Old 09-19-2014, 02:48 PM   #1
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default Feeling sincerely flattered!

I just wonder if Dave had to work his way through a PEQ first, like I did!

Image © Dave Schauer
PhotoID: 498578
Photograph © Dave Schauer


Image © W. D. Shaw
PhotoID: 337917
Photograph © W. D. Shaw
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2014, 03:08 PM   #2
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,564
Default

And to beat all, your photo is superior.

YOU WIN!

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2014, 03:26 PM   #3
Dave Schauer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11
Default

Double vision You paved the way W. D. - no PAQ and I'm happy to see the screeners continuing to accept "different" type shots. Unfortunately I didn't know an identical image was already in the database, although it is interesting to see how well the logo has held up over 4+ years.
Dave Schauer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2014, 03:33 PM   #4
Mr. Pick
Senior Member
 
Mr. Pick's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2011
Location: Middle Tennessee
Posts: 662
Default

Great minds think alike...it has held up pretty well over the last 4 years!
Mr. Pick is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2014, 03:41 PM   #5
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schauer View Post
Double vision You paved the way W. D. - no PAQ and I'm happy to see the screeners continuing to accept "different" type shots. Unfortunately I didn't know an identical image was already in the database, although it is interesting to see how well the logo has held up over 4+ years.
No worries Dave, but I have to admit I did do a bit of a double-take when I saw yours there this morning! To get mine accepted I recall having to do a bit of distortion correction, although if truth be known I suspect winning a round of "screener roulette" probably had more to do with its ultimately being accepted!

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbassloyd View Post
And to beat all, your photo is superior.

YOU WIN!

Loyd L.
Thanks Loyd, but I think that mine is just a matter of fresher paint!
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!

Last edited by wds; 09-19-2014 at 03:43 PM.
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2014, 03:50 PM   #6
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

As a matter of interest, if you check out the comments from 2010 on my shot you'll see there was some discussion as to why they would have put a picture of CN 5616 on a totally different type of locomotive. My assumption that CN5616 was the first unit acquired since the privatization proved to be correct, but my thoughts that they might eventually do that scheme on 5616 itself did not (at least as of March 2014) pan out.

Image © Dan Tweedle
PhotoID: 476114
Photograph © Dan Tweedle
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2014, 03:53 PM   #7
bigbassloyd
Senior Member
 
bigbassloyd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2006
Location: Hilldale, West Virginia
Posts: 3,564
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post



Thanks Loyd, but I think that mine is just a matter of fresher paint!
paint, and no distortion. I feel that's a requirement on a tight detail shot with lots of lines.

Loyd L.
__________________
Social Media elevates the absurd and mediocre to a point where they aren't anymore, and that is a tragedy.

Last edited by bigbassloyd; 09-19-2014 at 03:56 PM.
bigbassloyd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-19-2014, 04:32 PM   #8
Dave Schauer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbassloyd View Post
paint, and no distortion. I feel that's a requirement on a tight detail shot with lots of lines.

Loyd L.
I agree there is some wide angle lens distortion that can be seen in the frame. I'll correct that and resubmit.
Dave Schauer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2014, 08:00 PM   #9
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 630
Default

Evidently it doesn't always work.....

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...18&key=4202078
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-20-2014, 08:52 PM   #10
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Funky distortion in that one, Michael!
__________________
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 09-20-2014, 11:15 PM   #11
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

I agree with Janusz Michael. Straighten that one out and give it a go. I'd also like to see it cropped a bit closer to the logo, except then one of the axles would be cut off and that probably wouldn't look right so try just correcting the distortion and resubmitting. If that doesn't work, next time you go there see if you can shoot the other side, the placement of the logo might work better.
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2014, 12:48 AM   #12
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
I agree with Janusz Michael. Straighten that one out and give it a go. I'd also like to see it cropped a bit closer to the logo, except then one of the axles would be cut off and that probably wouldn't look right so try just correcting the distortion and resubmitting. If that doesn't work, next time you go there see if you can shoot the other side, the placement of the logo might work better.
I just went ahead and submitted a traditional broadside shot when this got the inevitable PAQ rejection.

