Old 06-26-2021, 05:29 PM   #1
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 963
Default Composition - Kevin?

Been a month so I thought I might try one.

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...35&key=4705530

There were only like 9 in the queue and I was the lucky reject.

I suppose I could trim slightly from right and top but would that make a difference?


Robert Jordan
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Railpics-02.jpg
Views:	108
Size:	1.23 MB
ID:	9904  

Last edited by RobJor; 06-26-2021 at 05:39 PM.
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2021, 08:19 PM   #2
Joe the Photog
A dude with a camera
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,967
Default

I'm not entirely sure this is fixable. There's too much sky and not enough at the bottom. If you take any off the right (or left for that matter) you start copping off the railroad signals.

Sorry, I'm not Kevin
__________________
Joseph C. Hinson Photography
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-26-2021, 09:06 PM   #3
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 963
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
I'm not entirely sure this is fixable. There's too much sky and not enough at the bottom. If you take any off the right (or left for that matter) you start copping off the railroad signals.

Sorry, I'm not Kevin
Joe, thanks for input!! Lol, only mentioned Kevin because response group is a little thin on the forum, I'd remove that but can't. I somewhat agree now seeing rejection. My rational was the morning sky color and deep blue sky was the major attraction and more foreground pavement would not improve the image. No a fan of foreground ballast either.

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-27-2021, 04:34 AM   #4
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,192
Default

Wow, that's actually a pretty nice image. I am a bit surprised they didn't overlook any minor compositional flaws and just accept it. It's far more interesting than the endless parade of featureless freight train wedges that we see every day.

Joe pretty much took the words out of my mouth. The subject is likely too low in the frame for the screener's liking. Cropping some off the top will help shift the subject up a bit, but if you have more frame below the train, I would include at least a bit more on the bottom. Do what it takes to get the train on one of the "thirds points" in your crop tool. While many rejects posted here are not really worth going nuclear with the screeners, I think this one would perform decently and it's worth another shot to get it in.

Nice one. I wish I had a shot like this with 611 on the front of a passenger train.
__________________
/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 06-27-2021, 11:42 AM   #5
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 963
Default

Thanks Kevin! one of my faults is I don't fix my composition when shooting and may shift a little. In this case I was fixed on keeping both sides of the structure with a little room and not cutting off the top and leaving a little room. Of course the adage of shooting a little wider to allow for cropping applies but I was using prime lens and probably set up too tight to begin with.

Bob Jordan
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2021, 01:40 AM   #6
vcode455
Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2018
Posts: 97
Default

Agree with Kevin, looks OK to me.
vcode455 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-28-2021, 07:51 AM   #7
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,708
Default

I too agree with Kevin.
Word for word, in fact.

I thought maybe the train was too far to the left for the screener but the signal and light pole to the right nicely balance it out. I too run into subjects that are so wide, it's hard to make them work, but you have a beautiful sky so... FLICKR?, lol.

The only RP fix I see is shifting the subject up a bit if you had cropped the foreground.

Good luck - it's a PC in the making, even if it's a going away shot.

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2021, 07:03 AM   #8
ATSF666
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Posts: 162
Default

Maybe for RP purposes tighten up almost to signal bridge on the right and left hand sides, but in reality, it looks great as is. Some rejections here simply make no sense in terms of real photography. Oh well.
__________________
ATSF666 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-29-2021, 03:09 PM   #9
Grewup on the CW
Senior Member
 
Grewup on the CW's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 314
Default

Pull left margin in bout 1/2" then bottom and top down an 1". I don't mind the power lines across the signal lights as they are everywhere but maybe that is their issue. ?
Grewup on the CW is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2021, 01:04 AM   #10
Milepost 58
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 46
Default

It's unfortunate that they don't like the 3:5 aspect because that would be just the ticket for this one! Having said that, I really like the image, and I'm surprised they didn't take it.
Milepost 58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2021, 03:33 PM   #11
EMTRailfan
Senior Member
 
EMTRailfan's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Location: I can be found railfanning the abandoned B&O Northern Sub.
Posts: 1,465
Default

IMO, there's not much of interest on the top. I'd crop as tight as you can on both sides to the signals (maybe to the distant signal on the right side) and get rid of as much top that you can. This would get rid of a lot of sky and also the utility pole and most of the wires. How good are you cloning skills?
__________________
A Picture Is Worth 1000 Words. A Memory Is Worth 1000 Pictures.
EMTRailfan is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-01-2021, 03:53 PM   #12
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Milepost 58 View Post
It's unfortunate that they don't like the 3:5 aspect because that would be just the ticket for this one!
I use the 3:5 crop a LOT. There are plenty of images with a ton of featureless foreground or sky that benefit immensely from using that crop. I don't recall how well the To24 or SC slots on the home page handle that crop, because I rarely get To24 any more. I think they still work OK. The only thing the home page does not handle is verticals. When a vertical makes To24, it gets stretched into a landscape format and looks really strange.
__________________
/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 07-01-2021, 05:29 PM   #13
Milepost 58
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 46
Default

