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)
-   -   Back-lit rejections (http://www.railpictures.net/forums/showthread.php?t=18212)

John Russell - NZ 02-06-2019 04:56 AM

Back-lit rejections
 
I have had a few back-lit rejections like this where there is clearly nose light. So the question that arises is how much light is enough? Not aware of other issues with the photo but is there something I could do with it, other than forget it getting in? The steam special in the photo makes one run a year and with no other trains on this "moth-balled" section there are no better places, trains or times to try. This is the only photo of the train invited in explore on flickr yet is the only one rejected here. If "we don't like your photo" then that should be indicated, not nitpicking faults. My photo: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...92&key=9828009
http://www.flickr.com/photos/1582397...posted-public/

RobJor 02-06-2019 06:42 AM

Side lighting in this case is attractive to me. Problem maybe is that composition is so tight and head on. Typical would be a little wider, better view of side of engine and more of the train. Shadow whether we like or not would be less prominent.

Bob

bigbassloyd 02-06-2019 12:50 PM

I agree with Bobs idea on loosening up the composition.

Loyd L.

KevinM 02-06-2019 02:41 PM

Hmmmm.... This looks like a pretty nice photo to me. It would be one thing if it were a weathered CSX diesel, but this is definitely not common power.

I think the other guys have the right idea. The closer you crop, the more it looks like a roster shot or a "hey, here's a train" shot. We know that RP applies tougher standards to those. If you have more frame, show off the scenery around the train. Go wider. If you like, you can probably touch up the nose just a tick with the Lightroom adjustment brush to brighten it up a tad. Be careful. We're talking subtle corrections (Exposure +.10, Shadows +5 max, Contrast +5), and again, only on the dark areas. The rest of the photo looks fine. Personally, I don't think the nose on this engine is too dark, but that's me. When I adjust the dark nose of a backlit steamer, I just want enough detail to look like the human eye would see it......not like the sun was on it. I think your processing is already fine.

John Russell - NZ 02-07-2019 08:29 AM

Thanks guys for your helpful advice. I will resubmit with a touch up as Kevin suggests. I don't use Lightroom, taking a minimalist editing approach (very basic how to skill.) I have more in front of the train as I took the shot earlier than I planned. Rejection is not for composition which does seem to comply with rule of thirds so I will leave that alone to see if back-lit rejection is used again. It simply isn't back-lit; nose shadow is from the protruding headlight.

bigbassloyd 02-07-2019 12:52 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Russell - NZ (Post 195239)
Rejection is not for composition which does seem to comply with rule of thirds so I will leave that alone to see if back-lit rejection is used again.

The composition isn't wrong, but the composition is making the less than perfect nose light more obvious.

Quote:

It simply isn't back-lit; nose shadow is from the protruding headlight.
Feel free to argue the language of the rejection, but it certainly more side lit than front lit. The tight crop makes it very noticeable.

Loyd L.

Grewup on the CW 02-07-2019 03:08 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 195241)
The composition isn't wrong, but the composition is making the less than perfect nose light more obvious.



Feel free to argue the language of the rejection, but it certainly more side lit than front lit. The tight crop makes it very noticeable.

Loyd L.

My thoughts when I saw the initial post/rejection. If you have a shot zoomed out a little it would not be as obvious, and if it was lightened just a little, we probably would not be having this thread to discuss.

KevinM 02-07-2019 03:31 PM

And voila! :-)

[photoid=686681]

bigbassloyd 02-07-2019 06:19 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 195243)
And voila! :-)

[photoid=686681]

A much needed addition to the other 64 shots he has of it on here!

I kid, honestly.

Loyd L.

John Russell - NZ 02-07-2019 06:29 PM

Thanks guys for your help. It was important to deal with nose light issue. It affects a lot of the shots I submit and many of those accepted including the other two of this train have incomplete nose light. I didn't take the shot closer and wider as intended due to intrusion by other chasers. My photography gets mocked here (along with RP) for fixating too much on aspects such as nose light. You guys are probably right that I do need think more of composition.

