Comp too tight.....Oh Boy picky picky

[MassArt Images]

I 've seen tighter. Me thinks the screeners like ball-busting. Yea, its no PC winner, SC, or POTW and I did not rent a heli-o-copter, but I've seen tighter. It's the whole frame so that's all you're gonna get.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...56&key=1980988

Should I appeal?

[JimThias]

That tree you chopped off on the right would have made for a good framing element. That's the kind of stuff I analyze (and nitpick) when composing a scene with trees. Legitimate rejection.

[JRMDC]

Not a nitpick, the tree is the first thing I saw also, more of sore thumb than a nitpick.

[RobJor]

Originally Posted by MassArt Images

I 've seen tighter. Me thinks the screeners like ball-busting. Yea, its no PC winner, SC, or POTW and I did not rent a heli-o-copter, but I've seen tighter. It's the whole frame so that's all you're gonna get.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...56&key=1980988

Should I appeal?

Just a little bit wider........ or stand back further, looks like more room. I didn't pay too much attention to the tree but to the extent possible an element should be in or out ?? Anyway, looks like maybe misjudged the room needed to include all the units or were expecting only two so just a photo that didn't work out.????? Nice car, I like my Outback.

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Not a nitpick, the tree is the first thing I saw also, more of sore thumb than a nitpick.

LOL. Maybe at TreePictures.net. Guess I'll crop it out.

Seriously, the critique is welcome. It's always nice to have since I didn't give it a second thought as I was really concentrating on the levelness.

[JimThias]

Carl, you honestly didn't notice that tree while composing the frame? It's a really strong element that could have been used for framing.

For example:

PhotoID: 456811 Photograph © Jim Thias

[JRMDC]

Yes, it belongs in, if you have it. If you crop it out, then the nose will be very right to the right edge. To crop it out you have to start with an earlier frame.

[Noct Foamer]

Photos of trains about to exit the frame are absolutely my biggest pet peeve. Personally, don't understand why foamers do this. That particular situation would have allowed you to play with perspective a little. Since that's your tangerine parked there, might have been fun to park it so it's pointing directly at camera, exactly parallel to the tracks. The shot is head on of the car and the engine, but the trick is to have the engine far enough back so it appears to be the same size as the car. It can be fun to play with perspective like that.


Kent in SD

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by Noct Foamer

Photos of trains about to exit the frame are absolutely my biggest pet peeve. Personally, don't understand why foamers do this. That particular situation would have allowed you to play with perspective a little. Since that's your tangerine parked there, might have been fun to park it so it's pointing directly at camera, exactly parallel to the tracks. The shot is head on of the car and the engine, but the trick is to have the engine far enough back so it appears to be the same size as the car. It can be fun to play with perspective like that.


Kent in SD

That's a good idea Kent. I might have to try that. I was limited to that location.

BTW, for vacation this fall, I will be in S. Dakota doing the Rushmore and Black Hills trek. Send me a PM with some good railfanning spots if you are so inclined. Thanks!!

[SFO777]

Good idea Noctfoamer.

The other thing that might be of a benefit in this location is shooting at a shorter focal length, stepping closer as needed, and focusing at the hyperfocal distance to get everything sharp. It may be my monitor, but the second unit and further back looks a bit unsharp. Obviously would be a plus with the trees.

But I see you were shooting in really low light (ISO cranked up to 3200) so maybe this wasn't an option.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by SFO777

Good idea Noctfoamer.

The other thing that might be of a benefit in this location is shooting at a shorter focal length, stepping closer as needed, and focusing at the hyperfocal distance to get everything sharp. It may be my monitor, but the second unit and further back looks a bit unsharp. Obviously would be a plus with the trees.

But I see you were shooting in really low light (ISO cranked up to 3200) so maybe this wasn't an option.

He shot at f/7.1, 40mm, Pentax K-30. Hyperfocal distance is 37 feet (using http://www.dofmaster.com/dofjs.html). I am pretty darn sure he focused at a further point than 37 feet. He's got the DoF. And look at the tree branches on the top of the hill back center. They are distinct, as distinct as they are going to be for a 1200x pixel shot.

If there is any unacceptably lack of sharpness, it is due to the lens quality.

[SFO777]

Could it be focusing a little too far?

Maybe it's an effect of the ISO 3200 or some noise reduction in postprocessing?

To me the car and the trees above just don't look as sharp as they should or could. They almost look slight out of focus.

The CP units also look just slightly blurry, out of focus, or lacking sharpness.

