Old 06-15-2011, 03:57 PM   #1
oltmannd
Senior Member
 
oltmannd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 361
Default Fwiw

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...key=1157278903

Enjoy it while it lasts!

Another short timer for your viewing pleasure!

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=941150&key=0

Last edited by oltmannd; 06-19-2011 at 12:07 PM.
oltmannd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2011, 01:31 PM   #2
oltmannd
Senior Member
 
oltmannd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 361
Default

and another...

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreje...d=941799&key=0
oltmannd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2011, 01:54 PM   #3
Hatchetman
Part-Time Railfan
 
Hatchetman's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2011
Posts: 1,381
Default

There's a good chance you can improve those last two. Not sure if you can work miracles on a slide scan, but you can improve it.
Hatchetman is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2011, 01:54 PM   #4
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

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.

Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 04:07 PM   #5
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 06-21-2011, 02:40 PM   #6
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

The image quality on the caboose shot is quite poor. As it is otherwise unexceptional, I see no hope for it on RP, unless you can rescan it and get better image quality.

On the curve, looks fixable.

Roundhouse, I don't the historical value myself, lots is obscured, but I might think better of it if you can get some detail out of the shadows, and do something about the overexposed area on the pole and pilot. Especially the shadows, that will significantly add to the historical value. You may need to do multiple scans and different exposure levels and then combine them in an HDR manner.
__________________
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 06-21-2011, 04:55 PM   #7
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

While J's not wrong on the quality issue on either shot that he critiques - if one is to use recently accepted uploads of images from this timeframe as a measure, both shots are legitimate contenders.

I think the idea of multiple scans on the Portland Terminal image is a good one if you're up for the work. Might be a lot more there than the one exposure is allowing you to see (might also not be - Kodachrome wasn't very forgiving).

I think the caboose just needs some lightening. If it gets kicked for blurry or PIQ, I'd be suprirsed but it wouldn't be wrong - just unfair in light of recent acceptance examples.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-21-2011, 05:20 PM   #8
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

I don't recall seeing any recent images that were of the quality of the caboose shot. We are, of course, free to disagree.
__________________
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, 04:03 PM   #9
oltmannd
Senior Member
 
oltmannd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
I don't recall seeing any recent images that were of the quality of the caboose shot. We are, of course, free to disagree.
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....
oltmannd is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 04:10 PM   #10
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 04:12 PM.
JRMDC is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 04:42 PM   #11
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, 07:04 PM   #12
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, 07:21 PM   #13
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, 07:45 PM   #14
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, 07:30 PM   #15
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 06-21-2011, 05:23 PM   #16
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

And free to be you and me.

I don't want to call shots out - but one without its border cropped comes to mind (looked like there was Vaseline on the lens).

There was a D&H shot, maybe not that recently - but recent enough, that looked like it was painted on sand.

There and an L&N shot in black and white that was grainier and softer).

I think we are disagreeing over subtelties here though. I've had some L&HR and D&H shots rejected that were better quality (blur/grain) than the caboose shot and were hit for that in the recent past - so there is a luck aspect to it.

Last edited by Freericks; 06-21-2011 at 05:26 PM.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 12:57 AM   #17
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by Freericks View Post
And free to be you and me.

I don't want to call shots out - but one without its border cropped comes to mind (looked like there was Vaseline on the lens).

.
I kinda thought they were not as stringent on image quality on older shots like 30+ years old

BTW is this the shot your talking about?
Image © Jeremy Plant
PhotoID: 364205
Photograph © Jeremy Plant
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 12:58 AM   #18
Carl Becker
Senior Member
 
Carl Becker's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2007
Posts: 1,218
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sd9 View Post
BTW is this the shot your talking about?
Image © Jeremy Plant
PhotoID: 364205
Photograph © Jeremy Plant
I thought that was odd as well, that it got in with the borders...
__________________
- My photos at RailPictures.net
- My videos at Rail-Videos.net
Carl Becker is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 01:15 AM   #19
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

yes... that was one - here are the other two - so folks don't freak... both shot by excellent photographers who have done us a real service sharing their images, but both also good demonstrations that sometimes with the older images the quality can be allowed to be be less.

Image © Donald Haskel
PhotoID: 334723
Photograph © Donald Haskel


Image © Ron Flanary
PhotoID: 335943
Photograph © Ron Flanary


Now, I'm not 1/100th the photog that Donald or Ron are - and I truly treasure their contributions - again, I point these out, because compared to the caboose shot above, (let alone the roundhouse) - I don't believe picture quality is as big an issue.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 01:27 AM   #20
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Hmm, well, the monitor at home sees the caboose shot a little better. Don't know why the quality gap between monitors is so much larger with this shot compared to others.

Attached is a rework, sharper, bring up the shadows a bit (although little point, the image as uploaded has no details in the shadows), reduce noise, get rid of dust in the sky, reduce nose a lot in the sky. Lots of things one can do with slides to make them better.
Attached Images
File Type: jpg 2811b.jpg (225.5 KB, 88 views)
__________________
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, 02:04 AM   #21
sd9
Senior Member
 
sd9's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 799
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Hmm, well, the monitor at home sees the caboose shot a little better. Don't know why the quality gap between monitors is so much larger with this shot compared to others.

Attached is a rework, sharper, bring up the shadows a bit (although little point, the image as uploaded has no details in the shadows), reduce noise, get rid of dust in the sky, reduce nose a lot in the sky. Lots of things one can do with slides to make them better.
That looks good J! I think if he reworks it like you did I think it would get in
sd9 is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 02:07 AM   #22
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by sd9 View Post
That looks good J! I think if he reworks it like you did I think it would get in
As long as he doesn't get sloppy on the dust/speck removal in the sky, as I now see I did.
__________________
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, 01:30 AM   #23
JRMDC
Senior Member
 
JRMDC's Avatar
 
Join Date: Nov 2006
Posts: 11,202
Default

Charles, I do think there is a difference on RP between mid 1960s and 1980 in terms of acceptable image quality. No way, in my experience/recollection, the Flanary shot gets on if 1980, and if a caboose in a generic setting.
__________________
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, 02:22 AM   #24
Freericks
Met Fan
 
Freericks's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jul 2007
Posts: 4,040
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Charles, I do think there is a difference on RP between mid 1960s and 1980 in terms of acceptable image quality. No way, in my experience/recollection, the Flanary shot gets on if 1980, and if a caboose in a generic setting.
You may have a point there. I got killed on some 1975 shots with PIQ kind of rejections on shots that were more along the quality of Don Oltmand's caboose (but rare stuff, LH&R C420s, D&H RF16s).

Last edited by Freericks; 06-22-2011 at 02:26 AM.
Freericks is offline   Reply With Quote
Old 06-22-2011, 03:48 PM   #25
oltmannd
Senior Member
 
oltmannd's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2003
Posts: 361
Default

Quote:
Originally Posted by JRMDC View Post
Charles, I do think there is a difference on RP between mid 1960s and 1980 in terms of acceptable image quality. No way, in my experience/recollection, the Flanary shot gets on if 1980, and if a caboose in a generic setting.
Sure. It's a technology issue. Not a railfan issue.

What happened between the 60s and the 80s was the rise of the consumer grade 35mm SLR, so there is more 80s material out there in the world to choose from than the 60s. Few railfans had cameras well suited for the job in the 60s. Built-in light meter? Nope. You used the guide that came in the film box or purchased a hand held light meter. Focus? You guessed at the distance and set it. Framing the shot? You had to hope your view finder was close. Shutter speed? You were lucky if your camera went to 1/250th. Automatic film winder? You had to turn a knob and watch for a number in a little, red window. Ever wonder why there are so many roster shots and so few line of road shots from the 50s and 60s?

What didn't change much in that period was film quality. Ektachrome X and Ektachrome 64...pretty much the same stuff....and pretty slow for railfanning, particularly if you were using a telephoto lens. The 120 and 200 speed Ektachrome helped a bit, were really quite a bit more grainy. (and, boy, does it scan lousy...)

So, what you had at the end of the day were shots with insufficient depth of field, slightly out of focus, motion blurred (camera and/or subject) or underexposed - all compromises you had to make on the fly in order to come away with anything at all, many times. While there are many more shots from the 80s out there in the world, many of them are slightly flawed one way or another. (some are A LOT flawed....) But, many of them were suitable for sharing at informal slide shows and were part of the narrative that went along with them.

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.

No apologies for the caboose shot. Anyone born after 1980 would only have a hazy memory of mainline cabooses. For an EL fan born before 1980, a ex-PRR Conrail caboose on the Erie mainline is likely to evoke some emotion....
oltmannd 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 07:17 AM.


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