Old 04-03-2015, 09:26 PM   #151
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

"Works" means the most important aspect of the effort has been effectively communicated. That's how I see it. Now, if you are a viewer and you are indifferent to that particular aspect, then you must revert to your "works for me", or "works for someone else" clause.

In other words, a legitimate yet blurry cut off unlevel underexposed photo featuring a "found" NYC streamlined Hudson in a barn "works". As do pictures recently making rounds of the Baldwin Sharks in MI. Most of these types of shots work due to rarity or difficulty in capture. As they become more prevalent, the standards rise.

'777 - I did not notice the "Captain Crunch" look of Dennis's shot on my NIEXUS monitor, nor my HP notebook and certainly not on my I-Phone's Retina screeen. I agree with Michael - processing and enhancement can exaggerate what would otherwise remain hidden flaws but in your case, I think it is not the processing, but rather the shortcomings of the equipment you are using to view the images. Ever look at anything on RP with billions of colors on an old monitor with 256 colors?

As for Chase's shot - it does indeed "work for me". A difficult shot, no doubt - not only captured at night, but in the rain. We do not see that too often, so in that respect, it "works". But it certainly would've and will have to work better (be sharper) as more examples of the genre are accepted.

/Mitch

Last edited by Mgoldman; 04-03-2015 at 10:36 PM.
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2015, 09:43 PM   #152
a231pacific
Senior Member
 
a231pacific's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Posts: 822
Default

Mitch, since Chase shot at 1/25 second to streak the falling snow or rain, it's not possible for the two moving trains to not exhibit some motion blur. The one coming head on shows the least, but he probably would have had to shoot at 1/125 or faster to freeze the train motion, but that also would have frozen the snow or rain as spots and not streaks. It wouldn't have been as pleasing a photo. Not to mention needing to shoot at ISO 10,000 with more noise.

Maybe Photo Shop will eventually produce a motion blur filter that actually works, but until then I'm not sure how you can reconcile the two requirements, freezing the trains while streaking the falling snow or rain.

Michael Allen
a231pacific is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2015, 09:52 PM   #153
travsirocz
Senior Member
 
travsirocz's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2007
Location: Eau Claire, WI
Posts: 2,459
Send a message via AIM to travsirocz
Default

Motion blur does not bother me when used in the instance. Of course there are many variables to what the right instance is but adding the feeling of motion can bring life to an image. Diesels don't show movement in any way unlike steam engines which do. The motion blur in Chase's photo isn't distracting to me as I think weather is the focus and with the trains being fairly dark, hides much of the blur while you can see enough to show the movement going on.

Last edited by travsirocz; 04-03-2015 at 09:55 PM.
travsirocz is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2015, 10:04 PM   #154
KevinM
Senior Member
 
KevinM's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2008
Location: Massachusetts
Posts: 2,010
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
"Works" means the most important aspect of the effort has been effectively communicated. That's how I see it. Now, if you are a viewer and you are indifferent to that aspect, then you have your "works for me", or "works for someone else".
Hi Mitch,

Unfortunately, even the communication thing is in the eye of the beholder.

Today, I received a long, technical e-mail from a work colleague who lives in another country. His English is far better than my rendition of his native language. His e-mail was generally well-written, but here and there, he used odd words that altered the meaning of his sentences. The result was that after reading this voluminous report, I still had no idea what his point was. Even if his grade for the English translation of his message was 98%, it still got an "F" in my book, because I had no idea what the hell he was talking about.

His message "worked" for him, and it may have worked for his colleagues in his country who were on copy, but I was the primary addressee and it didn't "work" at all for me.

So I guess I would maintain that "works" is subjective, and should always be followed by the words "for me."
__________________
/Kevin

My RP stuff is here.

Link to my Flickr Albums. Lots of Steam Railroad stuff there from all over the US.
KevinM is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2015, 10:22 PM   #155
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
So I guess I would maintain that "works" is subjective, and should always be followed by the words "for me."
Works for me

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-03-2015, 10:33 PM   #156
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by a231pacific View Post
Mitch, since Chase shot at 1/25 second to streak the falling snow or rain, it's not possible for the two moving trains to not exhibit some motion blur. The one coming head on shows the least, but he probably would have had to shoot at 1/125 or faster to freeze the train motion, but that also would have frozen the snow or rain as spots and not streaks. It wouldn't have been as pleasing a photo. Not to mention needing to shoot at ISO 10,000 with more noise.