KevinM 02-07-2019 09:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Russell - NZ (Post 195245)
Thanks guys for your help. It was important to deal with nose light issue. It affects a lot of the shots I submit and many of those accepted including the other two of this train have incomplete nose light. I didn't take the shot closer and wider as intended due to intrusion by other chasers. My photography gets mocked here (along with RP) for fixating too much on aspects such as nose light. You guys are probably right that I do need think more of composition.

Hi John,

I have the opposite problem. I have a tendency to go too wide, trying to capture all of the plume and lots of nearby scenery. I like to shoot scenes that contain a train. As a result, I often need to crop more than I would like. That's one of the reasons I picked up a D850 (45 MP). Of course, that camera also magnifies the flaws in one's technique. :shock:

I am with you on the issues with chasers wanting to get too close. I guess I never understood the need to be right next to the tracks, especially the video guys. When I look at stills or video, I don't ever like the feeling that I am about to be run over by the train I am looking at. :lol:

Decapod401 02-08-2019 12:04 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 195246)

I am with you on the issues with chasers wanting to get too close. I guess I never understood the need to be right next to the tracks, especially the video guys. When I look at stills or video, I don't ever like the feeling that I am about to be run over by the train I am looking at. :lol:

I'm with you Kevin. While an occasional nose-on shot adds variety, I don't get the guys who live on a steady diet of that perspective, because they generally all look alike. Worse yet is the photo with a caption that references a spectacular five paint scheme lash-up when only the lead unit's nose is visible.

I learned long ago that to avoid getting closer to the tracks when I arrive at a location. Instead I look for chances to get farther away.

John Russell - NZ 02-08-2019 08:32 AM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 195244)
A much needed addition to the other 64 shots he has of it on here!

I kid, honestly.

Loyd L.

Good pick up Loyd. I'm surprised how many of my photos of this locomotive are on here! I made a 400-mile each way trip for these photos because it was nearly 2 years since that last time I shot it. I recall there is a rejection reason for this sort of situation. My point is that all the appropriate reasons should be given - such as "not able to be corrected" or "we already have enough photos of this train or location." Then there's less misunderstanding some of the reasons. Some, myself included, may overlook the need for balance in site content or, dare I say, "eye candy." By the way, some fine photos on your personal photography site link. This is run by new owners of flickr right?

RobJor 02-08-2019 11:26 AM

[quote=John Russell - NZ;195248].
snip:
I recall there is a rejection reason for this sort of situation. My point is that all the appropriate reasons should be given - such as "not able to be corrected" or "we already have enough photos of this train or location." Then there's less misunderstanding some of the reasons.
Snip:

Not going to happen, I was going along fine and then submitted image of MOW crew blowing snow out of switches, UP GP in background.

Too Dark: Too Dark and then after it was ruined Poor Aesthetic Quality.
Should have stayed with the one correction.
Was it a great photo???? No, But it did show employees in adverse conditions, not just a train. I started a post about that rejection but heck with it. I guess could have tried another version but at that point I just take a break?? from posting and troll the forum.

Bob

bigbassloyd 02-08-2019 05:23 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Russell - NZ (Post 195248)
By the way, some fine photos on your personal photography site link. This is run by new owners of flickr right?

Thank you! Yes, I believe smugmug did purchase them. I just went live on Monday, and I need to get my butt in gear editing and uploading more content.

Loyd L.

bigbassloyd 02-08-2019 05:50 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 195249)
I started a post about that rejection but heck with it. I guess could have tried another version but at that point I just take a break?? from posting and troll the forum.

Bob

After the frequent quiet spells on here I was excited to see a thread started by you only to read 'nevermind' once I opened it. I was quite sad.

:D

Loyd L.

RobJor 02-08-2019 06:17 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 195251)
After the frequent quiet spells on here I was excited to see a thread started by you only to read 'nevermind' once I opened it. I was quite sad.

:D

Loyd L.

Not a good thing to do, I agree. People open it to only see a cop out, did not see way to just delete.

Since little to talk about on forum here is the PAQ rejection without commentary.

Bob

bigbassloyd 02-08-2019 06:34 PM

1 Attachment(s)
Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 195252)
Not a good thing to do, I agree. People open it to only see a cop out, did not see way to just delete.

