Old 08-20-2005, 12:15 AM   #1
trainmonster
Senior Member
 
trainmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Central Pa.
Posts: 378
Default Bad angle appealed

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=156854

What do you all think of this? Just got back from some rail therapy Altoona style and this turned out to be my favorite from the whole trip. Technical details aside, I think it is pretty dramatic and I don't really like 'low' shots like this-other ones I stood in the pickup bed to gain height.

These were helpers on a slab train and the ground was shaking like an earthquake. Better than any high I ever had!

Rich
__________________
"Truck trailers belong on flatcars"
trainmonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2005, 12:18 AM   #2
4kV
Senior Member
 
4kV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Homeless, alcoholic drifter with no permanent address
Posts: 653
Default

Low shots seem to be frown upon here, for reasons I don't know. That is one problem, at least here, not necessarily a problem photographically. The other thing going against this shot is that it is front coupled into cars. That usually works against the photo, too. Does it capture another facet of railroading, namely, helpers in service? Yes, and with the smoke, does a nice job. Does it capture what the screeners are looking for on this site? Maybe not, but you can appeal, and hope that it does.
__________________
WTFWDD

Click on n691lf.rrpicturearchives.net for a good laugh and waste of your time.
4kV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2005, 12:33 AM   #3
trainmonster
Senior Member
 
trainmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Central Pa.
Posts: 378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by 4kV
Low shots seem to be frown upon here, for reasons I don't know. That is one problem, at least here, not necessarily a problem photographically. The other thing going against this shot is that it is front coupled into cars. That usually works against the photo, too. Does it capture another facet of railroading, namely, helpers in service? Yes, and with the smoke, does a nice job. Does it capture what the screeners are looking for on this site? Maybe not, but you can appeal, and hope that it does.
Yes, these are helpers on the way up the hill to Horseshoe Curve and I did appeal but wanted comments here also.

Rich
__________________
"Truck trailers belong on flatcars"
trainmonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2005, 01:10 AM   #4
LAHDPOP
Senior Member
 
LAHDPOP's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2005
Location: Indiana
Posts: 299
Default

It's also not helping that most of the consist is in shadow.
LAHDPOP is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2005, 01:13 AM   #5
mtrails
Senior Member
 
mtrails's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 249
Default Helpers...

So, these four locos were on the end of the train? I think adding that information in the comment area would contribute to the photos' significance, and would favor an appeal. I assume the photo was rejected for bad angle? You might try to re-upload with added comments... I don't know if you can change the comments later?

Love the shot anyway!


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
mtrails is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2005, 01:30 AM   #6
bnsf sammy
Senior Member
 
bnsf sammy's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2005
Posts: 638
Default

same thing happened to this member
http://www.railpictures.net/forums/s...3972#post13972
__________________
BNSF SAMMY
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
bnsf sammy is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2005, 06:10 AM   #7
trainmonster
Senior Member
 
trainmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Central Pa.
Posts: 378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by mtrails
So, these four locos were on the end of the train? I think adding that information in the comment area would contribute to the photos' significance, and would favor an appeal. I assume the photo was rejected for bad angle? You might try to re-upload with added comments... I don't know if you can change the comments later?

Love the shot anyway!


Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Yes-they were wide open and shoving hard-Altoona is the start of the helper district heading west on the Pittsburgh line.

Thanks for the compliment-I might u/l the B&W I did and be more specific. However, I had this one rejected for the same thing: http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject.php?id=156923 . You can see in the comment that I specifically mention helpers. It got rejected on appeal for a "going away" shot. Maybe they don't believe we have real helpers here in the East!

I don't know where this bad angle craze is coming from... new fad I guess.

Rich
__________________
"Truck trailers belong on flatcars"
trainmonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2005, 12:58 PM   #8
ssw9662
Senior Member
 
ssw9662's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 839
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainmonster
I don't know where this bad angle craze is coming from... new fad I guess.
Bad Angle is nothing new, and it's the #1 reason I don't send many pics here anymore.
__________________
Austin
Canon EOS 7D
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon 50mm f/1.8
My Railpictures.net Photos
flickr
ssw9662 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-20-2005, 04:41 PM   #9
hoydie17
We Own The Night...
 
hoydie17's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2005
Location: Centreville, VA
Posts: 799
Send a message via AIM to hoydie17 Send a message via Yahoo to hoydie17
Default Only matter of opinion

Bad Angle, it's only a matter of opinion. The RP.net guys don't want helpers photos in the database it's their choice. Personally, I think a picture with helpers is worth a thousand words, as most photos are claimed to be.

