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)
-   -   Foreground Clutter? (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=17651)

transit383 02-19-2016 09:51 PM

Foreground Clutter?
 
Not much can be done about it in this shot. I liked the fading banner on the side of the structure sporting a painting of the very equipment passing overhead:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...82&key=8542883

magicman_841 02-19-2016 10:08 PM

Why must deck girder bridges ruin everything?

Decapod401 02-19-2016 10:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by magicman_841 (Post 187387)
Why must deck girder bridges ruin everything?

At the risk of sounding like I used to work for the BNSF, that's a through girder bridge. A deck girder bridge would have worked.

magicman_841 02-19-2016 10:33 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decapod401 (Post 187388)
At the risk of sounding like I used to work for the BNSF, that's a through girder bridge. A deck girder bridge would have worked.

I feel like I'm wearing orthopedic shoes, because I stand corrected!

RobJor 02-19-2016 10:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transit383 (Post 187385)
Not much can be done about it in this shot. I liked the fading banner on the side of the structure sporting a painting of the very equipment passing overhead:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...82&key=8542883


I like it, maybe a little less road in the foreground? Puts the train in its environment, buildings and signs in background. The sign repeating the train above is really cool. You see so many wedgie at CP999 with a few trees and roadbed.
Bob Jordan

transit383 02-19-2016 11:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 187393)
I like it, maybe a little less road in the foreground? Small thinking rejections, problem with rules, OMG we can't see the wheels. Puts the train in its environment, buildings and signs in background. The sign repeating the train above is really cool. You see so many wedgie at CP999 with a few trees and roadbed. There was another similar rejected in forums for same reason, too bad I think.

I think there was just one with a car in the photo, obstructing a somewhat distant train so not sure when........

Bob Jordan

I didn't even consider a tighter crop, I liked the full scene with both billboards. But thanks for the suggestion, a tighter crop worked!

[photoid=566512]

bigiron 02-19-2016 11:49 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transit383 (Post 187398)
I didn't even consider a tighter crop, I liked the full scene with both billboards. But thanks for the suggestion, a tighter crop worked!

[photoid=566512]

Gerald, consider yourself lucky as there has been some evolving in terms of the "trucks" being out of sight meant a quick rejection. I can remember with most of the undercarriage in sight and it still wasn't good enough. I think the painting on the bridge was a difference maker. Just keep obstructed views of the wheels as a possible issue down the road as I've had my share with just the little wire guard rail.

Good catch, Rich

transit383 02-20-2016 12:41 AM

Thanks, Rich. If the billboard wasn't railroad related, I probably wouldn't have even shot at this location. The GP40 fleet on NJT is becoming more elusive, so catching one on this bridge with the painting of a GP40 was a nice treat.

Mgoldman 02-20-2016 02:50 AM

Surprised and glad to see the tighter crop was accepted. I was going to say there was enough going for the shot originally to overcome the "foreground clutter", but I admit, while the crop did not "fix" the clutter it focuses more attention on what it is that makes the scene work so well.

/Mitch

Eugene 02-21-2016 09:57 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by transit383 (Post 187385)
Not much can be done about it in this shot. I liked the fading banner on the side of the structure sporting a painting of the very equipment passing overhead[/url]

And going in the opposite direction :wink:
IMHO in this particular shot I think the banner is very appropriate and makes the shot interesting, so if I was a screener I would take that into consideration, bit I'm not and it's not my site :p

Apart from that, I think the bridge is too centred in the shot.

Eugene

troy12n 12-15-2016 02:18 PM

Foreground clutter you say?

[photoid=599412]

Joseph Cermak 12-15-2016 02:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by troy12n (Post 190068)
Foreground clutter you say?

[photoid=599412]

Not if you have a certain name...

This is why I think photos should be screened on merit without the photographer's name present.

JRMDC 12-15-2016 03:20 PM

Troy, does your post, reviving a threat from almost 10 months ago, have a point? Inconsistency? Screener favoritism? Something?

For that matter, how long does it take to scroll through that many old RP threads and find one with a pertinent title? :) Inquiring minds want to know!

Joseph, I think the shot clearly has enough merit for RP, I see no favoritism here. Regardless of how much one might complain about other shots not getting in, I just don't see the complaint about this one being accepted.

Joseph Cermak 12-15-2016 03:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 190072)
Joseph, I think the shot clearly has enough merit for RP, I see no favoritism here. Regardless of how much one might complain about other shots not getting in, I just don't see the complaint about this one being accepted.

