Distracting Shadows (with no shadow on the train)
 

Can anyone help make sense of this? I've tried two different angles/times, neither of which have any shadows that are cast on to the locomotives. Yes there are shadows on the ballast that are close, but if one looks there are no shadows that touch the train. I thought I had a real winner with the emergency vehicles and got lucky they train stopped right at the one hole in the trees so I'm quite confused as to what shadows the screener is referring to. Thanks.

Second submission a few minutes later where the shadows have really receded
https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...36&key=7010843

First submission (the shadows are close but don't touch the loco)
https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...30&key=8617943

Tough to say what happened here. I have seen other photos cited for shadows issues when the locomotives were not affected.....in other words, the shadows don't have to be on the main subject, if they are too prominent or annoying. But then, I have also seen RP waive some or even most of the screening rules for incident photos of this nature. I think it's a judgment call on the screener's part.

This is just a guess, but it could be that in the case of an incident photo, the screener is really looking for the photo to at least do a good job telling the story, even if it has "issues" such as prominent shadows. In the case of this one, yes, the train is clearly stopped and there are access panels open and emergency equipment nearby.....but there is no real action depicted. There is no smoke, no hose lines strung, and no personnel actively working on the problem. It may be that the photo was taken just a bit too late to convey the real story of the incident.

Again, just a guess... :smile:

Maybe a crop to hone in on the story? Not sure shooting to the horizon adds to this image. Overall I find the distracting shadows rejection to be dumb anyway. Certainly you don't want a shadow dragging over the middle of your subject but in this case the shadows seem to frame the subject.


Bob

I like that idea on the crop, perhaps that will work.

As far as Kevin's point, the actual firefighting took place while it was still dark/in shadows so I hadn't bothered to fly the drone at that point. I would hope that wouldn't disqualify the shot though, as the scene and story are still there in my opinion.

I think the scene and story happened previous to the photo, and as it stands it's a clickbait attempt for views. The shadows are distracting even though they are not on the 'subject'.

Here's a clickbait photo that is actively telling a story for reference :D
http://forums.railpictures.net/attac...1&d=1569940399


Loyd L.

Joseph, you pic was early morning while Alex's was late evening, both with the similar "shadow cast" but apparently different screeners? Inconsistency with the accepted vs the rejected pics is why most of us stay frustrated with rejections.... I would like to say if its good enough for one then good enough for all but opinions vary apparently with the screeners. Try again later maybe you will gets Alex's screener.

[photoid=711596]

Exactly. I personally like the low light/long shadow photos that can be created with an aerial view, so long as they can be kept off the train itself.

As far as the comments about the "scene already being done" that's all well and good if that's the rejection (PAQ, composition, anything) and a fair/valid point, but it's not "distracting shadows" by their definition, or the definition most use. Honestly I'd be happier with a foreground clutter rejection with the tree on the last bit of the trailing unit than this shadows nonsense lol.

I believe that if anything, the shadows add a dramatic element to the scene, showing an early morning story. Also, I disagree that the scene is “over”, you can clearly see the burned bits on the locomotive, as well as the fire engines and crew off to the side packing up, and it is not clickbait at all.

Better than a cloudy ground 3/4 wedge in my opinion!

May as well flew to the fire department and shot them pulling back into the bays. It's that over. :D



All drone shots on here are clickbait. Whether the viewer gets a ooh or a meh afterwards is the difference. :) If you don't believe me just pull up 20-30 aerial photos from a week or two ago on here and compare the average views versus 20-30 non-aerial photos from the same time frame.

Loyd L.

Guess we have a fundamental difference in the definition of clickbait then....and that's not a legitimate test to compare anything at all.

Does that mean that any shot from a high mountain or vantage point that looks similar to something could be taken with a drone is also clickbait :D ?

But that's not the discussion, there's no rejection for "event over." We're talking about shadows that are (not) distracting by the rejection definition.

Honestly there could have been a train passing a fire department response to a traffic accident or home fire and including them in the background of shot would be interesting in my opinion, even though they have nothing to do with the train. I'm really not sure what the "event being over" has anything to do with anything.

Correct. And at no point did I say clickbait was a negative thing either.

Loyd L.

I mean it's got a pretty negative connotation in nearly every instance it's used these days...you don't really need to specify that.

By your definition then every single photo on this site is attempting to be clickbait, but some do that better than others, which seems a rather silly use of the word.

Not at all. Most standard shots on here are easy enough to make a decision on whether or not to click it from the thumbnail. The aerials / distant / etc. ones usually require a click to full size. That's why I call them clickbait.

I can't help it if you don't agree or like it.

So get back to cropping that photo and resubmitting it. :)

Loyd L.

Yup guess we'll just have to disagree on that...certainly the most unique use of that word I've encountered.

As much as I agreed with this version with a crop to hone in on the scene, it still got another shadows rejection....I just don't understand what they are seeing. Again, just give me a PAQ or a composition, anything that makes sense :-D

I would expect at this point that 2 different screeners are telling you that they don't like the shadows in the composition. It would be nice if they would comment exactly what all makes the shot reject-able, but that isn't a luxury granted here often.

Loyd L.