RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   High sun? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=5235)

RS27 05-07-2007 05:27 PM

High sun?
 
Just wondering on these two - both were rejected [and appealed] on high sun. Seems that the trucks are well lit and not stuck with a monster shadow on them, then again my monitor might not be good enough to pick up something subtle... Both were shot in the later afternoon around 3:30/4 pm I believe [don't have the originals right next to me]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=369702&key=0
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=369743&key=0

Anyways, just curious what people say.

Flowing 05-07-2007 06:11 PM

It might be more appropriate to say these shots are underexposed, as the trucks look fairly well lit but all the black of the underframe runs together and there is a loss of detail. This seems common when you have a unit with clean, black trucks/fuel tank/underframe. All that dark glossy black just seems to run together. Engines with black underframes and trucks are easier to expose when they get some grime and dirt on them.

Bill 05-07-2007 06:13 PM

I think cropping is also an issue with your shots. The images are very centered top to bottom...you might want to consider a little less foreground. This is especially evident in your first image...that concrete loooks very bright.

a231pacific 05-07-2007 06:32 PM

On your first shot, there are no shadows cast by the grass in the foreground and the white ballast looks harshly lit. The truck detail is hard to see on this shot. The second shot shows the trucks better, but it's still high sun. Take a look at the shadow the frame casts on the end of the fuel tank. I'm guessing you shot it closer to 3:00 PM, so with daylight savings, that's actually 2 PM sun time. That sort of light is very harsh. I think the high sun reject was correct.

Michael Allen

John West 05-07-2007 06:41 PM

I think another issue is the two pictures are basically roster shots, and as such are held to a higher standard of lighting, since really good lighting is needed to show all the detail. Those standards might be compromised for a roster shot of "rare" power, but don't think those units quite qualify for that (yet).

Also as noted above, both pictures are dark. I think that could be solved in photoshop, but given the roster and lighting issue, is probably not worth trying.

Neither are bad pictures and in a more scenic or interesting situation the lighting and exposure would probably be acceptable.

John West

Joe the Photog 05-07-2007 09:54 PM

The dead give away that it's high sun is that the shadows are falling straight down onto the track and not the road bed. It's not horribly high sun, but enough to get it booted from RP.

Let this be a lesson to all. Don't get high!

:shock:

I see that you got a real good shot in of this loco too

[photoid=186498]

so I wouldn't sweat this one shot.


Joe

Carl Becker 05-08-2007 12:49 PM

Alright, here's a high sun reject for opinion:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=152600324

?????

Appeal also rejected. :confused:

ken45 05-08-2007 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Carl Becker
Alright, here's a high sun reject for opinion:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=152600324

?????

Appeal also rejected. :confused:

To be fair, I think that shot is a borderline High Sun rejection, but the lighting on the lead engine is not optimal at all. Lots of shadow on that right side.

About a year ago there were several high sun threads which taught me alot about why that rejection is used. One way to get a High Sun is to have a large portion of the area below the anticlimber (Front Walkway) in shadow. Seeing as this area on your shot is almost entirely in shadow, I'd say that's why it was rejected. It is also flirting with being backlit.

JRMDC 05-08-2007 01:52 PM

Unrelated to the rejection, but the caption you gave would have make more sense had the area being discussed been visible in the picture. Do you have more of a side view?

Joe the Photog 05-08-2007 05:13 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC
Unrelated to the rejection, but the caption you gave would have make more sense had the area being discussed been visible in the picture. Do you have more of a side view?

See the shot of his I linked a few posts above.


Joe

JRMDC 05-08-2007 06:10 PM

Sorry, the thread now includes multiple links; I was referring to Carl's shot.

Joe the Photog 05-08-2007 09:00 PM

Oops. I read that wrong. My bad.


Joe

Joe the Photog 05-08-2007 09:05 PM

Carl;

Wedgies in high sun probably have less of a chance to get in than side views with high sun. This one, like Ken said, is almost backlit too. Maybe if you had taken more of a side view from furtheraway from the tracks, this scene would have got in.

I also agree that talking in detail about the second loco would be much better if we could see what you were talking about.


Joe

socalrailfan 05-08-2007 10:50 PM

1 Attachment(s)
I really don't see the high sun issue myself. The rail is almost completely lit. I use the 50% ruile of rail being lit for hjigh sun and it's worked for me so far here.

The trucks though are a dark black. The exposure actuaklly looks pretty good when looking at the histogram. I'd say that's very fresh paint on the engine. I used the shadow highlight tool and the photo looks fine ow, definetly not high sun by any means.

a231pacific 05-08-2007 11:38 PM

Dave, look at the shadow line on the fuel tank. It's about 30 degrees off from vertical. Since 15 degrees equals one hour, it's about two hours past solar noon. That's at least borderline high sun. This shot does look much better than the other one though. I think you are right, it's the new black paint that's really the problem here.

Michael Allen

Joe the Photog 05-09-2007 12:17 AM

Dave's rework looks a bit overexposed as well and kinda blows out the sky. With the fine working shot that was accepted here, I say the photographer letthis one go. Advice I need to give myself more often.


Joe

JRMDC 05-09-2007 12:28 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
I say the photographer letthis one go. Advice I need to give myself more often.

I submitted a shot from Sunday that was summarily rejected. Once I saw the rejection and had cooled down from my eariler enthusiasm, I felt foolish. I should have let it go to begin with, it wasn't really close to acceptance.

JimThias 05-09-2007 01:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RS27
Just wondering on these two - both were rejected [and appealed] on high sun. Seems that the trucks are well lit and not stuck with a monster shadow on them, then again my monitor might not be good enough to pick up something subtle... Both were shot in the later afternoon around 3:30/4 pm I believe [don't have the originals right next to me]

Don't sweat it. I got a high sun rejection on a picture I took around 4pm in the afternoon this past winter (ie: shortest days of the year, sun at its LOWEST angle possible). The shadow from the loco was about 20 feet long off the backside, yet they still gave me a high sun rejection (not to mention there was snow on the ground, contradicting the "summer months" part of the rejection). I laughed so hard that I didn't even bother to appeal it.

As someone else pointed out, the shot you got approved is decent enough. I'd just stick with that and maybe try a solo shot on a day when the sun is at a better angle (morning or evening).

Joe the Photog 05-09-2007 06:45 PM

[photoid=186632]

Heck, what do we know?

8)


Joe

socalrailfan 05-13-2007 12:38 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog
Heck, what do we know?

JACK! It's all opinions really, but that's fine with me.


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:02 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.