Common Angle, Common Scene: Oh My, It's Cloudy!

[br_railphotos]

Here's one I quite wish the screeners would have let slide. Oh well, the rules are the rules, I guess. Not too many photos from a perspective such as this on RP.

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...49&key=8406451

BTW, the train was 11,751 ft long.

[RobJor]

Rejection noted aside, maybe earlier shot cropped without the cut-off pole would make it attractive enough to accept ? They don't have a cut-off pole rejection so use the Cloudy rejection. As is that pole is a killer plus the 1111 is about to run off the frame, way too close for me.

Bob

[br_railphotos]

Originally Posted by RobJor

Rejection noted aside, maybe earlier shot cropped without the cut-off pole would make it attractive enough to accept ? They don't have a cut-off pole rejection so use the Cloudy rejection. As is that pole is a killer plus the 1111 is about to run off the frame, way too close for me.

Bob

Providing you are referring to the top of the power pole - Those poles are quite tall, and one would need to shoot quite a bit wider to include the entirety of it. Wide enough, in fact, to possibly risk a poor framing rejection (centered train).

Perhaps a better option would be to remove they pole completely?

If both of your points were the screener’s issue, would they not ding it with a poor composition rejection? After all, they can also throw more than one reason for rejection, if needed (I’ve seen this happen to one photo).

Thanks for your constructive feedback!

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by br_railphotos

Providing you are referring to the top of the power pole - Those poles are quite tall, and one would need to shoot quite a bit wider to include the entirety of it. Wide enough, in fact, to possibly risk a poor framing rejection (centered train).

Perhaps a better option would be to remove they pole completely?

If both of your points were the screener’s issue, would they not ding it with a poor composition rejection? After all, they can also throw more than one reason for rejection, if needed (I’ve seen this happen to one photo).

Thanks for your constructive feedback!

Removing would be a large task. Assuming you were clicking away as train approached an earlier frame would be one with the 1111 maybe a little over the little boardwalk then a crop would be just before the pole. Assuming the image shown is not a big crop already a crop should be of good quality. I am assuming you already cropped somewhat so could make it work

Bob

[br_railphotos]

Bob,

Unfortunately, I do not have a frame before this one. I had taken a few from a straight on angle, then moved for a side shot. There is hardly any crop applied. Just a touch to straighten/balance the photo. Keep in mind, this photo was shot at 1050 mm.

For what it's worth, I do have another shot, taken a few seconds later at 420 mm. The power pole is still cut off, and there are two additional power poles in frame. Of course, the train is, perhaps, another 100 yds east. These aren't your ordinary power poles. The are very tall, high voltage transmission towers, less than a mile from a big sub-station..

Now, that said, I've done a rough job of removing the pole. Also, I've cropped to a 7x5 vs 3x2. Do you think this would have a better chance of being satisfactory?

Edit: Oops! I used a private link to embed the photo. Should show up now.

[RobJor]

I admit not noting that it was much of a zoom and quality can be a problem for the more observant. I'd put it on the side for a while, maybe read the other thread what can happen with too many rejections in a row.

Bob

[br_railphotos]

Thanks, Bob. Yeah, I'm inclined to think they'd likely reject it again anyway. Seems any shot of newer power on a Class I or Class II regional taken on a cloudy day is objectionable. Unless the setting is wildly out of the ordinary. Oh well.

[Joe the Photog]

I like ot. It needs about .5% CCW rotation. I'd love to have been able to see more of he side of the locomotive.

[Joseph Cermak]

Agree with Joe on needing a bit of rotation, doesn't look quite level to me (looking at the signals especially). Overall, it seems dark/underexposed. The cloudy shots that seem to be accepted are often ones that don't look quite as dark and dreary.

[br_railphotos]

Thanks, fellas. In regards to rotation, perhaps it could use a little? I tried to balance it, using an assortment of different objects in frame - power pole, signals, etc. Just to clarify, Joe, does it need to go CCW or CW? The signals actually lean left slightly (perhaps 0.3°).

I'll probably reshoot the location another morning when it's sunny and standard power.

Also, since you mention more of a side view, I'll post one other photo here. Previously, I had considered submitting it, but decided not to when the Fairfax photo was rejected. Same locomotive, same cloudy day, after all. Anyway, here it is. Taken in Bertram, IA.



Do you guys think this actually has a chance? Or should I just keep the 1111 series for other platforms?

Thanks again. All feedback welcome. I'm only a few months into the RPs experience

Edit: Hopefully that photo isn't showing too large. It's a small version, but sized for submission.

[Joseph Cermak]

Originally Posted by br_railphotos

Thanks, fellas. In regards to rotation, perhaps it could use a little? I tried to balance it, using an assortment of different objects in frame - power pole, signals, etc. Just to clarify, Joe, does it need to go CCW or CW? The signals actually lean left slightly (perhaps 0.3°).

To me it looks to be leaning slightly to the left, so would rotate CW.

