Old 02-09-2017, 10:17 PM   #1
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default Composition with Signal Bridge

Looking for input on this shot of CN Dash 9's on the Bessemer. These units came down and spent about a week on the line with a ballast train but also got stuck on the daily ore train once. This is the first time GE power has ever been used on the Bessemer that I know of. Anyway, I know it would have been ideal to have the locomotive a bit closer but after chasing the train south, they tied it down at KO Junction/CP Sandy with this signal bridge. I know this doesn't follow the rule of thirds exactly but there's nothing of real interest to the left or right to offset it, just dead space. I have room to work with on the shot, but cropped it down as I thought this was the best composition. Thanks

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...11&key=2708650
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 12:56 AM   #2
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

Too much nothing on the sides, you should have let the train be closer, directly under it, or even through it
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 01:05 AM   #3
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by troy12n View Post
Too much nothing on the sides, you should have let the train be closer, directly under it, or even through it
How does one let a train that is tied down be in a different position than where the crew left it? Good job reading what I posted before making a completely unhelpful comment.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 01:26 AM   #4
John West
Senior Curmudgeon
 
John West's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2006
Location: Mill Valley, CA
Posts: 1,074
Cool

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak View Post
How does one let a train that is tied down be in a different position than where the crew left it? Good job reading what I posted before making a completely unhelpful comment.
But his point is a good one, the composition would be better. Perhaps not helpful for that particular image, but in the future it might be very helpful.
__________________
John West
See my pix here and
here and here
John West is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 01:49 AM   #5
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 626
Default

Yeah this isn't going to work for rp with the signal bridge since the train is not moving.
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 01:53 AM   #6
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by John West View Post
But his point is a good one, the composition would be better. Perhaps not helpful for that particular image, but in the future it might be very helpful.
I agree, as I stated in my original post. However, it's also not helpful in the future for locomotives that were only there for a week.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 05:11 AM   #7
Pkwlsn
Member
 
Pkwlsn's Avatar
 
Join Date: Feb 2016
Posts: 59
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak View Post
How does one let a train that is tied down be in a different position than where the crew left it? Good job reading what I posted before making a completely unhelpful comment.
Although you can't physically make the tied down train be in a different position, you can certainly make it appear to be closer to the signal bridge by using a longer focal length - assuming you had room to back up, of course. This would have also made the whole scene more compact, thus helping to eliminate some dead space.
__________________
My Flickr
My RP.net

Last edited by Pkwlsn; 02-10-2017 at 05:14 AM.
Pkwlsn is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 05:20 AM   #8
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,201
Default

Looks like you did the best you could with it, but it isn't a fit for RP.

And don't gripe too much about what others post. This is a hobby for all of us, we are not photo critique professionals. A bit of context is missed, a difference in how "future" is interpreted, just let it ride.
__________________
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 02-10-2017, 04:15 PM   #9
miningcamper1
Senior Member
 
miningcamper1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak View Post
...locomotives that were only there for a week.
Nothing in the scene says "Bessemer". Could be anywhere, really.
__________________
flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11947249@N03/

RP Photos: www.railpictures.net/miningcamper1/
miningcamper1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 05:00 PM   #10
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miningcamper1 View Post
Nothing in the scene says "Bessemer". Could be anywhere, really.
Sorry the Bessemer signal bridge isn't bessemer enough for you. I will bring a banner to hang up next time
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 06:11 PM   #11
miningcamper1
Senior Member
 
miningcamper1's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2014
Posts: 1,095
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak View Post
Sorry the Bessemer signal bridge isn't bessemer enough for you. I will bring a banner to hang up next time
You mentioned that these were unusual on the Bessemer twice. Without some Bessemer context, that fact doesn't do much to 'sell' the photo.

