Old 07-04-2013, 03:07 AM   #26
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Here's a dumb question, what was the Southern running a business train up the CV for in the early 70's? Guess they didnt want to run it down to Bristol they way they normally would?
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 04:22 AM   #27
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 troy12n View Post
Here's a dumb question, what was the Southern running a business train up the CV for in the early 70's? Guess they didnt want to run it down to Bristol they way they normally would?
It was shorter and faster back through Bluefield than to backtrack to Bulls Gap.

Apparently they ran out of reasons for rejections this time. I was surprised they didn't add Bad Breath, Poor Attitude, Invalid Operator's License and Photographer Born Out of Wedlock to the reasons.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...63&key=6943325
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 04:25 AM   #28
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
I've yet to see a railroad magazine that was more concerned about quality than just getting a shot that fits the story.
Well, well. I just learned this shot will be used in the color section of a new book. All isn't lost.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 05:08 AM   #29
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,795
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
Well, well. I just learned this shot will be used in the color section of a new book. All isn't lost.
Excellent!

Just saying, I've seen plenty of photos in train mags over the years that wouldn't have a chance on RP. Mags obviously don't care as much about poor lighting, back lit, bad angle, cropping, etc.
JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 06:42 AM   #30
Indecline
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Jan 2010
Posts: 168
Default

I have to think very long and hard about cleaning up an old slide to post up on RPNet - just to get it shot down usually for grain and sharpness. I really, really have to feel being up for punishment to mess with it. Once in a very great while I do, and ever more rarely they accept it. I never know why one gets in and another doesn't though. Seems like a pretty irrational process.

New stuff I get what they are looking for, old stuff I never know.

DS
Indecline is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 01:58 PM   #31
BobE
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 185
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
If grain weren't an issue, this would be the optimum crop. And---it's a killer shot, if the image quality was any good.
I shot miles of Tri-X back in the day, so grain's never been an issue. So long as the image is in sharp focus, grain wasn't such a distraction.

Now that you have a good crop, I don't think grain is the issue. I see soft focus due to motion. Given the light conditions, you were using 1/125 or 1/250 shutter speed on a train approaching you at ??? 40-60 mph???. (Ron, I expect that you have all these details locked in memory, down to the soil conditions where you stood.)

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
Where was my Nikon D600 in 1972??
I was in school in the early 1980s when Sony introduced the first Mavica. It had an astounding 570 x 490 resolution. The CCDs were unreliable. All 28,000 pixels wouldn't light up, so there was an extremely high rejection rate in production. It forced Sony to delay commercial introduction by several years, giving Nikon and Canon an edge when they entered the market.

The pros dismissed digital photography as a toy; it would NEVER EVER take the place of film. How ironic that sounds 30 years later.

Last edited by BobE; 07-04-2013 at 02:01 PM.
BobE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 02:08 PM   #32
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
Excellent!

Just saying, I've seen plenty of photos in train mags over the years that wouldn't have a chance on RP. Mags obviously don't care as much about poor lighting, back lit, bad angle, cropping, etc.
Many print media shots are purpose-driven, and that was the case here. It was a rare shot of a rare occurrence, so that's why it was chosen. It will run as a quarter page shot, and the reproduction will be very good (you don't typically run a marginal image as a full page, or--worse--a double page spread).

RP.net is optimized for images that will look good on a computer screen. That means a lot of older shots will never make the cut, because they're often being compared to a full sun scene shot yesterday with a high end digital camera. The screeners do have a sense of forgiveness for the oldest images, but it seems that screener to screener, the acceptance/rejection ratio isn't consistent. That would be true for a baseball ump calling balls and strikes as well...
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 02:15 PM   #33
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 BobE View Post
I shot miles of Tri-X back in the day, so grain's never been an issue. So long as the image is in sharp focus, grain wasn't such a distraction.

Now that you have a good crop, I don't think grain is the issue. I see soft focus due to motion. Given the light conditions, you were using 1/125 or 1/250 shutter speed on a train approaching you at ??? 40-60 mph???. (Ron, I expect that you have all these details locked in memory, down to the soil conditions where you stood.)
There isn't any motion blur...just grain (If you enlarged the front of the unit, the shutter speed stopped it perfectly). Actually this was leaving the yard, so he couldn't have been doing more than 15 MPH. For shutter speed (ISO 64) I would guess it would have been about 1/60 or 1/125---but certainly no faster. In those days, 1/125 was okay if it was a slowly moving train, 1/250 if it was moving along and you had an angle where nose blur wasn't an issue. Shooting 1/500 for Kodachrome, or even Ektachrome was unheard of, unless you were shooting at the very moment of an enormous solar flare on the sun.