Michael Allen
Maybe, then, as I stated, it works for me as is (and apparently, many of you), but to get a favorite or a favorable following ie; a sizable number of comments and /or favorites, we'll simply have to wait for a similar capture with a slower or stopped train. The question is; does the motion blur, as slight as it is, increase the appeal of the image or simply does not distract?

Here's an RP album I put together which might be of interest:

"Rain"
http://www.railpictures.net/album/756/

/Mitch

Last edited by Mgoldman; 04-03-2015 at 10:52 PM.
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 12:22 AM   #157
colmat91
Junior Member
 
Join Date: May 2014
Location: Vermont or Michigan
Posts: 10
Default

Mitch,
Where did you see the pictures of the Sharks recently making the rounds?
colmat91 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 12:25 AM   #158
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by KevinM View Post
Hi Dennis,

I always cringe when I hear/read someone using this phrase. What is meant by "works?" Does that mean that it meets some set of written or perhaps unwritten criteria for generalized acceptance.....or does it just mean that someone happens to "like it?"

"Works" sounds like such a universal stamp of approval, but I think that when folks use the term, what they really mean is: "It works for me." Those two extra words take the term out of the realm of the OBjective, and place it firmly in the world of the SUBjective....which is right where it really lives, in my humble opinion.
Semantics works for me!

My father Herbert would tell me, over and over,

"Dennis, the hardest thing to do in the world is communicate."

Of course at the time I couldn't understand what he meant.
__________________
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 04-04-2015, 12:27 AM   #159
SFO777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 157
Default

The rainy train night photo exemplifies motion blur, camera shake, and out of focus shot. An undoubtedly better shot would've been to use a tripod and carefully get the thing in hyperfocal focus. So that the rain and the trains would've been motion blur of course but you'd have tack sharp in focus everywhere else. That makes a great photo.

But hey, it's raining, etc., that's not ideal.

My point is that RP should be accepting of the technical deficiencies in all kinds of photos due to conditions, etc.

For example, a lot of shortlines run in a way which prevents really ever getting shot on RP because the nose will always be dark, or the nose light but the side of the train dark, etc. Depends on running schedules and such.

It's a pity that folks can't go out and take the best photos that the conditions can allow with the hope of acceptance here.

I think the fact that a completely blurry, completely out of focus shot, made it on here is heartening and shows that the screeners are accepting of exigencies.
SFO777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 01:27 AM   #160
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

Just because RP accepted Chase's shot does not mean they will accept another that, to the submitter, is "just the same."
__________________
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 04-04-2015, 01:43 AM   #161
SFO777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
Just because RP accepted Chase's shot does not mean they will accept another that, to the submitter, is "just the same."
What do you think the rejection reason would be? I think they could accept another one of those shots. And if they reject your shot, you could just use the blurry shot in your appeal reason.
SFO777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 01:47 AM   #162
SFO777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
The question is; does the motion blur, as slight as it is, increase the appeal of the image or simply does not distract?

Here's an RP album I put together which might be of interest:

