Work train Rejects

jaanfo · 11-10-2007, 02:04 AM

Hey guys, out of a series of night images of a Work train I recently took filtered out six of (what I thought were) the better shots, but only got one of them up. I wasn't expecting to get them all up since some were similar angles taken at different locations, but I was hoping to get one of each of three angles. From the Rejects I found the two I thought would best reflect the shots I wanted and edited them, but both got rejected again. Any tips for what to do with these images?

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...&key=498849973
Too Dark, Originally I'd gotten an "Underexposed" so I brightened and sharpened it, so it received a promotion to "Too Dark". Any way to bring it over to the light side of the force without damaging the background? I also have another shot from this angle at the same location as my next reject, but was hoping to keep away from the Carbon Lighting if possible.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=444592&key=0
Esthetics, I'm thinking it's probably due to the focus being on the car of rail itself, not the entire train... Kinda stumped, any ideas?

The one that made it:

PhotoID: 210976
Photograph © Jaanfo

Thanks!

Freericks · 11-10-2007, 02:43 AM

Jared,

I really like the one that made it. And I agree on the esthetics one. The flat car is filling the frame and isn't as interesting.

As to the rear of the engine shot, I feel like there was more lighting on the front of the engine shot and that's part of it's appeal to me. I would curious to see what it looks like if you isolate the locomotive and just lighten that.

JimThias · 11-10-2007, 01:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by Freericks

Jared,

I really like the one that made it. And I agree on the esthetics one. The flat car is filling the frame and isn't as interesting.

I agree about the aesthetics rejection. The subject seems lost in its surroundings. You almost have to work to see what it is. It's not a bad scene by any means, it's just that the flatcar doesn't work as a subject in it, and its payload kind of gets lost in the surroundings.

The one that made it looks really cool with the ligthing on the trucks. Where is that lighting coming from? I don't think I've ever seen trucks lit up like that at night. The only thing that bothers me about that shot is the big white dust spot near the left side of the frame. Definitely could use some clone tool touch up.

JRMDC · 11-10-2007, 02:08 PM

Agree with Jim on the aesthetics.

On the other shot, if you compare it to the one that got in, you see the differences. The rejected one, the sky is so bright, relatively!, that it seems strange that the engine isn't that well lit. There is some sort of a mismatch. I think that it is simply a matter of shooting at a very difficult time of day.

jaanfo · 11-11-2007, 11:14 AM

Well, I don't see the dust spot (must be blind).

Thanks for the ideas folks, as always I owe ya'll one. I guess I'll drop the one taken of the flat car, and I'm going to give my shot of the long hood taken from the same location as the flat car a try since there is more lighting on the locomotive there.

If you see the rejected photo of the locomotive long hood, you'll see there are light bulbs along the trucks, makes it very easy to chok, clean, inspect, etc the wheels at night... not to mention the security issues (waves hands in air and whimpers). I'd kinda be surprised if there are modern locomotives being made without them, but it definately adds an interesting effect.

Thanks for the comments guys!

-Jared

EDIT:
So much for that attempt LOL!
http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=445407&key=0

JRMDC · 11-11-2007, 04:03 PM

re latest attempt:

bad cropping: engine in center, nothing of interest on the right side

esthetic quality: tight and wide angle of the less interesting end of an engine, lots of flare, distracting/unpleasant lamp light, station cut off on the left to show more on the right of ... nothing

it just doesn't work as a shot, sorry

Freericks · 11-11-2007, 05:54 PM

One picture out of four or five is actually a very good batting average. The one you got in was terrific. None of the others caught the eye.

With my own photography, at best, one out of ten are something I like. Like they say, Babe Ruth made an out seven out of every ten times he got up, and he was the greatest player of all time.

JimThias · 11-11-2007, 06:43 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by jaanfo

Well, I don't see the dust spot (must be blind).

I only call it a dust spot because I see spots like that on a daily basis in my job. I use a wide angle lens with a mounted flash for photographing interiors of houses, and I'm constantly cleaning it because the lens, along with the intensity of the flash, magnifies the dust on the glass to look like white spots (as opposed to sensor dust which shows up dark). Perhaps it's something else in your picture...but it's this spot I was commenting on: