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)
-   -   Fwiw (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=14032)

oltmannd 06-15-2011 04:57 PM

Fwiw
 
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1157278903

Enjoy it while it lasts!

Another short timer for your viewing pleasure!

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=941150&key=0

oltmannd 06-21-2011 02:31 PM

and another...

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=941799&key=0

Hatchetman 06-21-2011 02:54 PM

There's a good chance you can improve those last two. Not sure if you can work miracles on a slide scan, but you can improve it.

Freericks 06-21-2011 02:54 PM

The two Conrail shots can be lightened very easily in any editing program (if you wanted to - up to you - have to admit my last rejection was "fixible" I just didn't agree so I didn't bother). I do agree with them on these two Conrail shots. They are slightly too dark (the scans - not necessarily the shots themselves). Very easy fix.

As to the roundhouse one - that is a toughy. I think you played screener roulette and lost, getting the "don't care about historical value" screener. There are other screeners (I think, don't know) who are much kinder to thirty year old images.

Do you have someplace else that you are sharing these? They are great.

:-)

JRMDC 06-21-2011 03:40 PM

The image quality on the caboose shot is quite poor. As it is otherwise unexceptional, I see no hope for it on RP, unless you can rescan it and get better image quality.

On the curve, looks fixable.

Roundhouse, I don't the historical value myself, lots is obscured, but I might think better of it if you can get some detail out of the shadows, and do something about the overexposed area on the pole and pilot. Especially the shadows, that will significantly add to the historical value. You may need to do multiple scans and different exposure levels and then combine them in an HDR manner.

Freericks 06-21-2011 05:55 PM

While J's not wrong on the quality issue on either shot that he critiques - if one is to use recently accepted uploads of images from this timeframe as a measure, both shots are legitimate contenders.

I think the idea of multiple scans on the Portland Terminal image is a good one if you're up for the work. Might be a lot more there than the one exposure is allowing you to see (might also not be - Kodachrome wasn't very forgiving).

I think the caboose just needs some lightening. If it gets kicked for blurry or PIQ, I'd be suprirsed but it wouldn't be wrong - just unfair in light of recent acceptance examples.

JRMDC 06-21-2011 06:20 PM

I don't recall seeing any recent images that were of the quality of the caboose shot. We are, of course, free to disagree.

Freericks 06-21-2011 06:23 PM

And free to be you and me.

I don't want to call shots out - but one without its border cropped comes to mind (looked like there was Vaseline on the lens).

There was a D&H shot, maybe not that recently - but recent enough, that looked like it was painted on sand.

There and an L&N shot in black and white that was grainier and softer).

I think we are disagreeing over subtelties here though. I've had some L&HR and D&H shots rejected that were better quality (blur/grain) than the caboose shot and were hit for that in the recent past - so there is a luck aspect to it.

sd9 06-22-2011 01:57 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks (Post 138754)
And free to be you and me.

I don't want to call shots out - but one without its border cropped comes to mind (looked like there was Vaseline on the lens).

.

I kinda thought they were not as stringent on image quality on older shots like 30+ years old

BTW is this the shot your talking about?
[photoid=364205]

Carl Becker 06-22-2011 01:58 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd9 (Post 138769)
BTW is this the shot your talking about?
[photoid=364205]

I thought that was odd as well, that it got in with the borders...

Freericks 06-22-2011 02:15 AM

yes... that was one - here are the other two - so folks don't freak... both shot by excellent photographers who have done us a real service sharing their images, but both also good demonstrations that sometimes with the older images the quality can be allowed to be be less.

[photoid=334723]

[photoid=335943]

Now, I'm not 1/100th the photog that Donald or Ron are - and I truly treasure their contributions - again, I point these out, because compared to the caboose shot above, (let alone the roundhouse) - I don't believe picture quality is as big an issue.

JRMDC 06-22-2011 02:27 AM

1 Attachment(s)
Hmm, well, the monitor at home sees the caboose shot a little better. Don't know why the quality gap between monitors is so much larger with this shot compared to others.

Attached is a rework, sharper, bring up the shadows a bit (although little point, the image as uploaded has no details in the shadows), reduce noise, get rid of dust in the sky, reduce nose a lot in the sky. Lots of things one can do with slides to make them better.

JRMDC 06-22-2011 02:30 AM

Charles, I do think there is a difference on RP between mid 1960s and 1980 in terms of acceptable image quality. No way, in my experience/recollection, the Flanary shot gets on if 1980, and if a caboose in a generic setting.

sd9 06-22-2011 03:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 138772)
Hmm, well, the monitor at home sees the caboose shot a little better. Don't know why the quality gap between monitors is so much larger with this shot compared to others.

Attached is a rework, sharper, bring up the shadows a bit (although little point, the image as uploaded has no details in the shadows), reduce noise, get rid of dust in the sky, reduce nose a lot in the sky. Lots of things one can do with slides to make them better.

That looks good J! I think if he reworks it like you did I think it would get in

JRMDC 06-22-2011 03:07 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by sd9 (Post 138774)
That looks good J! I think if he reworks it like you did I think it would get in

As long as he doesn't get sloppy on the dust/speck removal in the sky, as I now see I did. :(

Freericks 06-22-2011 03:22 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 138773)
Charles, I do think there is a difference on RP between mid 1960s and 1980 in terms of acceptable image quality. No way, in my experience/recollection, the Flanary shot gets on if 1980, and if a caboose in a generic setting.

You may have a point there. I got killed on some 1975 shots with PIQ kind of rejections on shots that were more along the quality of Don Oltmand's caboose (but rare stuff, LH&R C420s, D&H RF16s).

Freericks 06-22-2011 03:34 AM

At fear of getting yelled at (I promised twice before to never bring this up again), this shot from the early 1950s was rejected though.

http://knox.rrpicturearchives.net/sh...spx?id=1008307

Carl Becker 06-22-2011 03:35 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks

How dare you bring that one up once again :D

Freericks 06-22-2011 03:40 AM

I almost said, Carl's gonna get me on this - but then thought, maybe he forgot.

:-)

Carl Becker 06-22-2011 03:42 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks (Post 138784)
I almost said, Carl's gonna get me on this - but then thought, maybe he forgot.

I actually just looked at an old thread about it earlier and was bummed to find the Balboa image I linked to was no longer valid. :o

JRMDC 06-22-2011 03:11 PM

This thread inspired me to go and work on an old CR caboose shot of my own:

[photoid=366690]

Don't know what the greenish stuff is on the side of the GP, mold? algae? :)

Freericks 06-22-2011 03:44 PM

A lot of the late 1970s images have that greenish tinge when shot on cloudy days. Not sure if it is from some sort of degradation or was there from the get go (maybe Kodachrome over adjusted for the clouds with the green?).

oltmannd 06-22-2011 04:48 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 138773)
Charles, I do think there is a difference on RP between mid 1960s and 1980 in terms of acceptable image quality. No way, in my experience/recollection, the Flanary shot gets on if 1980, and if a caboose in a generic setting.

Sure. It's a technology issue. Not a railfan issue.

What happened between the 60s and the 80s was the rise of the consumer grade 35mm SLR, so there is more 80s material out there in the world to choose from than the 60s. Few railfans had cameras well suited for the job in the 60s. Built-in light meter? Nope. You used the guide that came in the film box or purchased a hand held light meter. Focus? You guessed at the distance and set it. Framing the shot? You had to hope your view finder was close. Shutter speed? You were lucky if your camera went to 1/250th. Automatic film winder? You had to turn a knob and watch for a number in a little, red window. Ever wonder why there are so many roster shots and so few line of road shots from the 50s and 60s?

What didn't change much in that period was film quality. Ektachrome X and Ektachrome 64...pretty much the same stuff....and pretty slow for railfanning, particularly if you were using a telephoto lens. The 120 and 200 speed Ektachrome helped a bit, were really quite a bit more grainy. (and, boy, does it scan lousy...)

So, what you had at the end of the day were shots with insufficient depth of field, slightly out of focus, motion blurred (camera and/or subject) or underexposed - all compromises you had to make on the fly in order to come away with anything at all, many times. While there are many more shots from the 80s out there in the world, many of them are slightly flawed one way or another. (some are A LOT flawed....) But, many of them were suitable for sharing at informal slide shows and were part of the narrative that went along with them.

I have no doubt nearly everything I scan and process couldn't be tweaked this way or that to improve it a bit. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to share interesting (to me) stuff that I have in my collection that might be of interest to others. RP is a good place to do this, but if they don't pass muster, so be it. I have others. I'll move on.

No apologies for the caboose shot. Anyone born after 1980 would only have a hazy memory of mainline cabooses. For an EL fan born before 1980, a ex-PRR Conrail caboose on the Erie mainline is likely to evoke some emotion....

Freericks 06-22-2011 05:02 PM

What about for an EL fan born before 1980 whose father worked for the PRR?

:-)

oltmannd 06-22-2011 05:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by JRMDC (Post 138753)
I don't recall seeing any recent images that were of the quality of the caboose shot. We are, of course, free to disagree.

And, so there is only one other shot of Conrail N8 caboose on RP. A bad scan uploaded in 2003 that I may get around to replacing some day....


All times are GMT. The time now is 02:00 PM.

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