We've given you reasons (besides too centered) that the screeners are unlikely to accept the shot. Snarky comebacks here won't get it accepted.
__________________
flickr photostream: http://www.flickr.com/photos/11947249@N03/

RP Photos: www.railpictures.net/miningcamper1/

Last edited by miningcamper1; 02-10-2017 at 06:37 PM. Reason: revision
miningcamper1 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 06:28 PM   #12
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by miningcamper1 View Post
You mentioned that these were unusual on that line twice. Without some Bessemer context, that fact doesn't do much to 'sell' the photo.
Yes, and these signals are very much so "Bessemer context". If you didn't know anything about the railroad, then yeah you might not recognize that, but there's not much more Bessemer you get than these signals, and this bridge in particular.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 06:58 PM   #13
ShortlinesUSA
Senior Member
 
ShortlinesUSA's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2005
Posts: 801
Default

Nice job asking for advice and getting torqued when everyone gives you the real deal. And those signals are not unique to the Bessemer. Several other railroads used them. You got advice on the photo; take it or leave it.

FWIW, I feel if you would tighten your crop and get rid of the dead space around the sides as Troy suggests, you MIGHT have a shot. And you're trusting the screeners are supposed to know everything about everything when they give your photo maybe 6 seconds of consideration moving through the queue.
__________________
Mike Derrick

Shortline and Regional RR forum moderator
ShortlinesUSA is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 07:08 PM   #14
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by ShortlinesUSA View Post
Nice job asking for advice and getting torqued when everyone gives you the real deal. And those signals are not unique to the Bessemer. Several other railroads used them. You got advice on the photo; take it or leave it.

FWIW, I feel if you would tighten your crop and get rid of the dead space around the sides as Troy suggests, you MIGHT have a shot. And you're trusting the screeners are supposed to know everything about everything when they give your photo maybe 6 seconds of consideration moving through the queue.
I came looking for HELPFUL advice. Telling me to move a tied down train closer and that the signals aren't "Bessemer enough" really helps me to improve photographically.

I also wasn't saying the signals are unique to the Bessemer only, but they are far from "could be anywhere"
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 08:25 PM   #15
Mberry
Senior Member
 
Mberry's Avatar
 
Join Date: Oct 2013
Location: Montreal, Qc
Posts: 626
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak View Post
Sorry the Bessemer signal bridge isn't bessemer enough for you. I will bring a banner to hang up next time
So much attitude.... last time that I try to helpfully reply to one of your posts.
Mberry is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 09:58 PM   #16
lefflerlad
Member
 
Join Date: Sep 2011
Location: Dublin, OH
Posts: 56
Default

Out of curiosity Joe, why did you abstain from taking a photo of the train from the same angle once it had tied down closer to the signal bridge? Looking at your flickr images, notably this picture (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mtncli...in/dateposted/), it appears that the train has moved forward from the frame that you submitted to RP. If this is the case and the train is actually closer to the signal bridge, then the train wasn't tied down when you shot the image you submitted to RP and you could have framed an image more in line with what Troy recommended. Additionally, there appears to be the silhouette of a crew member in the window on the right hand side of the cab (our left) in the image you submitted to RP which makes me question your assertion that the train was tied down and you had no choice but to shoot it at that distance from the signal. Again, I am not accusing you of anything but rather asking you to clarify what I am seeing in the images as it appears they were both taken on the same day.

Last edited by lefflerlad; 02-10-2017 at 10:02 PM.
lefflerlad is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 10:06 PM   #17
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by lefflerlad View Post
Out of curiosity Joe, why did you abstain from taking a photo of the train from the same angle once it had tied down closer to the signal bridge? Looking at your flickr images, notably this picture (https://www.flickr.com/photos/mtncli...in/dateposted/), it appears that the train has moved forward from the frame that you submitted to RP. If this is the case and the train is actually closer to the signal bridge, then the train wasn't tied down when you shot the image you submitted to RP and you could have framed an image more in line with what Troy recommended. Additionally, there appears to be the silhouette of a crew member in the window on the right hand side of the cab (our left) in the image you submitted to RP which makes me question your assertion that the train was tied down and you had no choice but to shoot it at that distance from the signal. Again, I am not accusing you of anything but rather asking you to clarify what I am seeing in the images as it appears they were both taken on the same day.
BUSTED!!
Accusing or not, it IS apparent that the train has moved forward, and that there WAS a silhouette of someone in the engineer's seat in the submitted shot.
Not that it matters, but the train being closer as in the Flickr shot ain't gonna help as the nose has now moved into a "distracting shadow" situation.
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!