As far as the geographic separation, or the comment, "Maybe they don't believe we have real helpers in the East." As humorous as that is, they must not believe there are any on the West Coast either. As I had a great picture of a pair of pushers at Cajon Summit helping a train down the pass, still rejected for being "bad angle: going away shot." Unfortunately, still photo's don't show direction very well, and the "front coupled rejection" well I have my own opinion on that.

Many of the philosophical points that RP.net's screeners/administrators have don't necessarily agree with what most "railfan photographers" like. And that just bottoms out to the age old argument that it's their database, they can do what they want. We have to comply or post someplace else.


Sean
__________________
See my work on FLICKR: Night Stalker Photo Works on FLICKR

Or if you want to see my work here at RP.net? Click here.

"It's just a damn train son!"
hoydie17 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2005, 12:06 AM   #10
mtrails
Senior Member
 
mtrails's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 249
Default Bad angle

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoydie17
Many of the philosophical points that RP.net's screeners/administrators have don't necessarily agree with what most "railfan photographers" like. And that just bottoms out to the age old argument that it's their database, they can do what they want. We have to comply or post someplace else.

Sean
This is a little different, but a shot rejected, and appealed for bad angle... I still don't know what the bad part is.
mtrails is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2005, 12:07 AM   #11
4kV
Senior Member
 
4kV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Homeless, alcoholic drifter with no permanent address
Posts: 653
Default

On a shot like that, I know sometimes it helps to include some of the surrounding scenery, rather than focus just on the train.
__________________
WTFWDD

Click on n691lf.rrpicturearchives.net for a good laugh and waste of your time.
4kV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2005, 12:15 AM   #12
mtrails
Senior Member
 
mtrails's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Billings, MT
Posts: 249
Default

Well this puts a new twist on "bad angle". In this instance, how is it much different than a roster shot, where there's virtualy no scenery at all?
mtrails is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2005, 12:27 AM   #13
4kV
Senior Member
 
4kV's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Homeless, alcoholic drifter with no permanent address
Posts: 653
Default

I agree, it's not different than a roster shot. I really don't know. I believe CS mentioned it in some thread about a picture of a common engine like this needing more scenery, because we all know what the engine looks like already. But yes, a roster shot would violate that way of thinking.

For the record, I think the angle is fine, just telling you what I think the screeners might be thinking.
__________________
WTFWDD

Click on n691lf.rrpicturearchives.net for a good laugh and waste of your time.
4kV is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2005, 01:44 AM   #14
ccaranna
Senior Member
 
ccaranna's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Columbus, Ohio
Posts: 740
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoydie17
The RP.net guys don't want helpers photos in the database it's their choice.
I know that I'm taking this statement out of the post's contextual whole, but I think even if you say in the caption that the shot is a set of helpers, ultimately in the eyes of RP.net it still has the appearance of a going away shot.

The thing that is unfortunate these days is that we don't have many chances of catching helpers on the rear shove against a caboose. To me, that was always a great effect, as if the helpers' power would crumple or lift the dimunitive car right off of the tracks. In this case, I think catching the units front coupled is OK.

However, I suppose we have to make do with what we're given, and if that means shooting a set of helpers as it's going away from us with the sun at a favorable angle (at our backs), I guess we'll have to bite the bullet.

If I may, I wanted to post my only shot of a helper set that I was able to catch because I knew they were coming, and I was able to get into position to catch the train as it was heading away from me. This was pure luck. (pardon me if you've seen this before, as I've posted this a few times on the forum)

Image ©
PhotoID:
Photograph ©


Chuck
ccaranna is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2005, 02:43 AM   #15
trainmonster
Senior Member
 
trainmonster's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Location: Central Pa.
Posts: 378
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by hoydie17
Bad Angle, it's only a matter of opinion. The RP.net guys don't want helpers photos in the database it's their choice. Personally, I think a picture with helpers is worth a thousand words, as most photos are claimed to be.

