Really?

[bigbassloyd]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

Maybe, Lloyd, it is bad glasses, or dislexia, since I keep seeing your name here as LoydL. I just straighten it up in my mind.

It happens

Loyd SPACE L.

[Joe the Photog]

Originally Posted by Missabefan

The rejection is not unique to the shot that started this thread.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...46&key=9465140

I'd say the light in Nikos' shot is better. We're all sitting around debating on whether the light is really bad or not when the real question pertains to how the RP admins want pictures on their site to look. Even though Nikos' shot got in, I can see why both his shot and your shot were rejected. It has nothing to do with whether the light is really bad or not.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by Joe the Photog

I'd say the light in Nikos' shot is better. We're all sitting around debating on whether the light is really bad or not when the real question pertains to how the RP admins want pictures on their site to look. Even though Nikos' shot got in, I can see why both his shot and your shot were rejected. It has nothing to do with whether the light is really bad or not.

There's been quite a lot of poor lighting shots getting on in recent months. Quite a lot. However, they apparently like dark, cloudy bad lighting shots over shots like Nikos. It's their site I guess.

[Freericks]

Actually, I've seen some amazingly bad high sun get in of late too, stuff I'm not sure I would push the shutter on, let alone submit.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by Freericks

Actually, I've seen some amazingly bad high sun get in of late too, stuff I'm not sure I would push the shutter on, let alone submit.

I suspect including, let it be said forthright, my shot!

PhotoID: 435166 Photograph © Janusz Mrozek

I was not sure if the composition or subject matter would warrant acceptance despite the harsh light, and would have not objected had it been rejected. Just as I don't object to the acceptance of Nikos' shot, although as a screener I would have kicked it out for harsh light. (As an admin, I might clarify the language in the rejection choices.)

As an uber-screener, of course, I would have written two paragraphs in the screener comments section explaining exactly why! Ha ha! No way!!!!!

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

I was not sure if the composition or subject matter would warrant acceptance despite the harsh light, and would have not objected had it been rejected. Just as I don't object to the acceptance of Nikos' shot, although as a screener I would have kicked it out for harsh light.

J, your shot is the perfect example of "harsh light." Nikos' shot is the perfect example of GREAT light.

I really don't understand how you can use "harsh" with his photo.

[JRMDC]

I don't think Nikos' original shot has "GREAT" light, in any way. "Acceptable" is viewpoint different than mine but sensible. "GREAT"? To quote from earlier in this thread, "really"??

I find it too harsh, the redo a bit better, certainly not in the league of mine in terms of harshness, but my original reaction to it was "nice place - shoot over". One can certainly say that for mine, more so than his to be sure, and I do wish I could get up there to do so.

Aside from all that, "GREAT"? Really?

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by JimThias

J, your shot is the perfect example of "harsh light." Nikos' shot is the perfect example of GREAT light.

I really don't understand how you can use "harsh" with his photo.

I dont think Niko's shot has great light at all. I think it's acceptable, but absolutely, positively not "great" light.

The light in J's shot is worse, but let's not make it out that Niko's shot is really great light.

[milwman]

Wrong side of the train is whats bad about the light, You dare show a shadow and you will get dinged for it.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by milwman

Wrong side of the train is whats bad about the light, You dare show a shadow and you will get dinged for it.

There's lots of examples where that is not the case. Some are spectacular shots where you might be able to forgive it. Others are not.

[milwman]

Originally Posted by troy12n

There's lots of examples where that is not the case. Some are spectacular shots where you might be able to forgive it. Others are not.

So true and I for one like dark side lit shots, I get them booted all the time

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by JRMDC

I don't think Nikos' original shot has "GREAT" light, in any way. "Acceptable" is viewpoint different than mine but sensible. "GREAT"? To quote from earlier in this thread, "really"??

I find it too harsh, the redo a bit better, certainly not in the league of mine in terms of harshness, but my original reaction to it was "nice place - shoot over". One can certainly say that for mine, more so than his to be sure, and I do wish I could get up there to do so.

Aside from all that, "GREAT"? Really?

Yes, really.

6pm sun in the middle of May is harsh?

Again, the lighting in his shot is GREAT. Look at the nose of the loco...it doesn't get much better than that.

His exposure & processing, on the other hand...

Originally Posted by troy12n

The light in J's shot is worse, but let's not make it out that Niko's shot is really great light.

6pm sunlight is not great any more?

[JimThias]

As a follow up, the sun set in Saint Louis on May 14th at 8:05 pm. The sun rose on that day at 5:50 am. If the sun angle in Saint Louis is harsh two hours before sunset, that means it's also harsh at 7:50am. I guess the window of opportunity for shooting in great light in Saint Louis is basically one hour in the morning and one hour in the evening.

I think you guys are confusing his exposure and processing with the actual lighting at the time. Two hours before sunset (or after sunrise) is a GREAT time of the day to shoot when it's sunny.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Yes, really.

6pm sun in the middle of May is harsh?

Maybe up in the still frozen region of Michigan where you live, but down here in the "dirty south", it's been summer for a couple months, including light.

[JRMDC]

Originally Posted by JimThias

I think you guys are confusing his exposure and processing with the actual lighting at the time. Two hours before sunset (or after sunrise) is a GREAT time of the day to shoot when it's sunny.

