Old 05-03-2010, 11:40 AM   #1
Warton GR4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 47
Default Bad Angle?

Hi,
I your good opinions which part of the bad angles rule has this fallen fowl to?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1117133984

I could guess but I'd be interested in hearing other opinions first.
Many thanks,
Mark
Warton GR4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 11:59 AM   #2
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,909
Default

Going away shot. The bridge really wrecks the chances here, IMO.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 12:32 PM   #3
Warton GR4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 47
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
Going away shot. The bridge really wrecks the chances here, IMO.
It's only going a way by a few degrees, it can't be that can it? Could you explain further about why you think the bridge wrecks the shot's chances becuse the shot is all about the bridge lol.
Cheers,
Mark

Last edited by Warton GR4; 05-03-2010 at 03:39 PM.
Warton GR4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 06:10 PM   #4
Warton GR4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 47
Default

Hi,
Is their no hope for this image (or location)? If it's the bright blue and red that puts people off (everything around that area is in those colours, you can see the matching boat lift to the right of the image), in which case a nice monocrome edit would fix that if needs be. I can't do much about the sign on the bridge just behind the rear loco, a single loco does fit better between the sign and first support cable however. Due to the short running line locos always face that way so will always be very slightly running away from camera but I really can't see why that's a problem in this circumstance.
Any other thoughts?
Cheers,
Mark
Warton GR4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 07:06 PM   #5
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,909
Default

The bridge obstructs too much of the train in my opinion. The shot is also a little flat, in spite of the colors in the shot. The head end of the train is centered in the shot both veritcally and horizontally. Additionally, there's too much dead, uninteresting space above and below the train. It doesn't look like there was any sun to speak of that day either. Lastly, you said the train was going away only by a few degrees. Which to me sounds like you saying it's a going away shot.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 07:06 PM   #6
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,909
Default

I also don't think the shot works as a vertical.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 07:28 PM   #7
GIZMO
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 27
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warton GR4 View Post
Hi,
I your good opinions which part of the bad angles rule has this fallen fowl to?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1117133984

I could guess but I'd be interested in hearing other opinions first.
Many thanks,
Mark
You need to go back and see what else you have, particularly a slightly later shot that showed the train further along the draw bridge across what appears to be a canal. I don’t think there is enough here to work with, to salvage anything. But perhaps the original contained more which could be resuscitated. That is why it pays to rip off a whole series of shots as the train goes by since it is often difficult to know how things will turn out.

I like to frame things in terms of primary and secondary points of interest, which need to be developed and distractions, which should be minimized. But one person’s distraction is often another person’s attraction. Such things are subjective but people can get really fixated on them and resolution often boils down to a matter of simple “authority.” Also keep in mind that the reviewers are limited in their responses and might not be telling you exactly why they don’t like your picture and might be relying on stock phrases. In any event in evaluating this image I would go way beyond “what rules might have been violated” because in the real world success does not necessarily result from not breaking any rules.

For example I assume that you consider the shadow of the smoke plume in the water a cute little attraction, a thing which needs to be cleverly developed, but others might consider it a serious distraction, because it has prevented you from developing what others consider the primary attraction, the train, and what others probably consider the secondary attraction, the draw bridge over the canal, which begs to be further developed. Plus there are people on the train and these can often be developed into points of interest.

As the train passed one should zoom in to get good pictures of the people and out to get the train and the details of the draw bridge. The bridge seems to be developing in front of the train and one has to keep shooting. Sufficient length of the train needs to be developed in conjunction with interesting parts of the draw bridge. I suspect that the image would develop better horizontally rather than vertically.

One needs a certain intuition and here I think the image should be developed around including all the smoke plume that is in the air, long as well as tall and including less of the lock chamber of the canal, to better focus resources. This might be a multi-day affair and I suspect the passengers might be developed as a special project, getting in close and attempting to show them interacting in a sociable sort of way with the photographer, attempting to show them clustered around the train in a dynamic sort of way, Remember that songs about trains always imply something dynamic happening or about to happen.
GIZMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 07:31 PM   #8
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,838
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by GIZMO View Post
You need to go back and see what else you have, particularly a slightly later shot that showed the train further along the draw bridge across what appears to be a canal.
Or maybe if he bought a lens a B&H Photo he'd get the shot accepted.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 09:04 PM   #9
Warton GR4
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2009
Posts: 47
Default

Hi,
Thank you for taking the time to expand your comments Joe. I think the sun had just set or was very close to and being February it's a bit weak by that time of the day, which is why it's a little flat and golden. You quote the rule about going away shots. I'm not a rail photographer by profession, what is wrong with a going away shot anyway? The rules do however state "going away shots are generally not accepted unless they are composed in a creative/artistic manner", which I've tried to do unsuccessfully.

GIZMO I did take a burst of photos but found when the train runs further along the bridge it's obstructed by the angled support cable you can see just in front of the lead loco which I felt was too distracting. I wanted to get the full hight of the bridge in and I felt this was nicely balanced with the full reflection of the bridge and exhaust.
This was my second attempt at this location as the previous day I'd shot from the same angle at about the same time of day but I took it as a close in landscape photo and the shot just didn't work because it just highlighted the the fact that part of the loco is obscured and you couldn't see enough of the bridge to see the relationship between the obscuring railings and the uprights. Also the thing that struck me the previous day was the reflection...

Thanks for the comments, though I'm just more confused about what to try next as everything I try at the moment just gets rejected. The rules of the site state that 3/4 head on shots should be avoided, yet the database is full of them and whenever I try to push the boundaries a little to avoid posting them it's knocked straight back. I'll just give up with that bridge from that angle. If the bridge and the reflection don't add anything to the shot it's clearly a lost cause.
Cheers,
Mark
Warton GR4 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-03-2010, 09:48 PM   #10
GIZMO
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Apr 2010
Posts: 27
Default Bridge might dev as secondary point.....

.

GIZMO I did take a burst of photos but found when the train runs further along the bridge it's obstructed by the angled support cable you can see just in front of the lead loco which I felt was too distracting. I wanted to get the full hight of the bridge in and I felt this was nicely balanced with the full reflection of the bridge and exhaust.
This was my second attempt at this location as the previous day I'd shot from the same angle at about the same time of day but I took it as a close in landscape photo and the shot just didn't work because it just highlighted the the fact that part of the loco is obscured and you couldn't see enough of the bridge to see the relationship between the obscuring railings and the uprights. Also the thing that struck me the previous day was the reflection...<<<<<<

You might put some of that stuff up for us to see...I don't know the rules yet....it boils down to what are attractions and what are distractions....what camera and lens are you using???? you would need more length I think, are you at full frame (uncropped) here ??? risky for me to be speculating when you are the ones with the originals..but if that is all the coverage you can get, you might need to go horizontal to get coverage...one at times needs to be active to get where he needs to be...often times there are too many cops around and a driver helps...limiting length of shot to width of canal seems overly restrictive....maybe 10=15 feet length canal from the gates would be enough...suggestion of smoke might be adequate, enough to show smoke not cut off. You might post what the bridge itself looks like over length 4-5 times width of canal would show us what you had to work with and would not require waiting for the train to pass.

Last edited by GIZMO; 05-03-2010 at 10:02 PM.
GIZMO is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 05-04-2010, 01:49 AM   #11
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,986
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Warton GR4 View Post
Hi,
I your good opinions which part of the bad angles rule has this fallen fowl to?
Mark
foul, not fowl.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Reply

Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is On

Forum Jump


All times are GMT. The time now is 09:37 AM.


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