Which type of PAQ ?

[MassArt Images]

This got a PAQ



Make your choice. What do you think.

Dennis you are lucky this image didn't get a PAQ!

PhotoID: 531819 Photograph © Dennis A. Livesey

Maybe I should have put an eloquent description including a history lesson of each bridge visible in the image.

[JRMDC]

Dennis' has the advantage of being a decent composition. Yours doestn't "show" the series of bridges as well as I presume you thing it does.

The relatively dull and sizeable sky is doing you no favors, nor does the lack of contrast. The light rail gets lost - not a great subject for a long bridge with girders. Looks late enough in the morning that the morning glow is gone.

I don't feel like debating whether Dennis' shot belongs on RP. But shots stand for themselves, they don't need to be justified, or not, by other shots. Yours is a relatively blah shot of a fabulous city. It has lots of good elements but just has something off.

If I had to focus on one thing, I would say the lack of contrast. And if your intent was to show off the bridges, well, rethink and try again.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Carl, you have many shots on RP that have strong composition and great color. So it is not like you are a newbie; you have the skills. However, this one is not up to your normal or your best.

Many is the time I took a shot I thought was good and it was not as good as I thought.

Interesting. I think this is first time one of my shots has been called out.

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

Interesting. I think this is first time one of my shots has been called out.

It was not called out in a bad way. Just as an example, because if you wouldn't have given the description like you did, there is no way I would have thought that those stones had anything rail related. In other words, the description make the shot, IMO.

I guess by going to wide of an angle, I put too much in the picture. I will try again but this time just shooting down the river to put the focus on the bridges.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Photos often need the story. I knew going in that I would have to tell it since a picture of stone pillars on a railroad photo site would make no sense. PillarPictures.net anyone?

Anyway, researching the facts for the caption is often as much fun as making the picture. So I find it enjoyable as well.

Pittsburgh has great angles and light. Many shots have been posted here of the town proving it.

I like to find or wait for great light and then let that dictate the composition.

Perhaps morning fog? Evening twilight? A tele shot making the trolley bigger? Or a shot of downtown looking it's best but with a little trolley in a corner?

[Mgoldman]

I was initially going to chime in but Janusz pretty much nailed the response.

Contrast is off- almost looks like high sun but it's not. The bridges get lost in the scene and as for the rail car I didn't even realize it was a railcar. It looked like a truck that was overexposed due to the reflective nature. The composition - it almost looks as if it was a grab shot from another bridge while you were driving. There's no left and right side to the image - it's just "there". No balance.

Now - I will agree with you that Dennis is lucky his awesome shot of the pillars was accepted. With RP, such shots seem hit or miss with admin, despite their connection to railroad and the insight the added commentary provides.

I disagree with Dennis here too, however. Many of us have written extensively researched and fascinating captions which in some cases add to the photo though in other cases, are what carries the photo, ie, it's more about the information being communicated. After a rejection we often wonder if they were even read or considered. I know many who have stopped writing such captions, or only provide that welcome information to the DATABASE - AFTER the image is screened.

As for comparisons - whether or not a photo is as good as the rest of your work, or as good as another image on RP should not be a consideration when rejecting an image. It is either good enough or not. The only value in comparisons would be consistency for the screeners and sanity for the one posting the "reject".

/Mitch

[miningcamper1]

How much rail content is enough?
Is everything a railroad once owned acceptable here?
"The door", "the note", "the rock" and others come to mind.
This LV tug attracted some negativity here:

PhotoID: 451131 Photograph © Christopher Goes

IMO, a photo needs to stand on its own in most cases. I'd take the tug, but axe the others (which would be fine for Flickr).

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Originally Posted by Mgoldman

Now - I will agree with you that Dennis is lucky his awesome shot of the pillars was accepted. With RP, such shots seem hit or miss with admin, despite their connection to railroad and the insight the added commentary provides.

I disagree with Dennis here too, however. Many of us have written extensively researched and fascinating captions which in some cases add to the photo though in other cases, are what carries the photo, ie, it's more about the information being communicated.

It is either good enough or not.

/Mitch

With such a shot, there are considerations. One might be enough to say yes or no, two or more might be used when accepting or rejecting.

If it does not have a train, the image better be compelling enough on it's own to just make it. The caption would be the thing to seal the deal.

I knew it a hit or miss, no shot is guaranteed at RP but I did try both to make the image compelling as well as revealing the cool backstory.

However, I didn't say that the story guaranteed the acceptance.

I agree the shot either has to be "good enough or not."

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey

Anyway, researching the facts for the caption is often as much fun as making the picture. So I find it enjoyable as well.

I agree with that statement about researching a photo location and Wikipedia makes it easy too. I did a little research on this shot and had to include it in the description because I thought it was very interesting.

PhotoID: 525645 Photograph © Carl Massart

[Noct Foamer]

These kinds of photos generally work best with a really good story attached, one that catches your imagination.

Kent in SD

[RobJor]

Ok, my take is I like the rejected photo because it has a lot of stuff in it. I like to see context and like any cityscape. A little hard to judge completely because when I bring it up the location, description etc is not included. If I knew where this was I might like to go there. The basic train along the ROW, ok but.............

One critique is the reflection which is integral kisses the bottom. It gives me the feel of the mistake I often make is moving my composition off the mark when i shoot. I think the bridge and reflection are one and could have been given more room unless there was some problem. would have also cut down on the sky as mentioned above.

Comparison to the bridge supports is a little apples and oranges. That is an art type of shot reminding me of the derelict cemetery photos???

bob jordan

[RobJor]

Since we are on bridge shots, I had tried this one of the CN/IC Bridge at Dubuque, Iowa. One of the neat things of being out at night is the barges on the river with the light bouncing around. When this barge had trouble getting thru and they kept light on bridge it gave me time for a short time exposure which I thought was worthwhile but among others was lack of RR content.

bob Jordan

[jdirelan87]

Poor framing

PhotoID: 204693 Photograph © John Ireland

PhotoID: 204695 Photograph © John Ireland

[Dennis A. Livesey]

John
You shot of the trolley on the bridge with the skyscrapers in the background is terrific. It's the kind of shot anyone would wish to have taken.
Besides excellent light and color, it is the composition that clearly leads the eye on a pleasant journey. There is no question what you want us to look at. The light is so nice, our eyes have a great trip.

[Dennis A. Livesey]

Originally Posted by RobJor

Comparison to the bridge supports is a little apples and oranges. That is an art type of shot reminding me of the derelict cemetery photos???

bob jordan

Bob
Those are not bridge supports.
It would have been an interesting bridge if they were.

[Traingod]

This image does nothing for me.

[MagnumForce]

Sometimes PAQ is used to just kill an image, don't try it agai, no matter what you do it is not getting on. I think that is what is going on here.

This is not in any way shape or form anywhere near the other stuff I see from you. You are a lot better than this photo.

Now Dennis's shot is just awesome, stuff like that is the reason I come here. What a great history lesson.