Old 01-28-2022, 04:06 PM   #1
vcode455
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 114
Default Vintage Choice category......

Who would like to see a Vintage Choice category added here? Of the nearly 80 Screeners Choice images selected last year, a whopping 3 were pre-2000. It's like no one took a decent photo before 2000.......
vcode455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2022, 01:58 PM   #2
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vcode455 View Post
Who would like to see a Vintage Choice category added here? Of the nearly 80 Screeners Choice images selected last year, a whopping 3 were pre-2000. It's like no one took a decent photo before 2000.......
Hi, I don't know a dedicated slot is necessary? Obviously giving awards like SC etc is subjective but there are three slots so plenty of space to award older work.

My following of art shows, photography shows, leads me to the believe the best way is to spread awards out among participants and different styles. Awards can serve many purposes, including encouraging variety and participation. Not doing that can lead to predictable results.

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 01-29-2022, 09:05 PM   #3
vcode455
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 114
Default

But that's just it, virtually no older shots ever get chosen (3 of 78 pre-2000 last year) and I can pretty much predict a SC before I even open up the file. Just my 2 cents......
vcode455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-03-2022, 02:22 PM   #4
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by vcode455 View Post
But that's just it, virtually no older shots ever get chosen (3 of 78 pre-2000 last year) and I can pretty much predict a SC before I even open up the file. Just my 2 cents......
Not my photo, I just processed for a friend but would think it could be worthy?

Image © Robert Jordan
PhotoID: 794441
Photograph © Robert Jordan


Bob Jordan

The type of trainorder is interesting also,
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-04-2022, 09:19 PM   #5
vcode455
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 114
Default

Yep. Terry has taken a lot of cool shots SC worthy IMHO. Doug L. and John D as well amongst others.
vcode455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-23-2022, 02:21 PM   #6
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,022
Default

Reviving this thread.

I don't think you need a Vintage category, just select one now and again.

Awards has several benefits. It rewards contributors, provides encouragement and highlights a "variety" of posts.

A couple I saw real quick , not photos of poster not sure if that is a problem.

Image © Roger Lalonde
PhotoID: 805154
Photograph © Roger Lalonde

Image © Roger Lalonde
PhotoID: 803678
Photograph © Roger Lalonde


I know SC tries to highlight photos that catch the eye but I think a little variety would be good also,

Bob Jordan
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2022, 01:20 AM   #7
Joe the Photog
A dude with a camera
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 8,013
Default

Wow. Roger Lalonde has some wonderful classic images in his collection. Thanks for linking to two of them. I have missed seeing a lot of these somehow.
__________________
Joseph C. Hinson Photography
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-24-2022, 03:25 AM   #8
Joe the Photog
A dude with a camera
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 8,013
Default

Interestingly, three of the top 4 shots of the Past 24 hours are vintage shots. And judging by the view counts of others I looked through tonight, they do not need a category to be seen. Further, you can filter through specific years off of the front page to see vintage shots going back to the oldest shot on the site.
__________________
Joseph C. Hinson Photography
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-25-2022, 10:06 PM   #9
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,227
Default

Honestly, I think there are a couple of reasons why vintage/legacy film shots rarely get the SC. It's just so rare to find one that really wows. Yes, there are interesting photos and photos that make me think: "Thanks for taking that shot", but rarely do I see anything stunning. The reasons are obvious. Cameras today are just so much more capable than they were in the film days. Exposures are (usually) on target, focus is almost always pin-sharp, and dynamic range just kicks film down the road. It's that and the fact that anyone can now learn to post-process to a stunning look. With film, ISO was really limited, which limited shutter speed and aperture, and unless the camera had AF, sharp focus was heavily dependent on how proficient the photographer was. Lastly, the resolution on a lot of film shots wasn't wonderful. So, it's not like people didn't see some really cool stuff back in the film days. They just had a much harder time capturing it in a manner that grabs the viewer. Digital has created the expectation of perfection, and when you click on a legacy film shot, you kind of know going in that you have to temper those expectations.

It's a bit like posting a black and white on RP. Yeah, once in a while you see a stunner, but most of the time posting a B&W is the kiss-of-death here. The "kids" today grew up with color and many look upon B&W as inadequate or irrelevant, and therefore not worth a click. I personally find film shots very interesting from a historical perspective, but even I rarely see one that wows me. I think the "wow-factor" is what the SC gets used for most of the time.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Albums from Steam Railroads all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2022, 01:53 PM   #10
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,022
Default

But it really depends on criterion for SC. Is it another sunset or angry sky or can it be just a very interesting older scene, maybe not stunning photography but stunning history. As I said, it can be an incentive for submissins.

