Old 06-22-2011, 05:05 PM   #26
oltmannd
Senior Member
 
oltmannd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
What about for an EL fan born before 1980 whose father worked for the PRR?

Inner torment? Common "enemy", the Central?
oltmannd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 05:07 PM   #27
oltmannd
Senior Member
 
oltmannd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
The two Conrail shots can be lightened very easily in any editing program (if you wanted to - up to you - have to admit my last rejection was "fixible" I just didn't agree so I didn't bother). I do agree with them on these two Conrail shots. They are slightly too dark (the scans - not necessarily the shots themselves). Very easy fix.

As to the roundhouse one - that is a toughy. I think you played screener roulette and lost, getting the "don't care about historical value" screener. There are other screeners (I think, don't know) who are much kinder to thirty year old images.

Do you have someplace else that you are sharing these? They are great.

I've been putting some on Picasa web. I'll share a link here soon.
oltmannd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 05:10 PM   #28
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oltmannd View Post
I have no doubt nearly everything I scan and process couldn't be tweaked this way or that to improve it a bit. That's not what I'm trying to do. I'm trying to share interesting (to me) stuff that I have in my collection that might be of interest to others. RP is a good place to do this, but if they don't pass muster, so be it. I have others. I'll move on.
That's a pet peeve of mine. I think that people who have those great shots should nonetheless not sit on their buts but should put a few minutes effort into them. It really doesn't take that long, and the end result is so much better that I think it should be done. Like I said, my pet peeve (and not the only one!).

Quote:
Originally Posted by oltmannd View Post
And, so there is only one other shot of Conrail N8 caboose on RP. A bad scan uploaded in 2003 that I may get around to replacing some day....
Are you saying your very old shot and my just uploaded shot are the only CR N8 cabooses on RP? Or is my N-8b different from an N8? Obviously, I am clueless. (I should add, I found the N-8b designation on the web; it may not be right or even close.) BTW, do you know, why does the cupola in my shot have no windows?
__________________
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

Last edited by JRMDC; 06-22-2011 at 05:12 PM.
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 05:14 PM   #29
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oltmannd View Post
Inner torment? Common "enemy", the Central?
Sure - all of that.

Dad worked for the Pennsy, but only briefly. He was really much more of a Reading and Norfolk & Western man (his two favorite roads).
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 05:42 PM   #30
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
That's a pet peeve of mine. I think that people who have those great shots should nonetheless not sit on their buts but should put a few minutes effort into them. It really doesn't take that long, and the end result is so much better that I think it should be done. Like I said, my pet peeve (and not the only one!).
I agree 100% with you. I've seen plenty of shots from the 50-70s that look amazing for that time period, and I'm guessing on many of them that processing took a key roll in making them look so good. Nothing wrong with that.

Regarding Don's caboose shot, I'm fairly confident that it would have been accepted without hesitation had there been a railroad employee or two standing on the rear platform of the caboose. I like the shot, but it just feels like something is missing. Being a caboose, a bit of human element would have really separated that shot from what it is. I know he can't go back and change that, but that's just my observation.
__________________
.
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 06-22-2011, 06:14 PM   #31
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Not to get into a polemic over such a trivial matter, but I'm going to have to disagree on the 50s to 70s shots. Of course, there are some great images out there (witness the stuff that gets published in magazines and books to this day), but the truth is that the majority of photographers out there did have substandard cameras.

My dad's stuff really kills me. At some point in time, during 1949, he switched from what I would assume was his parents' 620 or 120 camera with a passable lens in bright sunlights, to a plastic 127 camera that took pictures on a half a frame (to get twice as many images on a roll). Thus, I cannot share any of my dad's pics from late 1949 to about 1952, when he seems to have switched to a better 127 (still bad, but at least there is sometimes something there). Then he got a TERRIBLE 35mm, that actually had a worse lens than the second 127, so while 1952 and 1953, I have some stuff to share, 1953 on, it pretty much goes back to completely useless, all the way until 1976 (mind you, he did not shoot a single train picture in the late 1950s or any of the 1960s).

