the accept button is on the left. Please avoid the reject button on the right.

- Chris
/10 points to the first person who doesn't understand sarcasm.
__________________
- Christopher Blaszczyk
My shots on RP: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=284
cblaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 07:52 AM   #17
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

I'll take those 10 points as I don't understand your version of sarcasm.

What I am saying is the complete opposite of what you imply. Consistency is all I am asking and hoping for on RP - several screeners yet one set of rules.

I can go to a McDonnalds anywhere in the US and I get what I expect regardless of which person cooked my meal. If the meals keep getting better, that's great. I know it ain't easy and there is certainly discretion involved but there are several examples in the data base of images - both new and old that contradict what others have had rejected.

That was funny, you pointing out the typo in my name.
(25 points)

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 10:30 AM   #18
TJFarmer
Banned
 
Join Date: Jul 2010
Posts: 25
Default

The screeners personal feelings about individuals do play into the screening decisions. I know, I know, they shouldn't, but they do.

You'd better send some heart felt birthday gifts. And by heartfelt, "not" a McDonalds gift card.

You, all of a sudden, are getting on the "bad" side of a certain screener.

T.J. Farmer
TJFarmer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 11:28 AM   #19
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TJFarmer View Post
The screeners personal feelings about individuals do play into the screening decisions. I know, I know, they shouldn't, but they do.

You'd better send some heart felt birthday gifts. And by heartfelt, "not" a McDonalds gift card.

You, all of a sudden, are getting on the "bad" side of a certain screener.

T.J. Farmer
TJ, welcome to the forums! I'm so glad you are here, as you apparently have great inside knowledge of RP, despite not having any shots accepted that I could find, at least under TJ Farmer, and of course just having joined the forum. Finally, an insider!

Or are you simply repeating rumor/conventional wisdom about the site that has no basis in fact but sounds good?
__________________
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 07-21-2010, 11:36 AM   #20
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
I'll take those 10 points as I don't understand your version of sarcasm.

What I am saying is the complete opposite of what you imply. Consistency is all I am asking and hoping for on RP - several screeners yet one set of rules.

I can go to a McDonnalds anywhere in the US and I get what I expect regardless of which person cooked my meal. If the meals keep getting better, that's great. I know it ain't easy and there is certainly discretion involved but there are several examples in the data base of images - both new and old that contradict what others have had rejected.

If you want consistency, go to mcdonalds. you cant just get every shot you upload accepted. thats what he was trying to say. I wouldnt complain about it getting rejected with all that foreground clutter. I was pointing out in that other picture that most pictures with through-girder bridges get rejected for foreground clutter because the entire trucks are blocked by the bridge structure.

Last edited by troy12n; 07-21-2010 at 01:44 PM.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 12:51 PM   #21
cblaz
Senior Member
 
cblaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marlboro, New Jersey
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
What I am saying is the complete opposite of what you imply. Consistency is all I am asking and hoping for on RP - several screeners yet one set of rules.
There are trees blocking almost half of the engine in your shot. 10 times out of 10 the screener will reject it for PEQ and/or foreground clutter. You can't get much more consistent than that.

- Chris
__________________
- Christopher Blaszczyk
My shots on RP: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=284
cblaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 03:43 PM   #22
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
I'll take those 10 points as I don't understand your version of sarcasm.

What I am saying is the complete opposite of what you imply. Consistency is all I am asking and hoping for on RP - several screeners yet one set of rules.

I can go to a McDonnalds anywhere in the US and I get what I expect regardless of which person cooked my meal. If the meals keep getting better, that's great. I know it ain't easy and there is certainly discretion involved but there are several examples in the data base of images - both new and old that contradict what others have had rejected.

That was funny, you pointing out the typo in my name.
(25 points)

/Mitch
Mitch, that's what the appeal feature is for. Then, if you want to complain about the lack of consistency from the ONE person who screens the appeals, then you may have a bone to pick. However, things are always changing here...standards change, thoughts and feelings about photos change. Maybe 4 years ago it would have been accepted...maybe in 4 years it will be. But for now, there's just too much stuff blocking the train to appease the current feelings of the screeners.

You've also got to look at it from this perspective: if this shot is accepted, you're going to have every kid and his brother trying to submit shots of trains through trees (and I'm sure there are plenty of those on rrarchives already). Yeah, yours is panned, but not everyone is going to look at it as the only reason it was accepted. They might think that a well-focused shot of the trees and the train should deserve to be on more than yours. I'm guessing the screeners really don't want to deal with that kind of onslaught of shots.
__________________
.
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; 07-21-2010 at 03:46 PM.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 03:54 PM   #23
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cblaz View Post
There are trees blocking almost half of the engine in your shot. 10 times out of 10 the screener will reject it for PEQ and/or foreground clutter. You can't get much more consistent than that.

- Chris
10 times out of 10 a screener will reject a shot that is blurry and out of focus yet you still see streak shots and partially blurred "movement" shots. Try to keep this in context. The rejection reason was PEQ, not foreground clutter.

-Troy
I thought you were stating the photographers were the "clutter" and that threw me off. Getting back to consistency, however, you bring up an interesting observation. As if to acknowledge my point above, perhaps the train obscured by the trestle was allowed since it was understood that the photo's primary focus was that of the rail fan aspect of the image. The obscured train did not detract from the implied intent of the composition.

On the other hand, back to the McDonnald's analogy, I have had a photo of a steam engine on display rejected since it was behind a fence yet my good friend Dennis had a nearly identical photo accepted. I had a photo of a CSX train in Center City Philadelphia rejected since the University of Pennsylvania sign painted on a girder blocked the trucks yet just the other day a photo of a steam engine was accepted where none of the drivers were visible. The scenery in that photo, as well as composition were superb. In my opinion, my scenery was simply urban vrs countryside.

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-21-2010, 03:58 PM   #24
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
-Troy
I thought you were stating the photographers were the "clutter" and that threw me off. Getting back to consistency, however, you bring up an interesting observation. As if to acknowledge my point above, perhaps the train obscured by the trestle was allowed since it was understood that the photo's primary focus was that of the rail fan aspect of the image. The obscured train did not detract from the implied intent of the composition.
Well, there's your solution. The next time you want to pan a train through heavy foliage, make sure you have a couple of railfans standing in front of you. Better yet...a girl in a bikini!
__________________
.
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 07-21-2010, 04:01 PM   #25
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
-Troy
I thought you were stating the photographers were the "clutter" and that threw me off. Getting back to consistency, however, you bring up an interesting observation. As if to acknowledge my point above, perhaps the train obscured by the trestle was allowed since it was understood that the photo's primary focus was that of the rail fan aspect of the image. The obscured train did not detract from the implied intent of the composition.
They do a good job of rejecting most through-girder bridges because it completely obstructs the trucks and usually the front plow/pilot/knuckle area of the locomotive. That is what I am getting at. Maybe yours got on because it's an F unit instead of a GE widecab. It definetly is not location, because I have seen plenty of instances, including a couple of my own where the location/shot was very scenic and that did not matter. That's why I made that comment.

As for the railfans, I am really not a fan of those types of shots, but that's just personal preference. If it was a couple kids playing in the river or a family picnicking , that's human interest. A bunch of foamers trying to keep out of each others' way is not AFAIAC.
troy12n 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 07:16 PM.


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