Old 09-25-2009, 06:29 PM   #26
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,038
Default

Meow


(additonal text added so the system lets me post)
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 07:10 PM   #27
Joe the Photog
Senior Member
 
Joe the Photog's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2005
Location: Columbia, SC
Posts: 7,887
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinderpath View Post
...but is borderline HDR. It should just be consistent what is and is not acceptable.
How is it borderline HDR? A shot is either HDR or it's not HDR. The photog says in the comments that it's not HDR, that he had to use the shadows/highlights to bring out detail in the front and the side. I agree with all the comments, the favorites and the folks who just clicked on the shot, that it looks great.

I also tried real hard to find what folks were talking about in the OP's first reject here and couldn't really find it. Some shots stand out at you that something just isn't right about it. Some shots need a microscope and a magnifying glass.
__________________
Joe the Photog Dot Com
Joe the Photog is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 07:17 PM   #28
UCRP93
Senior Member
 
UCRP93's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Posts: 103
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John Ryan View Post
The trees are glowing in this photo. I'm no expert, but based on the ugly shadows on the depot from the roof overhang, this location would be best photographed during the last two hours of sunshine on a crisp winter day.
Thought that's what it may have been. Gotcha!

I also have another photo from Wauseon, in better light, of NS 11G.

I may try that one again!
__________________
-RWT

Click here to see my photos on RailPictures.net
Click here to see my videos on YouTube

One of very few people that like CSX and GE both!!

..........
UCRP93 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 07:34 PM   #29
cblaz
Senior Member
 
cblaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marlboro, New Jersey
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
I agree with all the comments, the favorites and the folks who just clicked on the shot, that it looks great.
Does it look good because it's a good shot, or because of who took the photograph?

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joe the Photog View Post
I also tried real hard to find what folks were talking about in the OP's first reject here and couldn't really find it. Some shots stand out at you that something just isn't right about it. Some shots need a microscope and a magnifying glass.
It's a very nice shot, no doubt about it, and I'm glad it got on, but the original sky looked fake to me. RP has standards in place that fake-looking, over-processed shots don't have a place here. In fact, a few photographers got the boot for fake photos in the past.

That's the basis of the argument, when is a photograph processed too much? There are plenty of tricks in PS now to make a photographer look spectacular, and RP has to draw a line in the sand on what is acceptable or not.

- Chris
/I have nothing against either photographer, especially Mitch. I'm also not criticizing either photographer, just RP's standards.
__________________
- Christopher Blaszczyk
My shots on RP: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=284
cblaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 07:36 PM   #30
cblaz
Senior Member
 
cblaz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Marlboro, New Jersey
Posts: 1,007
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
But then, a guy who did this shot (or the others from that series) doesn't have too much basis on which to criticize others for processing

Image © Christopher Blaszczyk
PhotoID: 297399
Photograph © Christopher Blaszczyk


Your shots looks rather "off." I'm personally OK with Mitch's but can see where someone else might not be.

One person's opinion.
And yes, J, I agree that I had to do a bit of post-processing on that shot to save it. But when the other photos discussed in the thread have receive PCAs, well, I want one too.

- Chris
__________________
- Christopher Blaszczyk
My shots on RP: http://www.railpictures.net/showphotos.php?userid=284
cblaz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 07:53 PM   #31
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,458
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by cblaz View Post

There are plenty of tricks in PS now to make a photographer look spectacular, and RP has to draw a line in the sand on what is acceptable or not.

- Chris
.
What kind of line? I think it is a very tough call of what is to much and what isn't. You can't really say "What are you shadow/highlight numbers?", I have seen some of my photos go off the wall at a +10 but others barely change at +30.

My opinion is RP causes issues with a lot of peoples processing. A lot of people (myself included) sometimes or all the time, process their photos for rp but if they were processing them for flickr they would would have processed differently.

Things that make a line in the sand hard to do is when people see somebody elses work make it in that is over the line. Maybe a visual guide would help? Like a line up of good and bad photos?

I also don't think there is anything wrong with pushing boundries a little since that is what photography is today.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-25-2009, 08:26 PM   #32
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by travsirocz View Post
What kind of line? ... Things that make a line in the sand hard to do is when people see somebody elses work make it in that is over the line. Maybe a visual guide would help? Like a line up of good and bad photos?