All I have to go on is what I see, in particular before someone chimes in on a forum and tells me the time of day. I fully concede that it was Charles and not I that recognized the possibility of an alternate explanation, bad processing. The original was too harsh for my tastes (the follow-up only slightly improved, I would have made a stronger adjustment).

And perhaps I use superlatives differently than you do. If you are talking about light conditions that occur each and every day that is sunny, twice a day, well, I can't call that GREAT. Something like GREAT in all caps to me indicates special, unusual, particularly good. Not this situation.

But then I have a vague recollection that while you mind the Ps and Qs of grammar and like to go out of your way to ding someone on simple typos/misspellings, you are not that big into precise word usage. Could be wrong, maybe I'm thinking of someone else.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by troy12n

Maybe up in the still frozen region of Michigan where you live, but down here in the "dirty south", it's been summer for a couple months, including light.

So what you're telling me, 2 hours before sunset in the middle of May is not a good sun angle, despite Nikos' photo proving otherwise with the entire nose of the loco fully lit?

So what you're telling me is that you've only got an hour after sunrise and an hour before sunset for an acceptable sun angle? Sounds ridiculous to me.

Again, the light in his shot isn't harsh...the exposure and processing is.

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Again, the light in his shot isn't harsh...the exposure and processing is.

Mr. Grammar Policeman, I've always used an ellipsis to either indicate missing words or show a long pause (indicative in dialogue of a character being at a temporary loss for words). I believe you are misuing the poor ellipsis here, and doing so under the color of your authority.

[troy12n]

Originally Posted by JimThias

So what you're telling me, 2 hours before sunset in the middle of May is not a good sun angle, despite Nikos' photo proving otherwise with the entire nose of the loco fully lit?

So what you're telling me is that you've only got an hour after sunrise and an hour before sunset for an acceptable sun angle? Sounds ridiculous to me.

Again, the light in his shot isn't harsh...the exposure and processing is.

That's how it is down here. The arc of the sun is more pronounced down here.

Also, we have had green stuff growing for a few months.

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by troy12n

That's how it is down here. The arc of the sun is more pronounced down here.

Also, we have had green stuff growing for a few months.

I'm going to agree with Troy on this one... right now in California (the southern part, we are not as far south as Florida (we'll, we're never as far south as Florida, mind you) and the high sun monster pretty much means that I can shoot good light from about sunrise until about 9:30 AM... the other side of the day, I can start shooting good light again at about 4:30, but more so about 5PM.

When I was in Ohio a couple weeks back, I definetely had a full hour more in the morning and afternoon of good light. That may have been both because I was deeper into the eastern time zone (further west into it) and further north, but there was more time that I was not in the ugly high-sun period.

[JimThias]

Originally Posted by Freericks

I'm going to agree with Troy on this one... right now in California (the southern part, we are not as far south as Florida (we'll, we're never as far south as Florida, mind you) and the high sun monster pretty much means that I can shoot good light from about sunrise until about 9:30 AM... the other side of the day, I can start shooting good light again at about 4:30, but more so about 5PM.

Charles, the last time I was in California in the middle of May, sunrise wasn't at 7:30 am and sunset wasn't at 6:30 pm (5:52 and 7:47 to be exact on May 14). Do you follow what I'm saying?

This is all about the lighting two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset (when Nikos' shot was taken). You are contradicting my earlier posts by disagreeing with me and then saying it's "good light" until 3.5 hours after sunrise. So, in your world, it's NOT good light two hours after sunrise but it's good light 3.5 hours after sunrise (based on a 6am sunrise in LA on May 14)???

[nikos1]

I can't believe this thread is still going......
I'm not sure how anyone can really be arguing that the sun was too high, this was shot about 10 minutes earlier....

PhotoID: 436610 Photograph © Nikos Kavoori

Even in Georgia you can shoot sunrise till 11 and 4-sunset and maybe even a little more if you shoot from overhead. Up there I was shooting about 11:30 to 2:30.
I guess if you really want to see a shot taken from the marginally better lit other side you can check out this months R&R where one of the Mautners has a vertical shot of this train showing just that. They no doubt have also shot it the way I did with better light earlier in the year. I didnt want to give up the skyline for 30% sidelight on the other side.

[JimThias]

So, does this look harsh?

[troy12n]

It's unlevel too

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by JimThias

Charles, the last time I was in California in the middle of May, sunrise wasn't at 7:30 am and sunset wasn't at 6:30 pm (5:52 and 7:47 to be exact on May 14). Do you follow what I'm saying?

This is all about the lighting two hours after sunrise and two hours before sunset (when Nikos' shot was taken). You are contradicting my earlier posts by disagreeing with me and then saying it's "good light" until 3.5 hours after sunrise. So, in your world, it's NOT good light two hours after sunrise but it's good light 3.5 hours after sunrise (based on a 6am sunrise in LA on May 14)???

I guess I didn't explain myself, Jim. I'm saying Florida is south of here and further east in the time zone. The light was better later in Ohio than it was here, so the light in Florida would be bad earlier than here.

I just went about saying it in a very poor manner... but at least I didn't use an ellipsis.



EDIT - As an aside - you can shoot a lot later in the day (or earlier in the afternoon) on a north/south running line than you can on an east/west running line - where you are pretty much done for as early as an hour after sun up or an hour after sun down.

[Freericks]

Originally Posted by JimThias

So, does this look harsh?

Attachment 8026

I think that looks good.