For some reason I didn't think they liked that size. That's good to know, as I have a few that would look much better that way. I also think it would work for the photo in the original post.
Milepost 58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-03-2021, 12:46 AM   #14
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 669
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
I use the 3:5 crop a LOT. There are plenty of images with a ton of featureless foreground or sky that benefit immensely from using that crop. I don't recall how well the To24 or SC slots on the home page handle that crop, because I rarely get To24 any more. I think they still work OK. The only thing the home page does not handle is verticals. When a vertical makes To24, it gets stretched into a landscape format and looks really strange.
I also use 3:5 a decent amount.... I've never had any rejection for using this ratio.
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2021, 01:16 PM   #15
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 963
Default

As a followup I used the next frame which had train a little further away from edge and processed like before. That effort received 4 rejection reasons.

On another note from better times I have created an album of night and a few blue hour photos that were accepted, a total of 161 total. I guess you can view with this link if interested?

https://www.railpictures.net/album/6095/

Another recent photo which I obviously will not try but I like because was a challenge.

Thanks for all replies,

Bob Jordan
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Z-1.jpg
Views:	50
Size:	1.37 MB
ID:	9907  
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-09-2021, 02:30 PM   #16
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,192
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post
As a followup I used the next frame which had train a little further away from edge and processed like before. That effort received 4 rejection reasons.

On another note from better times I have created an album of night and a few blue hour photos that were accepted, a total of 161 total. I guess you can view with this link if interested?

https://www.railpictures.net/album/6095/

Another recent photo which I obviously will not try but I like because was a challenge.

Thanks for all replies,

Bob Jordan

The rejections in that signal bridge shot leave me scratching my head. I wonder what the 4 reasons were this time? It's not my site, so my view doesn't count, but I consider that shot far more interesting than a lot of stuff that gets accepted.

That album is pretty nice. That's quite a collection and clearly represents a lot of work, because each image probably killed an evening to create.

With regard to the latest one, that scene has possibilities, but probably not with available light. The challenges are the light sources that are in the image and the lack of light in places where you really need it, such as on the train. That scene calls for some Alien Bees, or equipment like that, which can put light where you want it and eliminate the need for longer exposures. Obviously, going nuclear would be a learning curve. If I lived closer to a steam railroad, I might consider going nuclear. Since I have to travel by plane to reach most of my subjects, hauling around a ton of lights, stands, triggers, batteries etc. just isn't an option. I have great respect and admiration for folks like you who will spend hours after a long workday, possibly freezing your butts off and sacrificing a good night's sleep.....only to come home with nothing usable. Maybe I will develop that kind of patience after I retire........but probably not!
__________________
/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 07-09-2021, 11:05 PM   #17
Milepost 58
Member
 
Join Date: Jul 2020
Posts: 46
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post
As a followup I used the next frame which had train a little further away from edge and processed like before. That effort received 4 rejection reasons.

On another note from better times I have created an album of night and a few blue hour photos that were accepted, a total of 161 total. I guess you can view with this link if interested?

https://www.railpictures.net/album/6095/

Another recent photo which I obviously will not try but I like because was a challenge.

Thanks for all replies,

Bob Jordan
I would be curious to know how you approached this shot. The lights aren't streaky or blurred - It's a beautiful night shot. I have a lot of trouble in low light situations. The photo below is the one I am referring to.

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/720113/
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	Chicago Christmas.jpg
Views:	48
Size:	98.5 KB
ID:	9908  

Last edited by Milepost 58; 07-10-2021 at 01:15 PM. Reason: add image
Milepost 58 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-10-2021, 01:09 AM   #18
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 963
Default

Snip

With regard to the latest one, that scene has possibilities, but probably not with available light. The challenges are the light sources that are in the image and the lack of light in places where you really need it, such as on the train. That scene calls for some Alien Bees, or equipment like that, which can put light where you want it and eliminate the need for longer exposures. Obviously, going nuclear would be a learning curve. If I lived closer to a steam railroad, I might consider going nuclear. Since I have to travel by plane to reach most of my subjects, hauling around a ton of lights, stands, triggers, batteries etc. just isn't an option. I have great respect and admiration for folks like you who will spend hours after a long workday, possibly freezing your butts off and sacrificing a good night's sleep.....only to come home with nothing usable. Maybe I will develop that kind of patience after I retire........but probably not! [/quote]

I am with you, working with lighting and doing it right requires a lot of attention to detail and effort I am not inclined to do. I don't even want to think about it in winter plus to really do it well almost requires two people to set up, do test flashes, make adjustments. Unfortunately in the case of my example a small setup would have worked with a few flashed on low power.

Bob
RobJor 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 04:28 AM.


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