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=18309)

RobJor 12-16-2019 02:51 PM

Foreground clutter
 
1 Attachment(s)
I thought of several reasons for rejection but not this one, felt a little humorous. I was happy to get the "clutter" in my photo but then one persons serendipity is anothers clutter.

https://www.railpictures.net/viewrej...59&key=2575391

Bob

KevinM 12-16-2019 03:45 PM

I think that the artsy types would classify this as what's known as a "merge".....when two major elements in a scene appear to "touch." As I've learned, this is something to be avoided, because it's not pleasing to the eyes. In this case, the merge is particularly undesirable because the foreground element is blocking the leading truck of the train. If either the train had been further back, or the pedestrians had been back far enough so that the nose and front truck of the train were visible, it would have still been a merge and still undesirable, but I think somewhat more pleasing to the eye and may have passed muster. Do you have other frames in which that is the case?

Ten years ago, I would not have recognized this issue and probably kept a frame like this in my collection, even if it was not acceptable to the screeners. Today, with 45 MP images coming out of my D850, and more than 4 terabytes cluttering up my hard drives, a frame like this would probably get deleted before I did any back-ups. I used to save EVERYTHING I shot. Now, I scrutinize the take from every shoot, and I probably delete 25% - 50%.....merges, clutter, soft, rods-centered, smoke-outs, closed eyes, bad compositions. A lot ends up on the cutting room floor these days.

TedG 12-16-2019 11:12 PM

My first reaction, Bob, was "you have got to be kidding me." But I suppose Kevin is right, particularly since they're blocking the lead truck.

However, I hope you obtained the young lady's contact info, so you can recruit her as a witness when you appeal. Once she finds out she's been deemed "unsightly clutter", not only will she be too happy to testify, the screener will certainly cave rather than be subjected to her wrath, and it won't even go to trial.

/Ted

bigbassloyd 12-17-2019 11:52 AM

If they were positioned somewhere other than where they are I could get on board with you Bob. :)

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 196059)

Ten years ago, I would not have recognized this issue and probably kept a frame like this in my collection, even if it was not acceptable to the screeners. Today, with 45 MP images coming out of my D850, and more than 4 terabytes cluttering up my hard drives, a frame like this would probably get deleted before I did any back-ups. I used to save EVERYTHING I shot. Now, I scrutinize the take from every shoot, and I probably delete 25% - 50%.....merges, clutter, soft, rods-centered, smoke-outs, closed eyes, bad compositions. A lot ends up on the cutting room floor these days.

I delete the really terrible ones in the field, but I like to hold onto most of what I shoot for various reasons. With the current situation as they are on the local railroads for me, my image vault is what keeps me interested nowadays.

Loyd L.

Joseph Cermak 12-17-2019 12:41 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 196061)

I delete the really terrible ones in the field, but I like to hold onto most of what I shoot for various reasons. With the current situation as they are on the local railroads for me, my image vault is what keeps me interested nowadays.

I do the same thing, at the end of the day, hard drives for storage are a lot cheaper than the time it would take me to review and delete photos.

KevinM 12-17-2019 01:14 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak (Post 196062)
I do the same thing, at the end of the day, hard drives for storage are a lot cheaper than the time it would take me to review and delete photos.

Geez, I sure wish I could bring myself to look at it this way. It's just that now, when I look at folders of images that I shot a dozen years ago, I find a TON of junk and I ask myself: "Why are you keeping this crap?" Fortunately, the keeper rate is an order of magnitude better now, but I still do a lot of bursting in certain situations, resulting in a lot of files, most of which are very similar. I shot an event last weekend, hoping to get perhaps 100 images. I shot 500 frames. Many were people shots and the majority are not keepers. 500 images at 24 MP or 45 MP adds up after a while. Lately, the shoots keep coming fast and furious.

But man, I am with you on the time required to review and make decisions on even just 500 frames. It's a big time-sink, and perhaps it isn't worth it.