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2022, 06:04 PM   #11
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,022
Default

looking today SC and POTW, there are all nice but.......
Image © SpeedShot Train Photography
PhotoID: 808182
Photograph © SpeedShot Train Photography

Image © Tamas Rizsavi
PhotoID: 808404
Photograph © Tamas Rizsavi

Image © BUFFIE
PhotoID: 806896
Photograph © BUFFIE

Image © SpeedShot Train Photography
PhotoID: 806533
Photograph © SpeedShot Train Photography



Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2022, 06:13 PM   #12
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,917
Default

The old adage still rings true..

Loyd L.
__________________
Doing my part to stay unknown.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2022, 07:02 PM   #13
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,022
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbassloyd View Post
The old adage still rings true..

Loyd L.

Give me a hint?

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-27-2022, 11:51 PM   #14
Joe the Photog
A dude with a camera
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 8,013
Default

The current POTW is.... uhm, interesting.
__________________
Joseph C. Hinson Photography
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2022, 12:36 AM   #15
Moffat Road
Member
 
Join Date: May 2012
Posts: 53
Default

If I saw the skies in photos 1, 2 and 4, I’d run for my life.

Nuclear sky comment aside, I sure hope that to get a Screeners Choice nowadays, we don’t have to make the sky look overly fake with color.

But I also have to admit, people seem to like ’em, or at least click them for a look.

Mike Danneman

Last edited by Moffat Road; 07-28-2022 at 04:53 AM.
Moffat Road is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2022, 12:58 PM   #16
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,022
Default

[quote=Joe the Photog;198181]The current POTW is.... uhm, interesting.[/QUOTE

As is the foreground water, reflects the tree etc but not the sky. could be just the angle I guess.? But my original intent was to make the case for some variety like a vintage photo.

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2022, 02:02 PM   #17
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,917
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post
Give me a hint?

Bob
Nuclear editing is superior to technically proficient photography on this website.

If the day ever comes that somebody can nuke a sky over Larrys Truck and Electric while flying a drone from the edge of space, I fear for the life expectancy of the servers.

Loyd L.
__________________
Doing my part to stay unknown.

My personal photography site

Last edited by bigbassloyd; 07-28-2022 at 02:19 PM.
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2022, 03:51 PM   #18
vcode455
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 114
Default

I was going to comment on the current POTW.....I guess I know what I need to do to finally get one after 5 years....
vcode455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-28-2022, 10:37 PM   #19
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,227
Default

I have to agree that a lot of sunrise/sunset shots posted here don't look real. To be fair, such photos are difficult to shoot and difficult to edit....and get them looking completely real. Getting the sun to look real (and not like a nuclear detonation) requires a lot of practice, and the image has to be shot really, really dark. I think that most people edit for the color explosion vs. editing for reality. I concur with Mike's opinion that only the third of the four images being discussed looks real. The thumb on that second one doesn't leave me even wanting to click.

I've also been looking at drone shots a lot lately, as I have just taken the plunge myself, after resisting for several years. In my opinion, most people fly WAY too high and shoot with too much down-angle on the camera. I don't need to have the horizon in every shot. One shot really caught my attention earlier this week.

Image © Brandon Fiume
PhotoID: 808334
Photograph © Brandon Fiume


I clicked on this one because I have yet to see the 1309 and was interested in what might be possible with a drone. My first reaction was that the shot looked blurry to me. The trees, in particular, are really out of focus. But the train is not sharp either. In fact, I can't see that anything is in focus. I looked at the EXIF, and the shutter speed was 1/6th!!! That really left me scratching my head. Was the photographer trying to pan with a drone.....or just shooting in auto exposure mode and not paying attention to the settings? At any rate, I am really surprised that shot passed muster with the screeners. If it were mine, I would not have posted that image. I probably also would have flown lower and shot at a more shallow angle. If lighting was an issue, I would have jacked the ISO rather than allow the shutter to drag like that. I guess from my perspective, a drone is like a lens you don't use very often. There are times when you need it, or it is advantageous to use it, but it's not something I'll be looking for an excuse to use.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Albums from Steam Railroads all over the US.

Last edited by KevinM; 07-29-2022 at 01:22 PM.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2022, 09:09 PM   #20
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 480
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
I have to agree that a lot of sunrise/sunset shots posted here don't look real. To be fair, such photos are difficult to shoot and difficult to edit....and get them looking completely real. Getting the sun to look real (and not like a nuclear detonation) requires a lot of practice, and the image has to be shot really, really dark. I think that most people edit for the color explosion vs. editing for reality. I concur with Mike's opinion that only the third of the four images being discussed looks real. The thumb on that second one doesn't leave me even wanting to click.

I've also been looking at drone shots a lot lately, as I have just taken the plunge myself, after resisting for several years. In my opinion, most people fly WAY too high and shoot with too much down-angle on the camera. I don't need to have the horizon in every shot. One shot really caught my attention earlier this week.

