Old 09-13-2010, 10:05 PM   #1
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 794
Default Rejected - but wanted to share regardless

These shots were rejected and I'm not arguing with that, but I wanted to show them in hopes of someone else getting off their duffs and getting some better shots on the database. Since I've moved up to Huntsville I don't get many opportunities to get to areas where there's more of a chance of catching one anymore. For those who don't know, two of the ex-UP CN C40-8s were painted in this special scheme to celebrate CN's end of government control in 1995. These units are numbered 2113 and 2115. Ironically, it's standard "web" painted 2114 that seems to be getting all the limelight.

Bad angle;
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1205090410

PEQ;
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=874592663

Like I said, both rejections were expected and I'm not looking for help in getting these particular ones on, but I figured I'd try anyways cuz (at least to my knowledge) there aren't any shots of either of these on here as of yet.

Wayne
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2010, 10:10 PM   #2
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,909
Default

Wayne, I would imagine the 2nd one could get on with a different crop to showcase the logo, and get rid of that horrid distortion-ed bottom of the frame.

Loyd L.
__________________
Those who seek glory, must also seek infamy.

My personal photography site
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2010, 11:33 PM   #3
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 794
Default

Thanks Loyd, but I don't think there's any point trying with this one. PEQ is pretty much the kiss of death here. I did see the distortion and tried to correct it with the distortion filter but didn't like what happened to the top part of the image - just doesn't look right. Also don't know how else to crop - looser crop looks awkward (and since it was a trailing unit going out even further to include the whole thing is pointless) and tighter crop loses the sky and rails which I believe are necessary to give it the required perspective. I have seen shots of these units on other sites so I know people are out there shooting them, just not to RP standards. I'm going to try to head south sometime this week and if Lady Luck smiles I might catch one again (leading would be great!) but it's a long shot at best.
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	20100910053b.jpg
Views:	168
Size:	378.3 KB
ID:	5773  
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-13-2010, 11:50 PM   #4
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
PEQ is pretty much the kiss of death here.
Unless you are trying to get a streak shot on, then after about 20 attempts they may let it on.
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 12:04 AM   #5
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
Thanks Loyd, but I don't think there's any point trying with this one. PEQ is pretty much the kiss of death here. .
Hmmm I agree with Loyd, the second one with a little work can get it, not to long ago there was a BNSF side shot with CN painted over it, same type of shot..BTW my last PEQ I appealed, and it ended up getting a People's Choice, so I'm not to sure what your talking about,
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 12:09 AM   #6
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sd9 View Post
, not to long ago there was a BNSF side shot with CN painted over it, same type of shot..
Found it... try something like this
Image © Craig Walker
PhotoID: 332214
Photograph © Craig Walker
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 01:32 AM   #7
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 794
Default

Okay, so with encouragement from the likes of Loyd, Bill, Jim Dorst and oddly enough even Troy (although I'm not gonna go for 20!) I've decided to give #2 another whack. This final rework does look better to my eye even with the bottom cropped off so I'll give it another go. We shall see...
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	20100910053e.jpg
Views:	172
Size:	373.1 KB
ID:	5774  
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 01:49 AM   #8
conductor79
Junior Member
 
conductor79's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2007
Posts: 22
Default

Looks like your not quite centered on the logo from where you took the shot, if you would've stepped to the left a little it would've been better, just my 2 cents
conductor79 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 02:22 AM   #9
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

Yeah, wds, that does look better. It might get on. :crosses fingers:
__________________
Be governed accordingly,

PFL
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 05:34 PM   #10
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 794
Default 'round and 'round we go

So after reworking the pic as suggested it got hit with undersharpened;
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=282169164

Okay, I can see that so I sharpened it up a bit.
Didn't want to go too overboard and it looked fine to my weary eyes, rejected for undersharpened again;
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1034921832

Left it for the night and came back to it this morning, sharpened it as much as I figured it could take and (wait for it) PEQ again!
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=560261984

Since it is apparently a type of picture they wish to accept - witness that of Craig's shown above and this similar -albeit far superior in content - shot by Jeff Faherty (which I love) I guess it must be the scheme or the language which offends them - or both! Thanks again to those who tried to help.

Wayne
Image © Jeff Faherty
PhotoID: 214099
Photograph © Jeff Faherty
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!

Last edited by wds; 09-14-2010 at 11:23 PM.
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 05:41 PM   #11
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

I think it is one screener that keeps getting you, but I don't know what else there is for you to do.
__________________
Be governed accordingly,

PFL
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 11:01 PM   #12
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by crazytiger View Post
I think it is one screener that keeps getting you, but I don't know what else there is for you to do.
Appeal, and if it gets rejected, Then you can say there's nothing else I can do
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-14-2010, 11:17 PM   #13
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 794
Default

I guess so... Hopefully they don't get annoyed and cut my upload limit...
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2010, 05:09 AM   #14
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 794
Default

Well whaddya know? Guess they didn't get overly annoyed after all.
Image © W. D. Shaw
PhotoID: 337917
Photograph © W. D. Shaw
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2010, 11:02 AM   #15
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
Well whaddya know? Guess they didn't get overly annoyed after all.
Image © W. D. Shaw
PhotoID: 337917
Photograph © W. D. Shaw
Way to go..
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2010, 01:39 PM   #16
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 794
Default

Thanks again, Bill. If not for your encouragement and that of Loyd, Peter and Jim Dorst, I would have been content to let it slide after the first PEQ. Ultimaterly the ensuing effort did produce a better image, although looking through the images with fresh eyes on this HDMI monitor I'm on today I still think the second "undersharpened" rejection was plenty sharp enough. On my own monitor though I had my doubts, that's why I added more sharpening.
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2010, 01:48 PM   #17
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
Thanks again, Bill. If not for your encouragement and that of Loyd, Peter and Jim Dorst, I would have been content to let it slide after the first PEQ. Ultimaterly the ensuing effort did produce a better image, although looking through the images with fresh eyes on this HDMI monitor I'm on today I still think the second "undersharpened" rejection was plenty sharp enough. On my own monitor though I had my doubts, that's why I added more sharpening.
Funny you say that, although I don't see the overall shot as excessively sharp, there is a distinct sharpening halo on the top of the unit and around the horns.
__________________
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 09-15-2010, 01:57 PM   #18
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 794
Default

Yeah, that's jumping out at me too. Maybe when I get some time I'll redo it (again - sigh) and deselect from just below the roof-line on up before the final sharpening. Maybe being the operative word here. The novelty of working on this shot wore off about 36 hours ago.
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-15-2010, 02:13 PM   #19
crazytiger
Senior Member
 
crazytiger's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2009
Location: NS Greenville District
Posts: 1,473
Default

Nicely done, W.D.!
__________________
Be governed accordingly,

PFL
crazytiger is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-16-2010, 04:04 AM   #20
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Congratulations! One of the top 2 of Past 24 Hours:
sd9 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 05:00 AM.


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