It is really frustrating finding things like Union Pacific Erie Builts in Wyoming or the interurbans and trolleys in Allentown PA and not being able to share them.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 08:04 PM   #32
oltmannd
Senior Member
 
oltmannd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
I agree 100% with you. I've seen plenty of shots from the 50-70s that look amazing for that time period, and I'm guessing on many of them that processing took a key roll in making them look so good. Nothing wrong with that.

Regarding Don's caboose shot, I'm fairly confident that it would have been accepted without hesitation had there been a railroad employee or two standing on the rear platform of the caboose. I like the shot, but it just feels like something is missing. Being a caboose, a bit of human element would have really separated that shot from what it is. I know he can't go back and change that, but that's just my observation.
Conductor's can't sleep standing up....
oltmannd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 08:21 PM   #33
oltmannd
Senior Member
 
oltmannd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
That's a pet peeve of mine. I think that people who have those great shots should nonetheless not sit on their buts but should put a few minutes effort into them. It really doesn't take that long, and the end result is so much better that I think it should be done. Like I said, my pet peeve (and not the only one!).



Are you saying your very old shot and my just uploaded shot are the only CR N8 cabooses on RP? Or is my N-8b different from an N8? Obviously, I am clueless. (I should add, I found the N-8b designation on the web; it may not be right or even close.) BTW, do you know, why does the cupola in my shot have no windows?
An N8b is a totally different animal from an N8. An N8b is the PC (later CR) class for an ex-NH caboose. An N8 is PRR caboose ("cabin car" on the PRR). PC, and later CR shoehorned the cabooses of the smaller roads into the PC scheme as sub classes. There is more than you want to know at http://crcaboose.railfan.net/



There a really neat, but poor quality shot of a PRR N8 under the wire in its original paint scheme, a 2005 image of one on a tourist line in the later PRR scheme and one of mine on the Amtrak bridge at Perryville MD. That's it.

Not sure why the NH cabooses got bay windows and had their couplas blanked out. PC did the mod. Nearly all did, though a few escaped that treatment. Probably had to do with visibility. You can see more of the train ahead from a bay window than a coupla - but that wouldn't explain how the PRR cars escaped....
oltmannd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 08:30 PM   #34
oltmannd
Senior Member
 
oltmannd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
That's a pet peeve of mine. I think that people who have those great shots should nonetheless not sit on their buts but should put a few minutes effort into them. It really doesn't take that long, and the end result is so much better that I think it should be done. Like I said, my pet peeve (and not the only one!).
Sometimes a few minutes, sometimes a total waste of time - and my eye is not keen enough to know the difference.

For example, I CAN tell the tweaks suggested to my caboose shot make it better, but such a very, very slight amount to my eye to make the effort not worth the amount of improvement - to me. I'll spend that 5 minutes scanning a new shot or editing a new scan - a more rewarding use of my time.

I do recognize that others have a sharper eye for such things. So be it.
oltmannd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 08:45 PM   #35
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oltmannd View Post
An N8b is a totally different animal from an N8. An N8b is the PC (later CR) class for an ex-NH caboose. An N8 is PRR caboose ("cabin car" on the PRR). PC, and later CR shoehorned the cabooses of the smaller roads into the PC scheme as sub classes. There is more than you want to know at http://crcaboose.railfan.net/



There a really neat, but poor quality shot of a PRR N8 under the wire in its original paint scheme, a 2005 image of one on a tourist line in the later PRR scheme and one of mine on the Amtrak bridge at Perryville MD. That's it.