I also don't think there is anything wrong with pushing boundries a little since that is what photography is today.
Well, that line/zone is drawn by ongoing screening and ongoing discussion such as in this forum, and clearly RP has been flexible and changed over time.

So, to continue the discussion, here are some more thoughts, maybe better considered as musings. I think there is a difference, not a bright line but a difference, however im-measureable, between a shot that is processed as a 'save' of a badly lit or difficult light shot and a shot processed because the photographer is trying to convey in the best possible manner what he saw. Frankly, Chris' shot looks like a save. Mitch's crossing shot, maybe a bit of a save but in my range of OK. Mitch's turntable shot, not a save, it conveys the looks of what my extreme-dynamic-range eyes might see. Or some extension of that which feels "real". So there are levels of saving that RP finds acceptable and that each one of us individually find acceptable.

Also, there is a difference between representational photography and photography that pushes the line, not to better represent, but to convey an impression using non-representational technique. I think of the HDR work begin done in general (so not RP) as not being representational at all. I look at so much HDR work and I might say "cool" but I would never say that is what I would see if I had been standing there. Gosh, I recently saw a non-train shot, two of them, and a commentator said something like "one, on the other hand, looks real." And it was the craziest thing because both of them were way far away from anything like real.

RP is about representational. HDR that better captures the dynamic range and presents it in a realistic way is fine by me for RP. HDR that has more of an artistic, interpretive intent is not fine by me for RP, and in general I usually find it uninteresting.

If I recall correctly, and I think I do, RP is not my website.
__________________
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 09-25-2009, 11:10 PM   #33
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,458
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Mitch's turntable shot can be seen in the latest Railroads Illustrated. Just like PCA's on the front page, Mitch seems to have photos in each issueof that mag.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 02:26 AM   #34
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinderpath View Post
...It should just be consistent what is and is not acceptable.
I concur completely here. While it's nice to have the flexibility and discretion of 5 unique screeners that do not hold to every letter of a rule book, there are certain visible limits that seem to be overlooked sporadically. Fuzzy pics get in, cloudy day common power slips through, photos with artifacts and blatantly obvious pastel like images, while not daily, do make there way through. Not only does this effect the database as a whole, but it obviously frustrates those who simply play by set examples. It's like getting pulled over on the interstate for going 3 mph over - one day.

Quote:
Originally Posted by Cinderpath View Post
Now don't get me wrong, this is a cool shot, but is borderline HDR.
HDR - let's see - you take the best of several exposures and toss the rest. Split neutral density filters, you take one photo with two exposures ("but it's in the camera"). Dodge and burn - you increase the exposure (so to speak) in one area and decrease the exposure in another (but how's that different then old school developing?). Shadows and highlight recovery - you digitally add a stop to the shadows and subtract a stop from the highlights.

All seem to me varying levels of the same thing. What it comes down to, I think, is two issues - Is it what you saw with your own eyes? And, I suppose, is it what your camera "should've" been able to capture with the use of an old school physical filter.

The turntable shot - I don't see pastel colors. The glow, the intensity of the colors and contrast is something you get when shooting backlit. Was it as I saw it with my own eyes? Perhaps, had I been wearing a nice set of polarized lenses. I'll have to take another close look to see how the image stands up to a little less recovery and even greater contrast. After looking at Michael's pics - I'd say Cinder left a clear Path to proper backlighting.

BTW - Is there really anyone, viewer or screener, that likes or accepts a photo specifically due to the photogrpaher's name attached to it?!??

Back to the original thread - nice photo CZ. Live and learn, the second image with less processing is actually a much nicer rendition.

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-26-2009, 03:36 AM   #35
Chris Z
Senior Member
 
Chris Z's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Location: Libertyville, Il
Posts: 937
Send a message via Skype™ to Chris Z
Default

[quote=Back to the original thread - nice photo CZ. Live and learn, the second image with less processing is actually a much nicer rendition.

/Mitch[/QUOTE]

Thanks Mitch. I see I still have an awful lot to learn. I've been experimenting with back lit images, but I don't know what to think of it yet. I'll try a new thread later and get some opinions.

Chris Z
Chris Z 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 08:07 PM.


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