RailPictures.Net Forums

RailPictures.Net Forums (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/index.php)
-   Railroad Photography Forum (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/forumdisplay.php?f=9)
-   -   What do you think about this reject? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=12661)

Joey Bowman 08-17-2010 02:20 AM

What do you think about this reject?
 
Haha, Not going to push it or even attempt to appeal or resubmit it but figured I would share the photo on here.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1120841706

Freericks 08-17-2010 02:31 AM

Too much taffeta.

Create a layer and dial down the taffeta, and you should be good to go.

Cool shot.

JRMDC 08-17-2010 02:41 AM

Beautiful shot!

troy12n 08-17-2010 10:39 AM

If you are going to stage something, stage something realistic...

milwman 08-17-2010 11:38 AM

Great photo needs more leg LOL

JRMDC 08-17-2010 12:16 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 119581)
If you are going to stage something, stage something realistic...

Gosh, because the one and only goal of staging a shot is to create an image of pure realism... :roll:

milwman 08-17-2010 12:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 119583)
Gosh, because the one and only goal of staging a shot is to create an image of pure realism... :roll:

Or a shot like that isn't shot for fans normally it's a wedding model shot. It's a shot that has a train as a prop in it.;-)

JRMDC 08-17-2010 01:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by milwman (Post 119584)
Or a shot like that isn't shot for fans normally it's a wedding model shot. It's a shot that has a train as a prop in it.;-)

My objection to Troy's statement has nothing to do with your statement, with which I agree.

troy12n 08-17-2010 02:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 119583)
Gosh, because the one and only goal of staging a shot is to create an image of pure realism... :roll:

I compare stuff like this to the "cleaning the headlight" type of stuff, except in reality people DID do that stuff at some point. What are the chances of some woman in a wedding dress getting anywhere near a dirty, greasy steam locomotive, let alone touching one like that.

That's all I am saying...

Chase55671 08-17-2010 02:28 PM

I like the shot. The engineer in the background is perfectly placed.

Maybe the screeners are letting the foamers recover from the last girl posted on RP a few days ago before springing this on them?

Chase

JRMDC 08-17-2010 03:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 119589)
I compare stuff like this to the "cleaning the headlight" type of stuff, except in reality people DID do that stuff at some point. What are the chances of some woman in a wedding dress getting anywhere near a dirty, greasy steam locomotive, let alone touching one like that.

That's all I am saying...

And all I am saying is that there are reasons to stage a shot other than to replicate reality, so your criticism/comment seemed silly to me. Art is not constrained by realism (but RP chooses to be).

I don't know, but I strongly suspect Joey didn't create the shot with RP in mind. Rather, he created the shot he wanted, following his vision, and then tried to see if RP would accept it.

Walter S 08-17-2010 03:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 119589)
I compare stuff like this to the "cleaning the headlight" type of stuff, except in reality people DID do that stuff at some point. What are the chances of some woman in a wedding dress getting anywhere near a dirty, greasy steam locomotive, let alone touching one like that.

That's all I am saying...

Actually I would not be surprised at all if this would have happened in the days of steam. I see shots regularly of families in their Sundays best posing around steam engines, so who's to say that this couldn't have happened either?

Great shot Joey!

Dennis A. Livesey 08-17-2010 03:47 PM

Joey, you made an excellent shot; any one without an axe to grind would say so. You and I know that on the purely photographic forums all would appreciate it. The idea, the composition, the smooth image quality are all first rate.

I would have bet money that RP would reject this. It doesn't fit RP's style where the railroad is the center of the idea. Here, the railroad is a prop and RP doesn't like that.

However, the big irony is how THIS site, a site devoted to railroad images would reject this. You would think that RP would be THE photographic place that would welcome all possibilities of railroad imaging.

Frankly, I find it embarrassing that the screeners allow purely prurient shots in, (such as the recent one we all looked at of a big-butt-bikini) yet reject this tasteful version of femininity and steel.

KevinM 08-17-2010 04:22 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey (Post 119598)
Frankly, I find it embarrassing that the screeners allow purely prurient shots in, (such as the recent one we all looked at of a big-butt-bikini) yet reject this tasteful version of femininity and steel.

