Old 02-21-2021, 03:48 PM   #1
br_railphotos
Member
 
br_railphotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Eastern Iowa
Posts: 48
Default Common Angle, Common Scene: Oh My, It's Cloudy!

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.
br_railphotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2021, 06:56 PM   #2
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 945
Default

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
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2021, 07:15 PM   #3
br_railphotos
Member
 
br_railphotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Eastern Iowa
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post
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!
br_railphotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2021, 07:33 PM   #4
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by br_railphotos View Post
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
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2021, 08:26 PM   #5
br_railphotos
Member
 
br_railphotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Eastern Iowa
Posts: 48
Default

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.


Last edited by br_railphotos; 02-26-2021 at 04:03 PM.
br_railphotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-21-2021, 11:05 PM   #6
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 945
Default

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
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2021, 02:34 AM   #7
br_railphotos
Member
 
br_railphotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Eastern Iowa
Posts: 48
Default

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.
br_railphotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2021, 08:47 PM   #8
Joe the Photog
A dude with a camera
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,964
Default

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 C. Hinson Photography
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-22-2021, 08:58 PM   #9
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 456
Default

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.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2021, 12:42 AM   #10
br_railphotos
Member
 
br_railphotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Eastern Iowa
Posts: 48
Default

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.

Last edited by br_railphotos; 02-26-2021 at 04:03 PM.
br_railphotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2021, 12:35 PM   #11
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 456
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by br_railphotos View Post
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.

Quote:
Originally Posted by br_railphotos View Post
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.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2021, 03:47 PM   #12
Joe the Photog
A dude with a camera
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,964
Default

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
__________________
Joseph C. Hinson Photography
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-23-2021, 11:45 PM   #13
tbelton
Member
 
tbelton's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2013
Posts: 64
Default

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
tbelton is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 02:47 AM   #14
TedG
Member
 
TedG's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2019
Location: central Merlin
Posts: 66
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by br_railphotos View Post
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
TedG is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 02:57 AM   #15
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 945
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by TedG View Post
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
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-24-2021, 06:47 PM   #16
br_railphotos
Member
 
br_railphotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Eastern Iowa
Posts: 48
Default

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!

Last edited by br_railphotos; 02-24-2021 at 07:11 PM.
br_railphotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 03:33 PM   #17
br_railphotos
Member
 
br_railphotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Eastern Iowa
Posts: 48
Default

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
br_railphotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 04:02 PM   #18
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by br_railphotos View Post
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.
__________________
Doug Lilly

My RP Pics are HERE.

I've now got a Flickr. account, too.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 04:11 PM   #19
br_railphotos
Member
 
br_railphotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Eastern Iowa
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decapod401 View Post
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
br_railphotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 04:25 PM   #20
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 572
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by br_railphotos View Post
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.
__________________
Doug Lilly

My RP Pics are HERE.

I've now got a Flickr. account, too.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-26-2021, 05:32 PM   #21
br_railphotos
Member
 
br_railphotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Eastern Iowa
Posts: 48
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Decapod401 View Post
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
br_railphotos is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2021, 03:08 AM   #22
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 945
Default

Image © Benjamin R.
PhotoID: 764469
Photograph © Benjamin R.
message is too short but photo is fine.
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-27-2021, 11:58 AM   #23
br_railphotos
Member
 
br_railphotos's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2020
Location: Eastern Iowa
Posts: 48
Default

Thanks, Bob. Yes, it was accepted. Thanks, all, for the help!
br_railphotos 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 12:16 AM.


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