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)
-   -   You have to laugh..... (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18129)

baggydave 07-03-2018 01:39 PM

You have to laugh.....
 
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...94&key=4065459

bigbassloyd 07-03-2018 01:47 PM

It's quite true though. Looks rather soft and not quite level also.

I know it can be frustrating because it's just a bridge.

Loyd L.

baggydave 07-03-2018 02:07 PM

Oh .......... I thought that they were saying that part of the train was missing, nothing to do with the bridge. Locomotive is travelling light engine of course.

bigbassloyd 07-03-2018 02:21 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggydave (Post 194344)
Oh .......... I thought that they were saying that part of the train was missing, nothing to do with the bridge. Locomotive is travelling light engine of course.

LOL. No, they are referencing that the bridge is effectively hiding a lot of the locomotive and tender. :D

Loyd L.

Joseph Cermak 07-03-2018 02:30 PM

Yup, I have had this rejection used for girder bridges as well. It is somewhat oddly phrased given the context though.

baggydave 07-03-2018 02:42 PM

That's odd. I have three pictures in the DB of this bridge and all hide some of the wheel structure. This week I have had three photos rejected. The other two because of clutter. It seems that long reeds in the water are offensive to the screeners, although they do not get in the way of the main picture. They were present in two of the pictures published as well. Ah well back to something more useful
Thanks Dave

Decapod401 07-03-2018 02:55 PM

I think that it's a strange rejection reason for the photo. Obstruction would be more consistent with other rejections that I've received/seen. I would also expect a going away rejection.

Chris Kilroy 07-03-2018 03:05 PM

To be fair, it was rejected for foreground clutter the first time...


http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...06&key=8109640

baggydave 07-03-2018 03:41 PM

Personally speaking I would call that artistic but...... I bow to those who know

Chris Kilroy 07-03-2018 04:55 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggydave (Post 194353)
Personally speaking I would call that artistic but...... I bow to those who know


How is a bridge railing obstructing the bottom half of the engine "artistic?"

baggydave 07-03-2018 05:53 PM

Chris
You misunderstand me. I am saying that I liked the reeds and stuff in one corner of another picture which a screener decided was clutter. I just like that sort of thing. And as I have already said I have two on the database with this bridge obstructing the bottom of the locomotive so I just don't see how this one differs.

miningcamper1 07-03-2018 06:44 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Kilroy (Post 194351)
To be fair, it was rejected for foreground clutter the first time...


http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...06&key=8109640

"Clutter": junk, wires, poles, signs, weeds, vehicles, gawkers, big watermarks, etc.
Bridges can obstruct, but I would never refer to one as clutter! :lol:

JimThias 07-04-2018 10:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Chris Kilroy (Post 194354)
How is a bridge railing obstructing the bottom half of the engine "artistic?"

So in other words, *all* bridges that block the lower portion of a loco will ALWAYS be off-limits for RP?

KevinM 07-05-2018 03:51 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by baggydave (Post 194355)
Chris
And as I have already said I have two on the database with this bridge obstructing the bottom of the locomotive so I just don't see how this one differs.

Dave,

I think that if the bridge only partly obscured the running gear on the locomotive, you might find more folks in your camp, but I'm inclined to agree with Chris on this one. Quite frankly, at first glance on the frame with no smoke, I wasn't quite sure what I was looking at. Maybe if you had a drone, and could get above that railing a bit, the shot would be more pleasing to the eye, but this angle doesn't work for me.

RobJor 07-05-2018 12:45 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Pretty sure this was obstructed view. To be fair two have accepted with the murals. Problem for me is you know what you want, you go at the time of the year when you can get, have the right subject, make the special trip and .... Realize all that doesn't matter but still not pleasant, dismissed in 30 seconds.
Bob

bigbassloyd 07-05-2018 01:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 194369)
Pretty sure this was obstructed view. To be fair two have accepted with the murals. Problem for me is you know what you want, you go at the time of the year when you can get, have the right subject, make the special trip and .... Realize all that doesn't matter but still not pleasant, dismissed in 30 seconds.
Bob

If you're happy with it, that is all that matters.

