Old 02-01-2017, 03:52 AM   #1
abr
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 77
Default Aesthetic Quality

I've been trying to capture some images that highlight crews at work in an effort to diversify my submissions somewhat. The two images I've submitted in recent days haven't made the cut. These are the first "Poor Aesthetic Quality" rejections I've experienced. With each, there are some specific questions I have.

Here is the first image: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...18&key=2416653

The first image is a shot of workers removing the final section of the old departure board from Penn Station. I do not expect to appeal or edit and resubmit it. Would the rejection likely fall under the "not enough rail-related content" since it's a nondescript section of the old sign?

Really, what I'd like to know is from a quality photography standpoint (again, not thinking in terms of RP-worthiness), was there a better way I could have approached this particular scene?

Here is the second image: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...16&key=6199138

I wanted to highlight the unusual low-level platform operation, but again, it was rejected on the same basis. Is there a particular fatal flaw (or two) that is too distracting, e.g. the conductor at the foreground, left; cloudy conditions; the fact that it's a mid-train shot (by necessity); platform railing? Or is it just the totality of the scene? Stated differently, if I were trying to capture a shot of low-level platform operation from a station like this in the future, any suggestions on better ways to approach it?

Thanks in advance for any suggestions.
abr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 05:06 AM   #2
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

First one - a better approach would be an angle where it was clearer what the object was that is being handled. That is true for RP, but for this shot also true generally. What in the world are they doing? Manhandling something, from somewhere, to somewhere else, for reasons unclear. There is information in your shot, but no story.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 12:18 PM   #3
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Location: Lancaster, PA
Posts: 491
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
First one - a better approach would be an angle where it was clearer what the object was that is being handled. That is true for RP, but for this shot also true generally. What in the world are they doing? Manhandling something, from somewhere, to somewhere else, for reasons unclear. There is information in your shot, but no story.
I agree with Janusz on the first one. The second shot has a story, but does not interest me in learning the story. A shot of the train arriving with the extra crew members waiting to perform their duties may be a better approach.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 12:38 PM   #4
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,074
Default

In the case of the first one, I would have preferred to see one or more of the workers' faces....or at least parts of their faces. That's the thing that immediately struck me when I looked at it.

In the case of the second one, I think the others have nailed it. A bunch of elements, but no clearly defined subject/message/story-line.
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 02:12 PM   #5
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 830
Default

Right, you need bring a couple cute kids along, posed, maybe in Lederhosen, waving at something, to add some realism. No way to shoehorn in a model "T"

Bob
RobJor is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-01-2017, 08:53 PM   #6
miningcamper1
Senior Member
 
miningcamper1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,270
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by RobJor View Post
Right, you need bring a couple cute kids along, posed, maybe in Lederhosen, waving at something, to add some realism. No way to shoehorn in a model "T"

Bob
^^^^^^^^^^
__________________
flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11947249@N03/

RP Photos: www.railpictures.net/miningcamper1/
miningcamper1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 12:16 AM   #7
abr
Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Posts: 77
Default

Thanks for all of your insights on those images. With the removal of the last section of the departure board at New York Penn Station, I did capture it from a number of different angles. Some of those probably do "more effectively tell the story" than that earlier image, so I may post one or two of those for your thoughts at a later date.

However, I wanted to run this Poor Aesthetic Quality rejection by all of you first:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...84&key=6158955

I thought it was a cool effect, but I'm not sure whether it's just a non-starter for RP or if could work in the future if the conditions and/or execution was a little different. I'm wondering whether, for example, framing it differently next time, so that I can crop out the light at the top left of the image might make a difference. The other thing I could think of would be trying this when the lighting is better, so that it isn't as dark under the platform canopy.

What are your thoughts?
abr is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 12:44 AM   #8
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 408
Default

I certainly find it interesting and a neat shot, but I doubt it has any chance by RP standards.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 01:48 AM   #9
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 642
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by abr View Post
Thanks for all of your insights on those images. With the removal of the last section of the departure board at New York Penn Station, I did capture it from a number of different angles. Some of those probably do "more effectively tell the story" than that earlier image, so I may post one or two of those for your thoughts at a later date.

However, I wanted to run this Poor Aesthetic Quality rejection by all of you first:

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...84&key=6158955

I thought it was a cool effect, but I'm not sure whether it's just a non-starter for RP or if could work in the future if the conditions and/or execution was a little different. I'm wondering whether, for example, framing it differently next time, so that I can crop out the light at the top left of the image might make a difference. The other thing I could think of would be trying this when the lighting is better, so that it isn't as dark under the platform canopy.

What are your thoughts?
It doesn't do much for me and I don't see it getting on rp.
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 05:14 AM   #10
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

RP doesn't go for mid-train shots and the reflection of the point at which two cars are coupled is not nearly interesting enough to get it in or, to my tastes, make it interesting.
__________________
My RP pix are here.
My Flickr pix are here.

My commentaries on rail pictures are in my blog.

RP Photo Albums:
Cabooses
Engine Details
Farm and Train
Plumes!
Railroad Details
Signal Details
Switchstand Shots
JRMDC 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 12:15 PM.


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