Originally Posted by br_railphotos

Also, since you mention more of a side view, I'll post one other photo here. Previously, I had considered submitting it, but decided not to when the Fairfax photo was rejected. Same locomotive, same cloudy day, after all. Anyway, here it is. Taken in Bertram, IA.



Do you guys think this actually has a chance? Or should I just keep the 1111 series for other platforms?

I think this shot looks a lot more promising, but I'd still try and brighten it up a bit more before submitting.

[Joe the Photog]

Joseph is right and I was wrong. It needs a slight CW rotation. I get so many "leaning right" rejections, I typed CCW out of habit. SMH

[tbelton]

I have nothing to add that hasn't already been said other than it is a really neat shot. Can really see the compression by looking at the cross ties.

I like it.

Trey

[TedG]

Originally Posted by br_railphotos

Here's one I quite wish the screeners would have let slide. Oh well, the rules are the rules, I guess. Not too many photos from a perspective such as this on RP.

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...49&key=8406451

BTW, the train was 11,751 ft long.

Based on your caption, and your remarks here, this photo's raison d'etre is the "unique focal length" at which it was taken. You went to great effort to describe all the equipment, without ever stipulating said focal length.
/Ted

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by TedG

Based on your caption, and your remarks here, this photo's raison d'etre is the "unique focal length" at which it was taken. You went to great effort to describe all the equipment, without ever stipulating said focal length.
/Ted

In a reply to me he said 420mm.

There was a really neat followup shot he threw out that has vanished so the whole thread is a little hosed. The followup was a little above and wide on the 1111 with the train strung out around the curve which for me was much better.

Bob

[br_railphotos]

Ted - My mistake there - I thought I had posted the focal length (1050 mm) in the description. There is enough info to figure it out, but it would take far too much effort (500x1.4(tele) = 700. 700x1.5(aps-c) = 1050mm).

Bob - Thanks for informing me that the photos no longer show up. They do for me??? However, they do not show up in a different browser, not signed in. I'll do a little sleuthing to try to bring them back. I used a public Dropbox link to embed them. I assume this is somehow the issue.

I would post them directly, but the forum seems to have a limit on files one can upload.

Edit: Well, I believe it's fixed. I used a different method to to get the link, so, hopefully, it will stay functional this time!

[br_railphotos]

Alright, I give up. The embedded photos have disappeared again. Therefore, I've just linked to them. Hopefully that is allowed.

Do any of you have suggestions on a better way to add photos to a message here? One that is not on RP, obviously.

Thanks

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by br_railphotos

Alright, I give up. The embedded photos have disappeared again. Therefore, I've just linked to them. Hopefully that is allowed.

Do any of you have suggestions on a better way to add photos to a message here? One that is not on RP, obviously.

Thanks

In the dialog box when typing a reply, click on the paper clip icon at the top. A "Manage Attachments" dialog will open. Click on "Choose file" and browse for the photo that you want to attach and select it. Then click "upload", return to the original dialog box, and click on the paper clip again. Click on the filename in the dropdown menu, and the photo will be inserted wherever you have the cursor positioned in your reply.

[br_railphotos]

Originally Posted by Decapod401

In the dialog box when typing a reply, click on the paper clip icon at the top. A "Manage Attachments" dialog will open. Click on "Choose file" and browse for the photo that you want to attach and select it. Then click "upload", return to the original dialog box, and click on the paper clip again. Click on the filename in the dropdown menu, and the photo will be inserted wherever you have the cursor positioned in your reply.

Thanks, Doug. I'd discovered that a while back, but it seems there's an extremely small number of photos allowed, which is without regard to different posts??? Just a guess, but perhaps 10 images would run me out of space?

That said, I discovered that "albums" hold up to 60 photos...each, I believe. Therefore, I made an album specifically for forum posts. Hopefully that will work better. And I won't have to tie up Dropbox with miscellaneous photos.

Thanks again,
Benjamin

[Decapod401]

Originally Posted by br_railphotos

Thanks, Doug. I'd discovered that a while back, but it seems there's an extremely small number of photos allowed, which is without regard to different posts??? Just a guess, but perhaps 10 images would run me out of space?

That said, I discovered that "albums" hold up to 60 photos...each, I believe. Therefore, I made an album specifically for forum posts. Hopefully that will work better. And I won't have to tie up Dropbox with miscellaneous photos.

Thanks again,
Benjamin

I believe that the limit is on a per-post basis, since old uploads don't show up when doing uploads for subsequent posts. I recommend this method as the path of least resistance.

[br_railphotos]

Originally Posted by Decapod401

I believe that the limit is on a per-post basis, since old uploads don't show up when doing uploads for subsequent posts. I recommend this method as the path of least resistance.

In that case, I shall use the feature until the point at which it ceases to allow more uploads.

Thanks again

[RobJor]

PhotoID: 764469 Photograph © Benjamin R.

message is too short but photo is fine.

[br_railphotos]

Thanks, Bob. Yes, it was accepted. Thanks, all, for the help!