I think it's a decent enough shot, but the numberboards are distracting.

Loyd L.

KevinM 07-05-2018 01:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 194369)
Pretty sure this was obstructed view. To be fair two have accepted with the murals. Problem for me is you know what you want, you go at the time of the year when you can get, have the right subject, make the special trip and .... Realize all that doesn't matter but still not pleasant, dismissed in 30 seconds.
Bob

Bob, I don't have an issue with your image. Sure, the bottom of the trucks are obscured, but I know I'm looking at a locomotive, and my brain immediately tells me the bridge has a low guard rail or lip on it. The other details in the shot, such as the murals, make up for whatever engine details are lost. This is not a roster shot.

This is way different from Dave's image of the steam engine. As noted in my previous post, at first glance, I wasn't sure what it was. It's a pretty scene, but the boiler is covered with a boxy shroud, the tender height virtually matches it, there's no coal pile visible, no dynamo plume, no bell, no whistle.....none of the features that I normally associate with a steam engine. Yeah, its got a cab window, and some smoke.....hey, it could be an Alco Diesel. If RP had a reference gallery of: "This works for us" and "This doesn't work for us", Dave's shot would be a classic example of the latter. It's a fine shot....just a clear violation of this particular site's submission guidelines, that's all.

RobJor 07-05-2018 01:56 PM

Mostly I threw mine out there because it bugged me for a while and also so Dave can see he is not singled out. I suppose his argument is that his obstruction is a nicer one????

Bob

miningcamper1 07-05-2018 02:20 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 194370)
If you're happy with it, that is all that matters.

I think it's a decent enough shot, but the numberboards are distracting.

Loyd L.

It's true that bright LED numberboards can ruin a shot, but I didn't notice these until you mentioned them. One can always selectively cut down the brightness in editing, of course.

bigbassloyd 07-05-2018 03:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by miningcamper1 (Post 194373)
It's true that bright LED numberboards can ruin a shot, but I didn't notice these until you mentioned them. One can always selectively cut down the brightness in editing, of course.

It was more an issue of them being blurry over the brightness for me.

Loyd L.

JimThias 07-05-2018 05:18 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 194374)
It was more an issue of them being blurry over the brightness for me.

Loyd L.

I sure wish the number boards on this shot looked like those in Rob's shot, even if they are slightly soft. I just forgot to do a multiple exposure to control the blown out light boards. Not that it's a great shot by any means, but it still bugs me to this day. Oh well, they accepted it anyway.

[photoid=252340]

bigbassloyd 07-05-2018 05:35 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 194375)
I sure wish the number boards on this shot looked like those in Rob's shot, even if they are slightly soft. I just forgot to do a multiple exposure to control the blown out light boards. Not that it's a great shot by any means, but it still bugs me to this day. Oh well, they accepted it anyway.

[photoid=252340]

I've never been bothered by blown out number boards on stationary locomotives. I do try to limit it when they are in motion though. Sometimes hard to do at iso a whole bunch. :D

Loyd L.

miningcamper1 07-05-2018 07:00 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 194374)
It was more an issue of them being blurry over the brightness for me.

Loyd L.

Oh, OK. When more sharpening doesn't do the job, I've been known to take out the offending pixels one-by-one! :evil:

RobJor 07-05-2018 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JimThias (Post 194375)
I sure wish the number boards on this shot looked like those in Rob's shot, even if they are slightly soft. I just forgot to do a multiple exposure to control the blown out light boards. Not that it's a great shot by any means, but it still bugs me to this day. Oh well, they accepted it anyway.

[photoid=252340]


I like the "ghost" going in the doorway, just a little faint but still cool.

Bob

RobJor 07-05-2018 08:50 PM

I will stick my neck out, but I was pretty happy with the number boards. Looking at that angle, with numbers that are illuminated that bright I'd think a very sharp edge is hard to obtain. Black lettering seems sharper but they are often getting faint due to lighting around them. Maybe just my vision.

Bob


All times are GMT. The time now is 11:45 PM.

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