Last edited by wds; 02-10-2017 at 10:13 PM.
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 10:25 PM   #18
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Mberry View Post
So much attitude.... last time that I try to helpfully reply to one of your posts.
I apologize, but I have heard the "could be anywhere" criticism of a photo too many times and it is something that is an extremely annoying person pet peeve of mine.
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 10:27 PM   #19
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
BUSTED!!
Accusing or not, it IS apparent that the train has moved forward, and that there WAS a silhouette of someone in the engineer's seat in the submitted shot.
Not that it matters, but the train being closer as in the Flickr shot ain't gonna help as the nose has now moved into a "distracting shadow" situation.
Okay you're right that the engineer is still in the seat. I arrived as they were tying the train down and leaving in the crew van. Yes, the frame I submitted is very possibly a few feet farther down from where the exact stopping point of the train was, but we're talking a distance of a few feet, as well as that I recognized the shadows after the train rolled slightly father forward before the hand brakes were applied. .
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 10:40 PM   #20
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

I don't know if it would help in this situation or not, but do you have enough sky in the original to go with an 8 X 10 vertical crop without cutting into the signal bridge? Might be worth a try if it's indeed possible?
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 10:45 PM   #21
Joseph Cermak
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Aug 2016
Location: Cleveland, Rochester, Erie
Posts: 344
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by wds View Post
I don't know if it would help in this situation or not, but do you have enough sky in the original to go with an 8 X 10 vertical crop without cutting into the signal bridge? Might be worth a try if it's indeed possible?
I believe I do, I'll give that a try and post results. Are you suggesting the vertical crop to add sky or remove sky?
Joseph Cermak is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 11:03 PM   #22
wds
Senior Member
 
wds's Avatar
 
Join Date: May 2009
Location: Canada
Posts: 793
Default

Add sky, but just a smidge. You actually have enough sky in the submitted to crop without cutting into the signal bridge, but it feels too "closed-in". Click image for larger version

Name:	Joseph.jpg
Views:	34
Size:	818.7 KB
ID:	9360 Also, it would help "de-center" the signal bridge vertically. Or you could try more foreground, if you have it, instead of sky. Foreground generally holds more visual interest than plain blue sky, unless it's junked up.
__________________
Click Here to view my photos at RailPictures.Net!
wds is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-10-2017, 11:04 PM   #23
Decapod401
Senior Member
 
Decapod401's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 356
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Joseph Cermak View Post
I apologize, but I have heard the "could be anywhere" criticism of a photo too many times and it is something that is an extremely annoying person pet peeve of mine.
I don't understand how you ask for advice, and then get offended or annoyed when you get it. The difference that distinguishing context adds to a photo is huge. If you truly want to improve your photography, ask yourself if the scene has context, or could it be anywhere. Honestly, I have shot the B&LE several times, and nothing in your image jumped out at me to make me think that this was on the Bessemer.

As far as the composition issue, it's unfortunate that the train was being tied down, but that does not mitigate that the train is centered in the photo, and the composition does not appeal to many, including the screener. Several people have offered ways to better compose a shot for future reference, but you keep getting your back up and rebutting them that this train was being tied down. Your attitude makes me think that you're not looking for improvement advice, but rather validation of a shot that doesn't work.
Decapod401 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2017, 01:33 AM   #24
troy12n
Banned
 
Join Date: Jun 2008
Location: Tampa, FL
Posts: 5,333
Default

If you aren't going to listen to people's advise, why do you post here... You have a proven track record of this crap

Sorry, you can't "fix" your photo for the purposes of railpictures.

And for the record, some silly CN widecab GE leading on a Bessemer line is nothing special or noteworthy enough for them to accept it. This photo can be anywhere. I see a GE, and a signal bridge, and some trees... nothing at all special about this photo.

So take our advice, or leave it. Move on...
troy12n is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 02-11-2017, 01:14 PM   #25
RobJor
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Nov 2014
Posts: 621
Default

A maybe.??

Bob
Attached Thumbnails
Click image for larger version

Name:	CNRevised.jpg
Views:	130
Size:	899.4 KB
ID:	9361  

Last edited by RobJor; 02-11-2017 at 01:24 PM.
RobJor 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 12:25 PM.


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