Likewise, Dennis.

Nice image, Joey.

Joey Bowman 08-17-2010 04:23 PM

Thank you to everyone for checking it out.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 119594)

I don't know, but I strongly suspect Joey didn't create the shot with RP in mind. Rather, he created the shot he wanted, following his vision, and then tried to see if RP would accept it.

You hit the nail on the head with that statement. I do not think I have ever pressed the shutter button once while thinking about RP.

The idea for this shoot first originated around January or February. The model is into vintage and other related genres. I suggested doing a shoot at the museum with the trains. Not too long after we first talked about doing the shoot, Clint Renegar, BJ Preddy, and Ben Earp (all RP contributors) did a night shoot at the museum. I liked the outcome and then entertained the idea of doing the shoot at night and making it look as if a locomotive was fired up during the shoot, just adding a new dimension. (though the above photo does not feature any steam or anything like that).

We tried to set a date but its hard to get 4 different parties to agree on a date and the project fell through for a few months. Then about two weeks before the date we shot the idea was brought back up and everyone's schedule aligned. Having an engineer in the shot was never part of the original plan though Clint talked about wanting to do one or two photos during the shoot of him alone dressed up as an engineer. I figured, why not add him to one of ours? When editing the photos I decided to give one shot a try, just for kicks, I did not expect it to make it in in the first place.

It was a great shoot, I feel that I have created some of my strongest portraits yet, and got to combine my two favorite subjects, trains and brides.

Here are two more from the shoot, still working on the rest.

http://www.joeybowman.net/photos/969881271_j52kf-XL.jpg

http://www.joeybowman.net/photos/973005729_SBQHK-XL.jpg

And no thats not "bad color" or a weird color cast, trying to create a vintage look, maybe kind of like a cross processed photograph or something that has faded/suffered color damage over time.

Walter S 08-17-2010 04:28 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey Bowman (Post 119602)
Thank you to everyone for checking it out.



You hit the nail on the head with that statement. I do not think I have ever pressed the shutter button once while thinking about RP.

And the sad thing is, many do....

JRMDC 08-17-2010 04:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey (Post 119598)
However, the big irony is how THIS site, a site devoted to railroad images would reject this. You would think that RP would be THE photographic place that would welcome all possibilities of railroad imaging.

Well, there is also the question of how much one site can do. In my view, RP does a good job of merging the basic wedgie crowd with the higher-end/realism stuff. I think that stuff that I will loosely call "more artsy than RP" may just not work in the same website, too much of a discordant add on.

This all to simply say, Dennis, get a new website going! :)

Quote:

(such as the recent one we all looked at of a big-butt-bikini) yet reject this tasteful version of femininity and steel.
Only slim butts for Dennis! No pear shapes for Dennis, he is toooo picky!

JRMDC 08-17-2010 04:40 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joey Bowman (Post 119602)
It was a great shoot, I feel that I have created some of my strongest portraits yet, and got to combine my two favorite subjects, trains and brides.

Of course, I don't know about your entire body of portraiture, but these are very good.

One critical comment, I am not a fan of the outstretched arm in the last shot, it looks quite awkward as a pose. In the second shot, nice with the model but the train is not evident and she looks like she is leaning on some weird casting.

So my fave is the first, by far.

J

Heymon 08-17-2010 04:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter S (Post 119603)
And the sad thing is, many do....

I plead somewhat guilty to this, in a manner of speaking. Before I found RP I was ignorant about certain things when it came to photography, but in coming here I have been taught a great deal. I suppose that if you take a photography class and are out shooting, you might think about things your instructor told you while composing.

In my case, RP has been a lot of my instruction, and this goes for photos of all subjects, so I do think about RP even if my photo is not meant to be submitted here. Joey's shots are a case in point. Here we have on RP a good lesson on portrait type photography, event though the shots never made the database (and weren't intended to).