"Rain"
http://www.railpictures.net/album/756/

/Mitch
Mitch, Thanks for the album. I love this photo:
Image © Stephen Schmidt
PhotoID: 441382
Photograph © Stephen Schmidt
. I'm surprised it got on because RP seems to have an aversion to dark rainy day shots. If any photo is an argument for RailPictures accepting shots that are realistically and accruately dark that truly capture what it is to be out in the rain on a dark day, this one is it! What a beaut!
SFO777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 01:53 AM   #163
SFO777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
'777 - I did not notice the "Captain Crunch" look of Dennis's shot on my NIEXUS monitor, nor my HP notebook and certainly not on my I-Phone's Retina screeen.
/Mitch
Thanks for checking. You probably have pretty high end monitors. I think it's the lower end ones that can't reproduce the full photo, creating the "puddle of color" effect in the monitors in the picture of the picture I posted here.
SFO777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 02:03 AM   #164
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by colmat91 View Post
Mitch,
Where did you see the pictures of the Sharks recently making the rounds?
I saw them on FB but that was more then a few days ago so it's unlikely that anyone will ever be able to locate them ever again. The link however on FB was to FLICKR meaning there's a slight chance of finding them.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SFO777 View Post
The rainy train night photo exemplifies motion blur, camera shake, and out of focus shot. An undoubtedly better shot would've been to use a tripod and carefully get the thing in hyperfocal focus. So that the rain and the trains would've been motion blur of course but you'd have tack sharp in focus everywhere else. That makes a great photo.
I would not say camera shake - I'm sure Chase can hold a camera steady at 1/30th. Especially if he had image stabilization. Could be motion blur, but then again, the overall scene is a bit soft. Could simply be that that's how things look when shooting through a curtain of rain. Or perhaps the camera focused on the rain vs the subject.


Quote:
Originally Posted by SFO777 View Post
My point is that RP should be accepting of the technical deficiencies in all kinds of photos due to conditions, etc.

For example, a lot of shortlines run in a way which prevents really ever getting shot on RP because the nose will always be dark, or the nose light but the side of the train dark, etc. Depends on running schedules and such.

It's a pity that folks can't go out and take the best photos that the conditions can allow with the hope of acceptance here.
I'd say that is not true, but I can only say it was true then, not true now but may be true again. RP seems to be more accommodating as of late, though I have yet to attempt resubmitting my RP dogs, y'know - steam engines behind fences for instance. After all, they DO exist and that is exactly how they look and nothing that can be done to remove the fence. Would such a shot be accepted now? I do not know, but I do know that Dennis had better luck (or timing) posting such a shot with success.

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFO777 View Post
I think the fact that a completely blurry, completely out of focus shot, made it on here is heartening and shows that the screeners are accepting of exigencies.
If that were the case, it would not be heartening, it would be disheartening. But the photo is not completely out of focus and blurry. Keep in mind, another screener may have rejected it. Or the same screener may have rejected it on another day. Hopefully, it was that there was enough going for the shot that the slight blur was acceptable. That would be heartening. Keep in mind, there is a field "Comments to the screener" that can be used to describe unusual circumstances (a shortline that always runs nose dark, for instance). The issue then, is; Is RP a database for the best (aesthetic) images or the best images possible? I'd like to think it's the latter.

/Mitch

Last edited by Mgoldman; 04-04-2015 at 02:07 AM.
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 02:09 AM   #165
SFO777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 157
Default

And did you see this one? Look at my notes. Apparently it got a lot of views but I noticed there are a lot of things in this photo for which I've had my quotidian boring shots rejected for.

What it shows is that sometimes to break all the rules is the best approach--blow highlights, shadows, blurry, out of focus, dark nose, sidelit, etc.

It is true artistry.

Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	9245.1420175542 - Copy.jpg
Views:	506
Size:	755.8 KB
ID:	8942  
SFO777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 02:15 AM   #166
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFO777 View Post
And did you see this one?
Everyone saw that and agreed never to discuss it ever again.

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 02:21 AM   #167
SFO777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mgoldman View Post
But the photo is not completely out of focus and blurry.
/Mitch
You're right it's not completely out of focus and blurry. The pole at left looks unblurry and almost in focus. I am going to try to take some photos like this and see if the screeners like them. You have to frame them well though I think as a starter and not have any other problems other than the blurriness and out of focus issues. It's easier to shoot without a tripod anyways, esp. in rain.
SFO777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 02:25 AM   #168
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Colmat91 - let me make an attempt to find those Baldwin Sharks:

Google:
Nope: http://yoopersteez.com/post/shark-ph...-lake-superior

FLICKR:
Nope: https://www.flickr.com/photos/268771...-pAaviG-8CDaF1

Nope: https://www.flickr.com/photos/sjb4ph...-7NAaxU-4tGxez

Whoops! Found it - fortunately I saved the link in a post to Jim Wrinn suggesting he make a visit and publish a story. Unfortunately, the images have been removed. : (

https://www.flickr.com/photos/70374128@N08/14897847677/

Sigh. The link was valid in September of 2014. 'Shame. I assume I'll outlive the caretaker's grudge and pray the rumor to have the Sharks scrapped in his will are false.