Since little to talk about on forum here is the PAQ rejection without commentary.

Bob

I think I know what you were going for, but I would have maybe tried to adjust my position and tighten in on the crew while getting some separation between them and the power. It is a little dark but that conditions support it IMO.

I can't remember if I ever submitted this one or not, but here it is for conversation.

http://forums.railpictures.net/attac...1&d=1549650604

Loyd L.

RobJor 02-08-2019 08:10 PM

Certainly better, three men working, train farther back and you can see what they are doing. Mine, Limited, I was stuck on island on a road, I have different versions but once I get PAQ I forget it at least for a while.

Bob

John Russell - NZ 02-08-2019 09:15 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by KevinM (Post 195246)
Hi John,

I have the opposite problem. I have a tendency to go too wide, trying to capture all of the plume and lots of nearby scenery. I like to shoot scenes that contain a train. As a result, I often need to crop more than I would like. That's one of the reasons I picked up a D850 (45 MP). Of course, that camera also magnifies the flaws in one's technique. :shock:

I haven't noticed any flaws in your technique Kevin! I love your photography and I'm amazed you haven't got thousands more following you on flickr. I'm guessing you mean the ability to zoom in and see some slight imperfection. I found that even my 60D images processed by "experts" in LightRoom looked terribly grainy when zoomed in so I stuck to what little I was doing wth DPP and PSE. Trying not to get this thread off on another tangent, but I must say the higher res RP now accepts is a big step up in my opinion. I'd recommend uploading max size here and a higher size on flickr. My screen view in flickr really doesn't do your photos justice at all. I might need to look into settings.

bigbassloyd 02-08-2019 09:24 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Russell - NZ (Post 195255)
I'd recommend uploading max size here and a higher size on flickr. My screen view in flickr really doesn't do your photos justice at all. I might need to look into settings.

Bigger is better usually. I did knock my image size back from x3 to x2 on the website, but only out of fear of giving the thieves too big a file to work with. Viewing full size on a big monitor only comes second to having a big print in your hands to me.

Loyd L.

KevinM 02-08-2019 10:42 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by bigbassloyd (Post 195256)
Bigger is better usually. I did knock my image size back from x3 to x2 on the website, but only out of fear of giving the thieves too big a file to work with. V

Loyd L.

That is a legit concern. I still upload no more than 1200 px on the long side here and on Flickr. There are just too many people "re-purposing" images these days. I see my stuff on websites everywhere. Fortunately, most of them give credit, but they are supposed to ask first.

WRT John's mention of Flickr, I don't like the way they autosharpen every upload. I have started dialing back the sharpness in the files I upload there because the images just looked overcooked from a sharpness standpoint. Eventually, I would like to get a "Thugmug" site like Loyd's. At least with a site like that, you can sell prints and not have to be involved in all of the transactions. Flickr is worthless in that regard.

BTW, I only refer to the parent company as "Thugmug" because of the way they treated us on Flickr. I had more than 1000 images, none of which were more than 1MB, but I got forced to buy the pro account anyway. "Pay us money or bad things will happen to your pictures." I consider that a form of extortion. I bought in because I had invested a lot of time uploading and captioning shots on that site. Even though I am paying now, they are really not giving me anything I did not have before.

KevinM 02-08-2019 10:46 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by RobJor (Post 195252)
Not a good thing to do, I agree. People open it to only see a cop out, did not see way to just delete.

Since little to talk about on forum here is the PAQ rejection without commentary.

Bob

Yep, one step to the right and a quick twist of the zoom ring would definitely have helped that one nicely.

John Russell - NZ 04-03-2019 10:36 AM

The photo which this thread started with is now a puzzle: http://www.train-puzzles.com/puzzlep.../rp686681.html

bigbassloyd 04-03-2019 10:27 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by John Russell - NZ (Post 195378)
The photo which this thread started with is now a puzzle: http://www.train-puzzles.com/puzzlep.../rp686681.html

Ralph still running that site? Been quite a while since Ive talked to him online.

Loyd L.


All times are GMT. The time now is 12:01 AM.

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