Not sure why the NH cabooses got bay windows and had their couplas blanked out. PC did the mod. Nearly all did, though a few escaped that treatment. Probably had to do with visibility. You can see more of the train ahead from a bay window than a coupla - but that wouldn't explain how the PRR cars escaped....
thanks for the details
__________________
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 06-22-2011, 09:06 PM   #36
oltmannd
Senior Member
 
oltmannd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post

My dad's stuff really kills me. At some point in time, during 1949, he switched from what I would assume was his parents' 620 or 120 camera with a passable lens in bright sunlights, to a plastic 127 camera that took pictures on a half a frame (to get twice as many images on a roll). Thus, I cannot share any of my dad's pics from late 1949 to about 1952, when he seems to have switched to a better 127 (still bad, but at least there is sometimes something there). Then he got a TERRIBLE 35mm, that actually had a worse lens than the second 127, so while 1952 and 1953, I have some stuff to share, 1953 on, it pretty much goes back to completely useless, all the way until 1976 (mind you, he did not shoot a single train picture in the late 1950s or any of the 1960s).
It was always amazing to me that each generation of mass-market cameras was worse than the previous. The 127 film camera weren't too bad and the film size was decent. Then they repackaged the film into a cartridge - 126 film, but the cartridge wouldn't keep the film as "in plane" as when it was a loose roll you loaded in -- and they made the cameras even worse quality. Fixed focus, F8, crappy lens. Everything guaranteed to be fuzzy, except maybe a person standing 15 feet away in the sun. People gobbled up the 126 film cameras, so Kodak upped the ante - the 110 camera. A crappy camera combined with ridiculously small film. Now, that 15 foot portrait looked as crappy as everything else. Then end of the line of this progression of stupidity was the disk camera. Film even smaller than 110 film! A 4x6 snapshot was beyond it's reach.

It wasn't until the consumer SLR makers jumped into point and shoot 35mm cameras that the average Joe could afford to purchase, and carry around, a camera that could produce a decent image.
oltmannd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 12:56 AM   #37
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

My grandparents at some point in time threw away their twin lens reflex 120 camera - which even with them not being photographers, took AMAZING pictures with wonderful detail, and replaced it with a Kodak Disk Camera.

Those images are worse than camera phones from six years ago.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 01:03 AM   #38
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oltmannd View Post
Conductor's can't sleep standing up....
What about a conductor's "can't sleep standing up"? Is that the name of something they own?

(I'm not the only one in this thread with a pet peeve. )
__________________
.
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 06-23-2011, 02:18 AM   #39
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
What about a conductor's "can't sleep standing up"? Is that the name of something they own?

(I'm not the only one in this thread with a pet peeve. )
But your pet peeve just shows you to be irascible and intolerant of trivial errors, whereas I am, of course, on the side of the angels.
__________________
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 06-23-2011, 02:59 PM   #40
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
But your pet peeve just shows you to be irascible and intolerant of trivial errors, whereas I am, of course, on the side of the angels.
You were thinking the same thing I was. ADMIT IT!

(you just have a better filter than me. )
__________________
.
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 06-23-2011, 04:21 PM   #41
oltmannd
Senior Member
 
oltmannd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
What about a conductor's "can't sleep standing up"? Is that the name of something they own?

(I'm not the only one in this thread with a pet peeve. )
...not my first "grammero", and not the last...
oltmannd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 04:31 PM   #42
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
My grandparents at some point in time threw away their twin lens reflex 120 camera - which even with them not being photographers, took AMAZING pictures with wonderful detail, and replaced it with a Kodak Disk Camera.

Those images are worse than camera phones from six years ago.
My 120 TLR is my go-to film camera for when I just want to have fun shooting. I don't need a lightmeter since I always shoot B&W film, I know the rules and can expose a scene by eye. It takes wonderfully detailed and toned pictures with HP5, and railpictures will never, ever accept a single one. The images are 'unnaturally cropped', and as they come out of the camera at 2 1/4 x 2 1/4". Dimension rejection, anyone?
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 05:35 PM   #43
Hatchetman
Part-Time Railfan
 
Hatchetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40 View Post
My 120 TLR is my go-to film camera for when I just want to have fun shooting. I don't need a lightmeter since I always shoot B&W film, I know the rules and can expose a scene by eye. It takes wonderfully detailed and toned pictures with HP5, and railpictures will never, ever accept a single one. The images are 'unnaturally cropped', and as they come out of the camera at 2 1/4 x 2 1/4". Dimension rejection, anyone?
Sometimes I question the sanity of the guys who run this place. Can you link to a couple of those photos? I'm fantasizing about buying a Hasselblad 120 film camera.
Hatchetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 05:46 PM   #44
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,800
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oltmannd View Post
...not my first "grammero", and not the last...
Just bustin' your balls. Feel free to call me out when I make a mistake.