Image © Brandon Fiume
PhotoID: 808334
Photograph © Brandon Fiume


I clicked on this one because I have yet to see the 1309 and was interested in what might be possible with a drone. My first reaction was that the shot looked blurry to me. The trees, in particular, are really out of focus. But the train is not sharp either. In fact, I can't see that anything is in focus. I looked at the EXIF, and the shutter speed was 1/6th!!! That really left me scratching my head. Was the photographer trying to pan with a drone.....or just shooting in auto exposure mode and not paying attention to the settings? At any rate, I am really surprised that shot passed muster with the screeners. If it were mine, I would not have posted that image. I probably also would have flown lower and shot at a more shallow angle. If lighting was an issue, I would have jacked the ISO rather than allow the shutter to drag like that. I guess from my perspective, a drone is like a lens you don't use very often. There are times when you need it, or it is advantageous to use it, but it's not something I'll be looking for an excuse to use.
I know for this shot he was trying to do pan shots with the drone, I've seen him post about experiments on facebook. I believe he is using some sort of ND filter for the camera. I've seen his experiments getting better, but do agree this isn't the sharpest shot. Hard to say, I assume leeway was given because this is really something no one else has done before (I've thought about trying it myself, but haven't had a chance). The high altitude/low down angle is also likely a result of this as well, trying to be high enough to be certain you won't fly into an obstacle while focused on flying speed and getting the shot.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-01-2022, 11:05 PM   #21
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,022
Default

Terrible light, tough angle? 1/6 seems kinda slow, article I saw mention 1/2 second. Unless subject was really crawling. Seems at some point you are relying also on the equipment maintaining a steady platform at a very slow shutter speed just as you need to to hand holding in a car.

Bob

Image © Robert Jordan
PhotoID: 689407
Photograph © Robert Jordan
Driving left shooting across body, think it was 1/25th? would not work at 1/6 and didn't use ND filter, just stopped down lens
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-02-2022, 02:51 AM   #22
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,227
Default

The idea of panning, with current drone technology, seems like a total crap-shoot. Typically, a panning shot is done perpendicular to the movement of the subject, so this is not a good angle from which to try it. Secondly, a panning shot is usually done with at least a mild telephoto lens. These drone cameras are generally 24mm equivalents, which is not a good choice. As noted, there is virtually nothing sharp in this shot, it's just a blurry image, so I just don't see the value. He would have been better off just making it a normal aerial.

If you're going to experiment like that, I'd find a drone camera with a telephoto capability and attempt to perhaps pace the locomotive while bursting. I would also at least double the shutter speed. At 1/6th, you're pretty well doomed. Only Mitch Goldman, with his feet planted firmly on terra-firma, is going to get a sharp frame at 1/6th. GPS is good, but it's not that good. And yes, since most drone cameras are fixed aperture at f/2.8, an ND filter is required, since you cannot stop down. My drone came with a set of 4 ND filters. So far, I have not used any of them.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Albums from Steam Railroads all over the US.

Last edited by KevinM; 08-02-2022 at 02:54 AM.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-03-2022, 11:32 PM   #23
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 1,022
Default

Drone photography has really improved and opens up so many opportunities.

Of course it devalues a lot of the hard scrabble photos of those who climb hills looking for that one open shot often sacrificing half a day.

Not too many offer human interest either that you can sometimes find at ground level.

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-04-2022, 04:03 AM   #24
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,227
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post
Drone photography has really improved and opens up so many opportunities.

Of course it devalues a lot of the hard scrabble photos of those who climb hills looking for that one open shot often sacrificing half a day.

Not too many offer human interest either that you can sometimes find at ground level.

Bob
Just like photos taken the old-fashioned way, there is a long parade of really blah drone stuff, punctuated with a few winners here and there. In the beginning, I think even blah drone shots got views, because they were the new thing ("Hey look Mom, I'm FLYING!!") Now that every kid on the block has a drone, I think the fad will pass.

I bought a drone myself, but not with the intention of using it for any significant portion of my photography. For one thing, the camera in my Air 2S doesn't compare with my Z9 in terms of either quality or flexibility. I look at the drone as just another lens in my bag that I don't use too much, but once in a while, when I can envision a shot that requires a dangerous climb, or a boat I don't have, or I don't want to wade through tick-infested brush, that's when I will pull out the drone. Don't expect to see the horizon much in my shots, and don't expect the down-angles to be more than 30-45 degrees. My goal is still a human perspective, albeit from a boat I don't have, or a hill or overpass that is not there.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Albums from Steam Railroads all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-05-2022, 01:07 PM   #25
Joe the Photog
A dude with a camera
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 8,013
Default

I am glad this photograph made the cut by the late John Dziobko. It was shot about 25 miles from where I sit now on a track that he noted has since been pulled up. I love that he got the old Union Station in the background. I would love to have this on my wall.

Let's see if I can remember how to include the thumbnail.

Image © John Dziobko www.godfatherrails.com
PhotoID: 476086
Photograph © John Dziobko www.godfatherrails.com
__________________
Joseph C. Hinson Photography
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 11:47 AM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2022, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.