The top soil upon which I was standing was Upper Powell Sandy Loam-Phase I.
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 02:16 PM   #34
BobE
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 185
Default

Magazines also print 4-color images at 300 dpi or so, so the screen is more forgiving of grain than the common 1024 computer screen resolution today.
BobE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 02:22 PM   #35
BobE
Banned
 
Join Date: Jan 2013
Location: Maryland
Posts: 185
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ron Flanary View Post
The top soil upon which I was standing was Upper Powell Sandy Loam-Phase I.
OK, you win
BobE is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-04-2013, 03:57 PM   #36
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 BobE View Post
Magazines also print 4-color images at 300 dpi or so, so the screen is more forgiving of grain than the common 1024 computer screen resolution today.
Mike Danneman and I talked about the use of Kodachrome 200, which was mega-fast when it was first introduced about 1986-87, but which had a real affinity for red, and was very, very grainy. While it's difficult to get a good scan of a K200 slide that will pass muster for RP.net, it reproduces very nicely in print. It was a slightly more saturated than K64, so Mike was fond of using it for fall colors.

I would be willing to bet this is from a K200 slide. Of course Mike is quite skilled at Photoshop, so he worked hard to minimize the grain:

Image © Mike Danneman
PhotoID: 397590
Photograph © Mike Danneman
Ron Flanary is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 06:38 PM   #37
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
I'm always amazed that people can recall such details from a random shot from over 40 years ago.
Agreed. I find that amazing as well Jim.

Then again this morning I was recalling in great detail to my wife Mel how I busted the driver window on Dad's prized sport car in 1968.

This is one of the reasons I love photography so. A single image can recall events and detail that are no longer in the front of our brains. Instant Time Travel!
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 06:55 PM   #38
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,971
Default

The image quality, I have to say Ron, IS poor. It is just too soft on the film and over cooked digital wise. I would have to side with the screener on this one.

It is a shame it is a near miss since the content and color is so interesting. I myself have many, many film shots that are near misses so I know the feeling.

Good news on the book use. I am glad this cool shot will have a home.

It is also good news to know you are mortal as well.

PS. On a shot where the loco is coming right at the camera, even at high speed it can get away with a lower shutter speed because the image displacement is so little compared to say a broadside.
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 07:36 PM   #39
JimThias
Senior Member
 
JimThias's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2007
Location: Grand Rapids, MI
Posts: 9,795
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
Agreed. I find that amazing as well Jim.

Then again this morning I was recalling in great detail to my wife Mel how I busted the driver window on Dad's prized sport car in 1968.

This is one of the reasons I love photography so. A single image can recall events and detail that are no longer in the front of our brains. Instant Time Travel!
Did you tell her what the part number was for the new window as well as the full name of the mechanic and the street the repair shop was on?

JimThias is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-05-2013, 09:02 PM   #40
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,971
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JimThias View Post
Did you tell her what the part number was for the new window as well as the full name of the mechanic and the street the repair shop was on?

Sorry, no. I did speak with the insurance guy and he tried to help, really he did. But we couldn't' get it done before Dad came back from a 2 week business trip and I had to tell him. He was good about it and took care of it. As a parent now myself, I am sure he was relived it was nothing worse!
__________________
Dennis

I Foam Therefore I Am.

My pix on RailPics:

I am on Flickr as well:

"Dennis is such a God, he could do that with a camera obscura and some homemade acetate." Holloran Grade

"To me it looks drawn in in Paintshop. It looks like a puddle of orange on the sky." SFO777
Dennis A. Livesey is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 07-06-2013, 04:54 AM   #41
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 Dennis A. Livesey View Post
The image quality, I have to say Ron, IS poor. It is just too soft on the film and over cooked digital wise. I would have to side with the screener on this one.
You're right...as a photographic image, it sucks! However, I am taking to heart the suggestions about this making a great painting subject. I'm mulling that over right now. I might invoke artistic license and change a few things, of course, but conceptually (composition, light, etc.), it's got merit.

Stay tuned...
Ron Flanary 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 06:17 PM.


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