PS I do understand the point you were making though, Walter :)

Joe the Photog 08-17-2010 04:53 PM

I love the pose on the second shot and the color on the third. It makes the model stand out more than she did in the black and white conversion. To my eye, the color looks "vintage" to the point that it looks close to what I might expect a color shot to look like from the 40s. (What do I know? I was born in 1970.)

Joe the Photog 08-17-2010 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 119581)
If you are going to stage something, stage something realistic...

:roll:

Thanks for the chuckle, Troy. I needed one!

:-D

Dennis A. Livesey 08-17-2010 05:12 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Walter S (Post 119603)
And the sad thing is, many do....

I'm not sure what you mean Walter.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 119604)
Well, there is also the question of how much one site can do. In my view, RP does a good job of merging the basic wedgie crowd with the higher-end/realism stuff. I think that stuff that I will loosely call "more artsy than RP" may just not work in the same website, too much of a discordant add on.

I disagree; I think RP has room to be more inclusive. All inclusive, no.

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 119604)
This all to simply say, Dennis, get a new website going! :)

I can't keep my own website maintained so another is out of the question.
However, if there was money to be made...

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 119604)
Only slim butts for Dennis! No pear shapes for Dennis, he is toooo picky!

I like big, fat boilers; does that count?

JRMDC 08-17-2010 05:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey (Post 119610)
I disagree; I think RP has room to be more inclusive. All inclusive, no.

Well, I wont get into a full consideration now, but one thing jumps out. The screening of such shots would be much more subjective that what is currently done. (Can you believe it! It's true!) I don't see how RP could manage it on current manpower. Furthermore, I think the screening would necessarily rely on a different set of standards. So, how does it go, you have a wedgie/representational channel going to screener set A, an artsy non-representational channel going to screener set B, the option to resubmit to the other channel? And what are those standards going to be? Wide open, accept anything that has an "artsy" feel and has no obvious flaws? When is blur a technical flaw and when is it artistic expression?

Like it or not, in the RP realm things are (RELATIVELY) predictable and thus (can you believe it!) relatively consistent. Add in the additonal stuff and it has the potential to blow up, in the sense of being unmanageable.

Of course, there is a way to do it. My concern is not that, my concern is mixing that in with the current RP and having the (valuable!) current RP lose direction and focus.

KevinM 08-17-2010 05:37 PM

Honestly, these are beautiful images and I think it strange that RP would reject them out of hand, when as Dennis pointed out earlier, they take obviously staged bikini shots. If there is anything about these that doesn't "work" (I dislike that term "work"...too artsy fartsy) for me as a steam enthusiast, it is that in all of them the woman is actually touching the steam engine in some way. Perhaps I just hang around steam engines too much, but I've never met any woman who would ever touch a live steam engine wearing a beautiful, white gown like this lady is!!! :lol:

I'd be curious.... What time of day did this shot get clipped, Joey? From my own experiences and from back-channel discussions with others, there does seem to be a correlation between the range of what is acceptable and the time of day.

JRMDC 08-17-2010 05:58 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 119612)
Honestly, these are beautiful images and I think it strange that RP would reject them out of hand, when as Dennis pointed out earlier, they take obviously staged bikini shots.

I don't see it this way. The current shots are very much, to use the terms from above, portraits with the RR content as a prop. The various bikini shots, I think of the BNSF in particular, is a more "realistic" interaction between babe and behemoth, to coin a phrase. The train's presence is not artificial, there is a stopped train and a girl nearby, the girl may or may not be posed but the scene is, in some sense, representational. The train was not stopped at that point for the shot.

The shot here is 100% posed and, unlike, say, a scene at a photo charter, does not have an attempt to portray a real scene. Unless that scene is itself a staged photo shoot from 50 years ago, in which case the meta-dimensions of the comparison are making my head spin and I give up. :) :)

Nick's canoe shot, nicely done but I personally would have rejected it. There is a pix from some time ago, I think Playboy models in south america (not nude! only jetphotos allows nudity :) ) that I would also have rejected. My tastes and my perception of what RP is trying to do, obviously MANY others disagree. :)

J


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:04 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2020, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.