I have had this problem myself when trying to use hyperfocal distances where it's a very small adjustment between hitting the focus right and focusing too far.

Massart did you manual focus for this shot? I'm assuming light was too low for AF?

[SFO777]

Compare with this one

55mm, f/5.6, ISO3200

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by SFO777

Massart did you manual focus for this shot? I'm assuming light was too low for AF?

I pre-focused on the tracks where I figured the lead engine would be using AF then I switched to manual. I think the slight blurring is the result of a lower shutter speed and panning to keep the lead engine's nose in the same frame area.

J, that depth of field chart is interesting. I should have left my aperture at f8 since it doubles the far limit focus range. Thanks for the link. I will have to put that app on my iPhone.

[Noct Foamer]

There is also a bit of haze from the exhaust that's swirling around the last engines. That always takes a little sharpness away. I try to shoot at 1/2000s when possible as trains aren't only moving forward, they are also jumping up & down and rocking.


Kent in SD

[Noct Foamer]

Originally Posted by MassArt Images

J, that depth of field chart is interesting. I should have left my aperture at f8 since it doubles the far limit focus range. Thanks for the link. I will have to put that app on my iPhone.

In the 1930s the more expensive cameras (Voigtlander Bergheil etc.) came with a DoF chart right on them, enameled on a brass plate. I rarely use hyperfocal, only when I can't get a focus. I generally put the focus point about 1/3 the way back on an engine, or whatever my subject is. Roughly 1/3 of DoF falls in front of focus point and 2/3 behind it. This varies a bit depending on actual distance but is close enough for rock & roll. I also use the DoF preview button on my cameras quite often. That works well.


Kent in SD

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by MassArt Images

J, that depth of field chart is interesting. I should have left my aperture at f8 since it doubles the far limit focus range. Thanks for the link. I will have to put that app on my iPhone.

The difference between f/7.1 vs f/8 is 1/3 of a stop - doesn't matter for DoF! I don't know where you get "doubles the far limit focus range." The hyperfocal would change from 37 feet to 33 feet - as you were focusing waaaay beyond 37 feet this would make zero difference in your shot.

Camera movement due to panning/repositioning would certainly explain any blurriness. I didn't think of that, although I too let that happen sometimes.

Dave B, very pretty shot.

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

The difference between f/7.1 vs f/8 is 1/3 of a stop - doesn't matter for DoF! I don't know where you get "doubles the far limit focus range."

I got it from the DoF calculator

Far limit at f 7.1 is 158ft.

Far limit at f8.0 is 335 ft.


Am I reading that wrong??

[JRMDC]

You have specified a focus distance of 30 feet. If that engine nose, what I presume to be the focus point, was 30 feet from you, then you are correct. As the shot does not look like you are only 10 yards from the nose, I presume you are wrong. If you put in any distance beyond the hyperfocal point, aka 37 feet or 33 feet (only 3 feet further!), then DoF extends to infinity.

[Mr. Pick]

That's what I love about my Fuji. You have a scale at the bottom of the viewfinder that shows the distance you are focused at, and then marks the distances that are in focus for the f-stop you have selected. No guess work, and no looking it up on line, it's right there in the viewfinder. One of my favorite features of the Fuji.

[JimThias]

I just point, focus, wait for the train and click. I don't worry about all this hyperfocal length mumbo jumbo. We're shooting trains...no reason to overthink it.

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

I presume you are wrong.

Phew! I am glad you are presuming and not assuming.

@Jim your quote "We're shooting trains...no reason to overthink it." kinda goes against your fanaticism for levelness not to mention several other factors that will have the screeners tossing a photo into the cyber-garbage can.

I must have used that attitude when I shot the picture that started this whole discussion. Look where it got me.

@Mr. Pick, that is a sweet feature!

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by Mr. Pick

That's what I love about my Fuji. You have a scale at the bottom of the viewfinder that shows the distance you are focused at, and then marks the distances that are in focus for the f-stop you have selected. No guess work, and no looking it up on line, it's right there in the viewfinder. One of my favorite features of the Fuji.

I can count on zero fingers the number of times I've needed that.

You know what the best feature of my camera is? I'm behind it. And I can admit that I'm terrible at getting a scene level in camera.

Loyd L.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by MassArt Images

Phew! I am glad you are presuming and not assuming.

To have assumed would have been presumptuous!

[MassArt Images]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

To have assumed would have been presumptuous!

Even after checking this site out, I am still not 100% clear when I should use either word so I am being in context. Probably even more confusing after imbibing.

http://www.vocabulary.com/articles/c...ssume-presume/