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)
-   -   Composition too tight: B&O C-2478 (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18313)

TedG 01-09-2020 05:49 PM

Composition too tight: B&O C-2478
 
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...85&key=6601370

By today's standards, yeah, I suppose it's too tight. By 1985 standards, not so much, I think. Who could afford to waste Kodachrome on a bunch of superfluous stuff? Particularly on a "roster" shot of a museum piece on static display. (Different story, of course, if were talking about an operating train out on the mainline, where some space at the edges is important, I think.) And here all along I was quite happy with the in-camera tight crop as part of my Kodachrome conservation efforts. I guess that "fill the frame" motto wasn't the best idea I've ever had.
Thoughts?
/Ted

RobJor 01-09-2020 08:26 PM

Seems that''s the way you like it, and you have several others of similar composition accepted .
I think I tried very common photo of a CHP caboose and had that rejection so I don't know, just another "crummy" photo I guess.
Not sure you really want to go widervfor this type of shot. Bob

[photoid=717072]

Decapod401 01-10-2020 12:02 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedG (Post 196121)
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...85&key=6601370

By today's standards, yeah, I suppose it's too tight. By 1985 standards, not so much, I think. Who could afford to waste Kodachrome on a bunch of superfluous stuff? Particularly on a "roster" shot of a museum piece on static display. (Different story, of course, if were talking about an operating train out on the mainline, where some space at the edges is important, I think.) And here all along I was quite happy with the in-camera tight crop as part of my Kodachrome conservation efforts. I guess that "fill the frame" motto wasn't the best idea I've ever had.
Thoughts?
/Ted

Unfortunately, even if you have some more Kodachrome to give, you will eat it up when you do the leveling needed to get it accepted.

TedG 01-10-2020 02:15 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decapod401 (Post 196124)
Unfortunately, even if you have some more Kodachrome to give, you will eat it up when you do the leveling needed to get it accepted.

I'm not pursuing this any further--I can't--I've got no more chrome to work with. But, just out of curiosity, Doug, did you drop a guideline, or just eyeball it as far as level?

I think I leveled it based on the right side frame of the large bay window. Should it have instead been leveled based on the background building windows? (In which case even I can eyeball that it needs some CCW rotation.)

Leveling is a continuing source of frustration for me. So I appreciate your comments.
/Ted

TedG 01-10-2020 02:31 AM

Now I'm really embarrassed because I see that Doug has a perfectly lovely shot of B&O C-2478 at the Museum.

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/588605/

Now that I know it's already in the database, I don't feel so bad about the rejection.

As indicated in my "caption" (some may call it an op-ed), you would not want to see the condition of this example today.
/Ted

Decapod401 01-10-2020 12:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedG (Post 196126)
Now I'm really embarrassed because I see that Doug has a perfectly lovely shot of B&O C-2478 at the Museum.

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/588605/

[photoid=588605]

Now that I know it's already in the database, I don't feel so bad about the rejection.

As indicated in my "caption" (some may call it an op-ed), you would not want to see the condition of this example today.
/Ted

Actually, I'm embarrassed - I totally forgot that I had this in the database!

Decapod401 01-10-2020 12:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by TedG (Post 196125)
I'm not pursuing this any further--I can't--I've got no more chrome to work with. But, just out of curiosity, Doug, did you drop a guideline, or just eyeball it as far as level?

I think I leveled it based on the right side frame of the large bay window. Should it have instead been leveled based on the background building windows? (In which case even I can eyeball that it needs some CCW rotation.)

Leveling is a continuing source of frustration for me. So I appreciate your comments.
/Ted

My assessment is very approximate, as I didn't put a grid on this - I just narrowed the window and compared verticals to the nearby edge.

Leveling is based on a reliable reference vertical in the center of the frame. In this case, that would be one of the stacks on the building. Often, there isn't a reliable vertical near the center, so an off-centered reference must be used.

In a perfect world, all vertical references would align to be perfectly vertical, but this almost never happens out of the camera, because of lens distortion. This can be addressed by adjusting the vertical distortion setting in your photo editing program. Between this setting and the rotation setting, you can get all references to be level. Initially, it is an iterative process, but I can now usually predict the distortion setting because most of my photos were taken through the same 50mm prime lens.

Although, rolling stock is not generally considered to be a reliable reference, a roster shot on level track can be used. In your photo, the caboose ribs can definitely be used for distortion correction, and also should be reliable vertical references, but always compare to other references (building elements in this case) before calling it good.

TedG 01-10-2020 03:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decapod401 (Post 196127)
Actually, I'm embarrassed - I totally forgot that I had this in the database!

Yeah, turns out RP has this search function right on the home page, and it works pretty well as long as photographers have entered valid data. [If only I had only used it before uploading my “marginal”, or as Bob put it “crummy”:p photo!] Choosing “B&O” in the “Select Railroad” dropdown, and “caboose” as a keyword in the “locomotive” field, returns 29 photos, only two of which are wagon-tops: Doug’s C-2478 Class I-12 at the Museum, and one of C-2504 (Class I-5b) on the road.

I consider the C-2478 an important piece for the Museum, considering it was designed in-house, and built in-house by the B&O. Unfortunately, the Museum does not, apparently, agree with my assessment.

A word of caution to all, however, regarding the Museum’s online rolling stock roster—take the information with a grain of salt. Using the C-2478 as an example
http://www.borail.org/C2478.aspx
  1. They list a build date of “1941”. The correct build date for C-2478 is 01/1942. (At least they have the piece itself stenciled correctly.)
  2. “The B&O shops in Keyser, West Virginia constructed the C-2478 along with 100 sister cabooses in 1941.” Wrong. Must be that "new math". The B&O shops in Keyser, West Virginia constructed the C-2478 along with 99 sister cabooses in late 1941/early 1942.
  3. “Although a successful design, few were built during the Second World War because of steel shortages.” Wrong. Not sure just when they think WWII occurred, but in fact all 100 of the initial batch (C-2400 to C-2499) were built during WWII (although the U.S. was not initially involved). Steel shortages did prevent the construction of the second batch (C-2800 to C-2824) of I-12s until August-October 1945.
/Ted

RobJor 01-10-2020 06:00 PM

My "crummy" remark was just being clever. I have no problem with your photo and it is a little different take than Doug's. Did seem a little exp and WB adjustment could have helped but that is a personal take. As far as level I usually run them through camera RAW and use the auto leveling and distortion. I had a few where I "added" on a little to the side if I lose too much. I thought it was pretty square.

The search function is not very robust, can end with nothing or too much. I try to limit the search by state or RR so Maryland and 2478 on came back with Doug's photo only. Think of it as SQL.

Bob

TedG 01-10-2020 10:13 PM

And no one appreciates your cleverness more than I, Bob. At any rate, at least I'm not a "hack" ;) (if you catch my drift).

With the search function, you're probably best off trying a couple of different variations. With the search I conducted, "C-2504" in the road number field wouldn't have turned up the other wagon-top, because the photog didn't bother to enter it, despite the fact that that was the subject, and despite the road number being plainly visible in the photo.
/Ted

[photoid=248483]


All times are GMT. The time now is 06:50 PM.

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