We have to comply or post someplace else.

Sean

Well, I know a lot of folks are getting more and more turned off by the policies here and posting other places... now no helpers? Nothing like losing an entire aspect of railroading. Whatta buncha BS.

As for mtrails' BNSF pic, absolutely nothing wrong with it.

As for the screeners coming up with the lame and worn-out bad angle, why don't they just have another category such as "not the kind of material we're looking for" or some such.

Screeners care to comment?

Rich
__________________
"Truck trailers belong on flatcars"

Last edited by trainmonster; 08-21-2005 at 02:46 AM.
trainmonster is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2005, 03:22 AM   #16
Chris Starnes
Administrator
 
Chris Starnes's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2002
Location: Virginia, USA
Posts: 927
Default

Guys:

I don't recall anyone from the crew saying "no helper photos." There are plenty of ways to shoot helpers....be creative and you will be rewarded. As you can tell by now, we are not going to publish tight wedgie shots like this where there is no clear sign that they are helpers. Going away shots are not accepted due to the fact that the particular angle typically does not produce good results. Just saying "this is a helper" doesn't change that rule of thumb for a shot like this one...sorry!
__________________
Chris Starnes
Co-Editor, RailPictures.net
Chris Starnes is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2005, 05:02 AM   #17
Ween
Senior Member
 
Ween's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Posts: 4,861
Default

Quote:
Well, I know a lot of folks are getting more and more turned off by the policies here and posting other places... now no helpers?
Rich,

It's not a 'no helper' policy. See:

Image © Chris Paulhamus
PhotoID: 53151
Photograph © Chris Paulhamus

Image © Chris Paulhamus
PhotoID: 53300
Photograph © Chris Paulhamus

Image © Chris Paulhamus
PhotoID: 57466
Photograph © Chris Paulhamus

Image © Chris Paulhamus
PhotoID: 63602
Photograph © Chris Paulhamus

Image © Chris Paulhamus
PhotoID: 90948
Photograph © Chris Paulhamus

Image © Chris Paulhamus
PhotoID: 115632
Photograph © Chris Paulhamus


The difference between these and the ones you uploaded is these show the DPU's nose (roster-like) and yours do not. As was mentioned before, since you can't really tell direction in a photograph (even the smoke and exhaust in yours aren't a dead give away as to the direction), it makes shots like those appear to be going away shots, which have been rejected here from the conception. It's nothing new.

DPUs can 'double up' your odds at getting a unit in good light. Northbound trains with DPUs increase your chance at good light in the Northern Hemisphere since you have an engine on the back (perhaps) pointing south right into good sun. Same idea works with westbounds in the AM and eastbounds in the PM.

Don't lose faith. The same rules that are in place have been in place for awhile. An 'no helpers' isn't one of them...
__________________
Ween is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2005, 01:30 PM   #18
ssw9662
Senior Member
 
ssw9662's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2004
Posts: 839
Default

I almost always shoot helpers going away, it looks better because there are no ffreight cars obstructing the nose.
__________________
Austin
Canon EOS 7D
Canon 70-200mm f/4 L
Canon EF 24-105mm f/4L IS USM
Canon 50mm f/1.8
My Railpictures.net Photos
flickr
ssw9662 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 08-21-2005, 02:09 PM   #19
busyEMT
Senior Member
 
busyEMT's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Minneapolis
Posts: 902
Default

Being late to the discussion, I was preceded by CS. Each time I read this forum, I looked at the photo and thought it was just a going away shot. I was expecting the ex-Conrail unit to be unique or had something special that would be pionted out in the remarks.

Image © Donnie Biggs
PhotoID: 60525
Photograph © Donnie Biggs

and
Image © John Nichols
PhotoID: 113581
Photograph © John Nichols
, but this speaks volumes of either the grade or weight of the train (or both)
Image © David Hawkins
PhotoID: 49267
Photograph © David Hawkins
.
__________________
Aaron Florin- Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
Visit Twin Cities Railfan.com
Visit the Twin Cities Railfan forums.

Don't do anything you wouldn't want to explain to the paramedics!
busyEMT 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 12:02 AM.


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