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 02:29 AM   #169
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

FB - all gone, but nice photos pre-1978...

https://www.facebook.com/search/str/...n/keywords_top

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 02:37 AM   #170
SFO777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 157
Default

This one demonstrates a very extrmee angle which is a technical no-no but look it is one of the most popular of all time and a very good photo. They should consider the whole composition when rejectin or acceptin photos.

I think too often RP screeners think the subject is the train. WRONG. The subject is often the entire scene in which a train is merely a part, maybe only a subsidiary part.

I know that, by policy, RP is against those kinds of photos, but I can't possibly imagine the reason why. Look at this one! Look at like all the landscape shots on this site

Image © Michael F. Allen
PhotoID: 177612
Photograph © Michael F. Allen
SFO777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 02:41 AM   #171
Dennis A. Livesey
Senior Member
 
Dennis A. Livesey's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2007
Posts: 1,985
Default

Do you have a link to your photos SFO777?
__________________
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 04-04-2015, 02:42 AM   #172
Mgoldman
Senior Member
 
Mgoldman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 3,641
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFO777 View Post
This one demonstrates a very extrmee angle which is a technical no-no but look it is one of the most popular of all time and a very good photo. They should consider the whole composition when rejectin or acceptin photos.

I think too often RP screeners think the subject is the train. WRONG. The subject is often the entire scene in which a train is merely a part, maybe only a subsidiary part.

I know that, by policy, RP is against those kinds of photos, but I can't possibly imagine the reason why. Look at this one! Look at like all the landscape shots on this site

Image © Michael F. Allen
PhotoID: 177612
Photograph © Michael F. Allen
You need to find much better examples or you will not be taken seriously.

And there are tons and tons of images where the train is not the main subject, for instance:

Image © Dendera
PhotoID: 199417
Photograph © Dendera



(But really, there are many)

/Mitch
Mgoldman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 04:16 AM   #173
SFO777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 157
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Dennis A. Livesey View Post
Do you have a link to your photos SFO777?
Nope, they all suck, trust me, and I am trying to get them removed. I would like to start taking photos like you of urban train stuff. Here's one I am trying to get on. Any suggestins?

I think the main problem I am having is 1)low image quality 2) hue 3) contrast issues 4) lens flare 5) composition 6) undersharpened 7)also, grain/noise.

Tryin to figure out how to fix these in photoshop. I shan't ever catch a pic of a backlit low sun at this spot with a stack train. They are building bypass here.

Last edited by SFO777; 04-10-2015 at 03:09 AM.
SFO777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 05:06 AM   #174
SFO777
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 157
Default

Here's another one I want to get on if have suggestins. This one has undersharpened, noise, hue, contrast, composition, poor image quality, pretty much the whole pig. I am going to try to fix these in photoshop that I have gotten! Suggestins please.


Last edited by SFO777; 04-10-2015 at 03:20 AM.
SFO777 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 04-04-2015, 05:34 AM   #175
Noct Foamer
Senior Member
 
Noct Foamer's Avatar
 
Join Date: Sep 2008
Location: South Dakota
Posts: 571
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by SFO777 View Post


For example, a lot of shortlines run in a way which prevents really ever getting shot on RP because the nose will always be dark, or the nose light but the side of the train dark, etc. Depends on running schedules and such.
I've been experimenting with using fill flash to light up the nose of n/b trains etc., and it does work. However, it's a LOT of work and seems to require something like 2,500ws of flash (quite a bit!) to match a sunny day. I could probably get better at it if I practiced more, but all in all I have two other strategies that are easier. The first is to simply shoot on overcast days and take advantage of the free soft & diffused light. Second strategy is to just shoot it at night, when -I- have total control the direction of the light. Since my two most active nearby (i.e. <100 miles) rail lines run north/south, I've been forced into learning how to cope with n/b trains from the beginning.


Kent in SD
Noct Foamer 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 07:06 PM.


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