Image © Michael Berry
PhotoID: 498828
Photograph © Michael Berry
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2014, 02:25 AM   #13
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Bah! Quitter!
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2014, 03:21 AM   #14
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 630
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
Bah! Quitter!
In this case, yes sir!
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-21-2014, 03:32 AM   #15
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Been there, done that - so you're not alone!
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 01:30 AM   #16
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by bigbassloyd View Post
And to beat all, your photo is superior.

YOU WIN!

Loyd L.
Yep. In fact, it's QUITE a bit better.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 08:22 PM   #17
Dave Schauer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
Yep. In fact, it's QUITE a bit better.
I'm certainly open to suggestions Ron on how W.D.'s shot is QUITE a bit better. I get that the original 28 mm distortion (since adjusted) and weathered logo/color on mine make W.D.s better but in looking at them side-by-side they are really close (sun angle is obviously different but not a detraction on either). Curious in Minnesota...
Dave Schauer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 09:46 PM   #18
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schauer View Post
I'm certainly open to suggestions Ron on how W.D.'s shot is QUITE a bit better. I get that the original 28 mm distortion (since adjusted) and weathered logo/color on mine make W.D.s better but in looking at them side-by-side they are really close (sun angle is obviously different but not a detraction on either). Curious in Minnesota...
OK...I'll throttle back on the "QUITE" superlative. I was drawn to the color saturation...initially...but now that I look at it closer, it's obviously a little "cooked." Your shot is a more honest depiction of reality.

I'm not a big fan of lens distortion correction, so that wasn't a factor.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-22-2014, 10:55 PM   #19
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post

I'm not a big fan of lens distortion correction, so that wasn't a factor.
So you're not a big fan of what it looks like to your eyes in person?

You PREFER a distorted world due to the limitations of technology?

__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2014, 12:40 AM   #20
Dave Schauer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
So you're not a big fan of what it looks like to your eyes in person?

You PREFER a distorted world due to the limitations of technology?

I've always wondered about the concept of distortion. A well known railroad photographer (and occasional contributor to RP.net) once told me that our eyes view close to 50mm and that if our eyes were 28mm that is how the world would appear to us. I never fact checked that but it sounded plausible years ago when he said it.
Dave Schauer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2014, 01:28 AM   #21
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dave Schauer View Post
I've always wondered about the concept of distortion. A well known railroad photographer (and occasional contributor to RP.net) once told me that our eyes view close to 50mm and that if our eyes were 28mm that is how the world would appear to us. I never fact checked that but it sounded plausible years ago when he said it.
That's a common truism, one of those things that is said often enough that everyone thinks it is true. It isn't even false, just quite simplistic.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/photo...an-vision.html
__________________
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 09-23-2014, 02:07 AM   #22
Dave Schauer
Junior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2012
Posts: 11
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
That's a common truism, one of those things that is said often enough that everyone thinks it is true. It isn't even false, just quite simplistic.

http://www.earthboundlight.com/photo...an-vision.html
That is an interesting read, thanks for sharing it. I think the one line that my source probably was referencing was "If one pays attention only to the central portion, the angle of view we see clearly does fall somewhere in the 40 to 60 degree range." Obviously the paper notes that there is far more to human eyesight than a direct comparison to a camera lens, notably the influence of peripheral vision.
Dave Schauer is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-23-2014, 02:30 AM   #23
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

I don't recall if the idem talks about, but to me the key thing is not peripheral vision but rather near-instantaneous focal length adjustment - we can go tele by ignoring parts of our field of view, and go wide by rapid eye movements and simply by altering our concentration.
__________________
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 09-24-2014, 03:14 AM   #24
Ron Flanary
Senior Member
 
Ron Flanary's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2009
Location: Big Stone Gap, VA
Posts: 1,327
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
So you're not a big fan of what it looks like to your eyes in person?

You PREFER a distorted world due to the limitations of technology?

We've already been over this. I'm stubborn and don't take to technology changes all that well. If I use the lens distortion correction tool, it makes me feel.....well....."dirty."
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 09-24-2014, 12:37 PM   #25
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,785
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
We've already been over this. I'm stubborn and don't take to technology changes all that well. If I use the lens distortion correction tool, it makes me feel.....well....."dirty."
Well, I don't mind being called a dirty old man.
__________________
.
Rhymes with slice, rice and mice, and probably should be spelled like "Tice."

This pretty much sums it up: http://www.urbandictionary.com/define.php?term=Thias
JimThias 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 05:54 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.8.1
Copyright ©2000 - 2018, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.