Maybe I'm just fixated on not leaving whoever inherits my pictures with a disorganized mess......assuming they don't just pitch it all into a dumpster. :lol:

KevinM 12-17-2019 01:50 PM

Merges and foreground clutter
 
Here's an example of an obstructive merge that was accepted:

[photoid=717904]

As with Bob's image, the front truck is obstructed by the people in the foreground, and the position of those people is not strictly ROT, although it is close. Honestly, I think this got in because it looks like a "grab" from an event, as opposed to an everyday scene. The people become a major element, probably sharing equal billing with the train. I'm not a fan of the cropping here. I would probably have pointed the camera just a bit more to the left, placing the people in the ROT position and balancing the position of the train in the frame. If there is any dead space, it is on the right. I probably also would have gone a bit wider, because I don't like cutting off the American Flag, and if I'm going to show people below the waist, I try not to cut their feet off.

With Bob's image, it's not clearly an event, but more of an everyday scene. The major element is the train, with people as supporting elements, so the obstruction/merge becomes more of a liability. Also, and I think this is important, the lower right on the image is pretty devoid of subject matter. If the people were in the gauge on that 3rd set of tracks (basically ROT position), I think Bob's image is a lot more pleasing to the eye, even if there's still some obstruction/merge going on. And of course, Bob's image lacks a certain "appeal" that's in the image above.....which is likely the sole reason it got as many hits as it did. :lol:

RobJor 12-17-2019 03:15 PM

1 Attachment(s)
I don't know the circumstances of Kevin's example but for mine, I had neither any control of scene nor much time to get in position as the scene just presented itself so this is my only shot. I certainly recognized problem but thought the scene had enough appeal.

Reading comments and looking at it seemed a problem was the empty right side with subjects off to the one side. Of course leaving the full scene is showing both cars is a railfan choice.

So I did this crop which leaves the basic elements. The trucks themselves are a problem as the scene is actually darker, 40 minutes after "sunset" on a very dreary day. Pulling much detail out of the truck area would not look so good so I look at the people blocking the trucks not completely negative.

Bob Jordan

Deleting photos, I agree with all three comments. If nothing is done as years go by it can get out of hand. It depends on the subject. Also it can be tedious and a little fear is to be too aggressive, once it is gone it is gone.

need2foam 12-17-2019 08:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 196064)
Here's an example of an obstructive merge that was accepted:

[photoid=717904]

As with Bob's image, the front truck is obstructed by the people in the foreground, and the position of those people is not strictly ROT, although it is close. Honestly, I think this got in because it looks like a "grab" from an event, as opposed to an everyday scene. The people become a major element, probably sharing equal billing with the train. I'm not a fan of the cropping here. I would probably have pointed the camera just a bit more to the left, placing the people in the ROT position and balancing the position of the train in the frame. If there is any dead space, it is on the right. I probably also would have gone a bit wider, because I don't like cutting off the American Flag, and if I'm going to show people below the waist, I try not to cut their feet off.

With Bob's image, it's not clearly an event, but more of an everyday scene. The major element is the train, with people as supporting elements, so the obstruction/merge becomes more of a liability. Also, and I think this is important, the lower right on the image is pretty devoid of subject matter. If the people were in the gauge on that 3rd set of tracks (basically ROT position), I think Bob's image is a lot more pleasing to the eye, even if there's still some obstruction/merge going on. And of course, Bob's image lacks a certain "appeal" that's in the image above.....which is likely the sole reason it got as many hits as it did. :lol:

Is it a problem that the woman's legs are cut off or that the flags on the train are cut off at the top?

KevinM 12-17-2019 09:05 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by need2foam (Post 196066)
Is it a problem that the woman's legs are cut off or that the flags on the train are cut off at the top?

Going just a little looser on the crop (or wider on the shot) would have included both. I can see cutting people off at the waist, but at the ankles? When I first saw the shot, that was the second thing I noticed. :lol:

bigbassloyd 12-20-2019 01:39 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 196067)
Going just a little looser on the crop (or wider on the shot) would have included both. I can see cutting people off at the waist, but at the ankles?

I would have definitely went wider because it would have made for a much better composition. I guess he wanted to go tight on her.... phone


Loyd L.

ATSF666 12-22-2019 02:31 AM

Phone "hits"
 
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 196068)
I would have definitely went wider because it would have made for a much better composition. I guess he wanted to go tight on her.... phone


Loyd L.

Yep, her "phone" has had over 5,900 "hits". :-D

RobJor 12-24-2019 10:24 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Back to OP, worked out OK, only an hour away so Sue and I went back. Much nicer evening, mild and clear evening and train got to station a little earlier.
After we had a nice dinner in East Troy, nice old town with pretty square.

Bob

[photoid=720422]

and played around with the other train later, attached

need2foam 12-24-2019 01:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 196070)
Back to OP, worked out OK, only an hour away so Sue and I went back. Much nicer evening, mild and clear evening and train got to station a little earlier.
After we had a nice dinner in East Troy, nice old town with pretty square.

Bob

[photoid=720422]

and played around with the other train later, attached

That is a really nice blue in the sky.

RobJor 12-24-2019 02:09 PM

It was a nice winter "blue evening", the sky was even a darker deeper blue but I had to brighten it up to.....

Bob

vcode455 12-29-2019 04:59 PM

Speaking of foreground clutter.....

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/720964/

Decapod401 12-29-2019 05:45 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcode455 (Post 196073)
Speaking of foreground clutter.....

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/720964/

While I'm not sure that a photo with a bunch of foamers in the foreground is worthy of an award, those foamers are not obstructing the view of the subject, which is the criteria for foreground clutter.

miningcamper1 12-29-2019 07:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Decapod401 (Post 196074)
While I'm not sure that a photo with a bunch of foamers in the foreground is worthy of an award, those foamers are not obstructing the view of the subject, which is the criteria for foreground clutter.

Those foamers and their vehicles vanished in the version I saved! :lol:

bigbassloyd 12-30-2019 01:22 PM

I prefer the angle from where the foamers are anyhow. Would have killed for snow when I was out there though. Looks amazing.

Loyd L.

RobJor 12-30-2019 02:30 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 196079)
I prefer the angle from where the foamers are anyhow. Would have killed for snow when I was out there though. Looks amazing.

Loyd L.

Think the guy on top of the foreground outcrop might have had a good spot?

I find the red, black car and PARTIAL blue car directly in front of the lead unit pretty distracting, think the lead unit back a little and cropped higher to the left leaving only the autos further back might have worked better. Someone told me once that our eyes first go to the brightest (and red) objects first. The cars may not touch or obstruct but compete. Including The long stretch of the dirt cut in the foreground is not that attractive but that may just be my preference.

Bob

bigbassloyd 12-30-2019 03:56 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 196080)
Think the guy on top of the foreground outcrop might have had a good spot?

As I've stood in both of those spots, I feel that most of the photogs in his photo got a better shot than he did. :D I scouted the high ground and determined quickly that foreground clutter (vehicle, people) ruins it.

Loyd L.

Mberry 12-30-2019 07:31 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by vcode455 (Post 196073)
Speaking of foreground clutter.....

https://www.railpictures.net/photo/720964/

I don't see a problem with this one.

RobJor 12-30-2019 08:31 PM

and to make message long enough


[photoid=721153]

[photoid=720914]

Joseph Cermak 12-30-2019 08:36 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 196083)
and to make message long enough


[photoid=721153]

[photoid=720914]

Personally I find that brush in the bottom of Craig's version much more distracting than the cars/photographers in the one from higher up, though I don't think either of them would have qualified for the foreground clutter rejection.

Colebrookdale Railfan 01-03-2020 01:10 AM

Where is the line drawn between an obstruction and "just part of the scene?" I give to you these examples:
559383
721489
721490
The steam is partially or almost completely blocking the locomotive as a result of poor timing, fouling otherwise decent shots. I know a lot of people are guilty of this during blow downs, specifically with the 113 trips in my neck of the woods. Just wondering what y'all think of it.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:37 AM.

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