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40 View Post
The images are 'unnaturally cropped', and as they come out of the camera at 2 1/4 x 2 1/4". Dimension rejection, anyone?
So, you can't give them a "natural" crop in photoshop?
__________________
.
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 06-23-2011, 06:55 PM   #45
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

No! I frame them right in the camera!
Anyway, here's a scan of one of my favorite prints from this camera, it's the only good one I have scanned atm. Scanning a neg doesn't give quite as much editing ability as darkroom printing.
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 07:02 PM   #46
ExNavyDoc
Senior Member
 
ExNavyDoc's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2008
Posts: 123
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by oltmannd View Post
It was always amazing to me that each generation of mass-market cameras was worse than the previous. The 127 film camera weren't too bad and the film size was decent. Then they repackaged the film into a cartridge - 126 film, but the cartridge wouldn't keep the film as "in plane" as when it was a loose roll you loaded in -- and they made the cameras even worse quality. Fixed focus, F8, crappy lens. Everything guaranteed to be fuzzy, except maybe a person standing 15 feet away in the sun. People gobbled up the 126 film cameras, so Kodak upped the ante - the 110 camera. A crappy camera combined with ridiculously small film. Now, that 15 foot portrait looked as crappy as everything else. Then end of the line of this progression of stupidity was the disk camera. Film even smaller than 110 film! A 4x6 snapshot was beyond it's reach.
I think it had something to do with the overall post-war crappification of the U.S.

Everything, from beer to cameras to furniture to automobiles, seemed to get progressively sh*ttier. I would guess this phenomenon bottomed out about 1979.

Just a thought.
__________________
______________

Mike

My RP.net Photos Here

My Smugmug Galleries Here
ExNavyDoc is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 07:12 PM   #47
jnohallman
Senior Member
 
jnohallman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2008
Posts: 1,527
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ExNavyDoc View Post
I would guess this phenomenon bottomed out about 1979.
Obviously you missed the 1982 Cadillac Cimmaron.

Jon
__________________
"Everybody talks about the weather, but nobody does anything about it." - Mark Twain

Click here to see my photos on RP.net!

Do not, under any circumstances whatsoever, click here. Don't even think about it. I'm warning you!
jnohallman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 07:28 PM   #48
Hatchetman
Part-Time Railfan
 
Hatchetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40 View Post
No! I frame them right in the camera!
Anyway, here's a scan of one of my favorite prints from this camera, it's the only good one I have scanned atm. Scanning a neg doesn't give quite as much editing ability as darkroom printing.
Nice photo, where's the train?
Hatchetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 07:49 PM   #49
trainboysd40
Senior Member
 
trainboysd40's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2005
Location: Calgary, Alberta on the CP Laggan Subdivision
Posts: 2,048
Send a message via MSN to trainboysd40
Default

These two shots were taken from the bridge in the photo:
Image © Matthew Hicks
PhotoID: 240081
Photograph © Matthew Hicks

The hill's just out of the left of this one:
Image © Matthew Hicks
PhotoID: 246555
Photograph © Matthew Hicks

So there you have it
__________________
got a D5 IIi and now he doesnt afread fo 12800 iSO
Youtube (Model Railway, Vlogs, Tutorials, and prototype)
My Website
Obligatory link to shots on RP, HERE
trainboysd40 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-23-2011, 10:18 PM   #50
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by trainboysd40 View Post
No! I frame them right in the camera!
Anyway, here's a scan of one of my favorite prints from this camera, it's the only good one I have scanned atm. Scanning a neg doesn't give quite as much editing ability as darkroom printing.
That's backlit and has no chance of being accepted
troy12n 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 04:07 AM.


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