I agree that I think the shot has enough merit, but not by the "standards" of RP. I've had shots rejected for foreground clutter for a few blades of grass. Or if a deck girder bridge is also a foreground clutter rejection.

Freericks 12-15-2016 04:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 190073)
I agree that I think the shot has enough merit, but not by the "standards" of RP. I've had shots rejected for foreground clutter for a few blades of grass. Or if a deck girder bridge is also a foreground clutter rejection.

The subject itself need to be taken into account. A rare passenger move with a splash of fall color in the offending foliage is a different animal than a photo that can be taken every day.

By the by, if a photo's foreground clutter is just a few blades of grass why not take five minutes and fix that in Photoshop?

This photo is completely worthy. The photographer's name, I believe, had nothing to do with it getting in.

RobJor 12-15-2016 05:04 PM

I am not a screener and don't look at every image but in terms of the
"top" contributors, I can tell their photos before I even look at the name on the photo. The photo in question, I favored because I felt it was very pleasing visually and luckily there was a little opening for the nose plus I really like when you can get just a little elevation gain.

Bob

JRMDC 12-15-2016 06:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 190073)
I agree that I think the shot has enough merit, but not by the "standards" of RP. I've had shots rejected for foreground clutter for a few blades of grass. Or if a deck girder bridge is also a foreground clutter rejection.

Joseph, I know you are still feeling your way around RP, but the "standards" are not at issue in this case. Enforcement of the "standards", in practice, depend on the overall merit of the shot. No standard is hard and fast - that's the reality. Sometimes it is inconsistency, sometimes it is major differences in the overall merit of the shot, sometimes somewhere in between. That's why it can be tricky to compare rejected and accepted shots. Of course, sometimes it is easy, as in this case, where there is no way this shot gets rejected. (Well ... :) some screeners, in some moods, would surely find a way. :) )

Unlike some, I am fine with posing the comparisons, say in addressing a particular issue, but sometimes the response to the comparison is "nope, not a valid comparison given the other differences between the shots."

JimThias 12-19-2016 05:01 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 190070)
Not if you have a certain name...

This is why I think photos should be screened on merit without the photographer's name present.

At times I may agree with that sentiment, but in this case, I'm certain that exact shot would have been accepted regardless of the name on it. It's an attractive subject in a beautiful scene, thus greatly reducing any negatives that a foreground obstruction would normally have. And while I wasn't there, I'm pretty sure Steve had a few things to say about those small trees in the way. :lol: However, to overcome them he captured the subject in the best position possible. Well done, Steve!

Joseph Cermak 12-20-2016 04:27 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 190104)
A, to overcome them he captured the subject in the best position possible.

Yet this place is full of people who say that the best possible doesn't matter or the effort given to get a shot, only the results. Not really saying it applies to this particular photo, more a general comment on the site.

John West 12-20-2016 05:41 PM

Duplicate post.

John West 12-20-2016 05:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 190121)
Yet this place is full of people who say that the best possible doesn't matter or the effort given to get a shot, only the results. Not really saying it applies to this particular photo, more a general comment on the site.

Yes, the result is all that counts. But result is a combination of a number of things, and how interesting the subject matter is counts. My favorite rule is all rules are made to be broken. It's simply what works for you, or if you want to post here what works for the screeners.

RobJor 12-20-2016 07:13 PM

[photoid=599918]

This is not really clutter but I thought I would sneak it in??

Two questions:

1) for some reason the preview would not show up(for me??) or here. so I assume the original views were curiosity views.

2) would you or not clone out the cones?

Bob

Decapod401 12-20-2016 11:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 190128)

2) would you or not clone out the cones?

Bob

Better yet, why not take one extra minute to talk to the crew and ask permission to temporarily move the cones while exposing images?

Maybe I'm just an old film guy who grew up with the notion that these sorts of things needed to be addressed before taking the photo, since cloning was a nonexistent option. It seems to me that this is still the better approach.

To answer your question, given that the exposure is already in the can, I would clone them out.

Doug

JimThias 12-21-2016 08:53 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 190121)
Yet this place is full of people who say that the best possible doesn't matter or the effort given to get a shot, only the results. Not really saying it applies to this particular photo, more a general comment on the site.

The "best possible" was an added observation based on being completely OCD about perfect subject placement. What others perceive as "best possible" might be completely different from my eyes. :smile:

JimThias 12-21-2016 08:54 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decapod401 (Post 190129)
To answer your question, given that the exposure is already in the can, I would clone them out.

Agreed. Clone the cones!


All times are GMT. The time now is 04:24 AM.

Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2019, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.