In Your Honest Opinion

[Y@]

Or you could just be a "real" photographer and not a "digital editor" and accept the pictures for what they are and just work on your ISO/F stop and apperture when you are in the field as you go.

+1. Cue the graphic artist police on this site in 3...2....1

Geez, did you even read MDH's post? He makes a very good point.

He's too full of himself (and other "perfect" photographers) to do that.

[A No.1]

Guess I gotta play with the color a bit.

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject. ... 6509&key=0

Im late on this one but, WHAT HAPPENED????!!!!!! Playing with color is not really what you should have done. Exposure, Sharpen maybe some contrast and vibrance. Level.

[A No.1]

Or you could just be a "real" photographer and not a "digital editor" and accept the pictures for what they are and just work on your ISO/F stop and apperture when you are in the field as you go. I agree with Matt they are your best work so far and you have learned alot and I would be very happy with your results. ANYONE can edit a picture to make it look like it was the "perfect shot" or how about the guy who shot the UP SD70M's in CA at 0200 and then edited and made it look like it was daylight and then it got accepted to everyone's "god site". OR the IAIS pics that someone edited out the number boards? Not everyone can be a photographer is the problem

If you have ever developed your own film in a dark room, You would know that there of LOTS of editing steps that take place with film too. Computers just make it so anyone can do it.

[Typhoon]

Or you could just be a "real" photographer and not a "digital editor" and accept the pictures for what they are and just work on your ISO/F stop and apperture when you are in the field as you go.

+1. Cue the graphic artist police on this site in 3...2....1

Geez, did you even read MDH's post? He makes a very good point.

Yes I did, and my comment was not aimed at him. There are some on this site that will defend fixing stuff on the computer that should have been caught at the shutter. They seem to be satisfied with a "photo" if they MAKE it look good once it gets on the computer, rather than taking a good picture in the first place that only requires minor tweaking. THAT is who my comment was aimed at.....

[Typhoon]

He's too full of himself (and other "perfect" photographers) to do that.

Thanks for answering for me Y@. It was the wrong answer, but that is what I have come to expect from you.

[Typhoon]

Or you could just be a "real" photographer and not a "digital editor" and accept the pictures for what they are and just work on your ISO/F stop and apperture when you are in the field as you go. I agree with Matt they are your best work so far and you have learned alot and I would be very happy with your results. ANYONE can edit a picture to make it look like it was the "perfect shot" or how about the guy who shot the UP SD70M's in CA at 0200 and then edited and made it look like it was daylight and then it got accepted to everyone's "god site". OR the IAIS pics that someone edited out the number boards? Not everyone can be a photographer is the problem

If you have ever developed your own film in a dark room, You would know that there of LOTS of editing steps that take place with film too. Computers just make it so anyone can do it.

While that is true, there is one big exception. When pulling shenanigans in the dark room, you had to have a good base picture. A pile of crap was a pile of crap no matter what one did in the dark room. Computers have gotten it to the point where with enough work you no longer need a good foundation to make something look good.

[TrainWatcher]

James, what are you editing with? PS? Gimp? Elements?

Editing with Gimp.

I agree with what all of you are saying, and I thank you guys for all the positive feedback.

Aaron, I know its F'ed Up and I didnt get a chance tonight, but I'll mess with it tomorrow.

[gridejq]

Agree with Typhoon...yes I have done "darkroom" jazz and its not even close to digital editing...thats like comparing apples to oranges. Take 35 mm slides and or prints or even Polaroid...lets see you edit out a tree or telephone pole or change the color to make it look like its day when its really dark. Case in point is that too much is done and thats why Magazines request that you use original out of camera but I have seen HUGE issues with this as even tghe editors seem to not look that good in a certain publication. I will use an example used by MDH in a issue of Railpace...you could see that he had photoshopped a telephone wire out as the color of the blue sky had a line in it...no offense MDH but I dont know how it even made the magazine as it was a "altered" photo and when I contacted Tom regarding photo edits he said that he must have not seen this one..all of my photos that have been published are straight out of the camera. Yes it can be an opinion but sorry Conrail Jon they dont go hand in hand, they go hand in hand for your generation maybe because thats all you know. Have you ever done slides or prints? Anything besides digital? Im curious? And last Y@ who are you making reference to as "professional" photographers?? I never claimed to be one and by far am not the best but im not the worst and dont need to have someone validate my pictures.

[TrainWatcher]

And my re-edit.

[~Z~]

Hopefully JQ and Typhoon can at least accept the idea that there's a major difference between the various things one can do in photoshop..
#1 - just resizing a photo using photoshop and converting to the correct file type
#2 - small edits such as brightness/contrast, cropping, rotation, saturation.
#3 - major edits such as cloning, using content-aware, cut/paste options. This third one is the one that most would agree is "photoshopping" but it's surprising to see people mention that any use of a digital editor is wrong.

JQ uses a digital editor for his shots: correcting the white balance, adding the saturation, color balance, and converting it to jpeg...it's called your camera if you shoot in JPEG mode. I shoot in RAW, leaving myself to manually do this editing instead of having the camera automatically taking care of this for you. I have to use photoshop or some photo editor to convert the file from a RAW to something viewable online such as jpegs.
I'm plenty fine with options 1 and 2 as we shoot trains... you really think that if I took the shot and it's .5 degrees unlevel, I should leave it at that and not do a simple edit that takes seconds to correct, when I already invested plenty of time tracking down the train, waiting for it, getting in a good position for the shot, getting the photo, and transferring to the PC?

[gridejq]

First lets be honest Z...a camera is a "mirror image" producer and is used to get the best photo based on the settings and so forth. I use full manual on my XTI to get the best represenative picture of the exact scene. This stands true with a digital camera, a 35 mm slide, disk, etc. You are overlooking what the big issue is in the editing world..if my picture doesnt come out exactly what the scene looks like to the human eye then oh well thats the point of trying to shoot it the right way the first time. Z you are looking over the point and thats fine but if you take a picture and its blurred because you didnt shoot the right speed then you can correct it with a edit of making it look crisp...thats altering the actual picture in the way it appeared from the original shot. And if you cant get a shot to be level its called a tripod Even has a little bubble on it! And lets be honest if its such a "ordeal" to track down a train and wait and all the things you listed then maybe its time to get a new hobby and shoot pictures of birds or cats. Its a hobby and either you like trains or you like photography to just get the "shot"...to each their own but I love how everyone female dog and moans when there is a cloud or a rain drop or its dark...its called working with the elements or actually just enjoying the actual passage of the train for what its worth.

[SD80MAC]

JQ, yes sir, I have developed my own film. Never done slides though. Props to the guys who did it back in the day, but it's not the norm anymore. I'm in Zack's camp, my "photoshopping" consists of a bit of leveling, and basic photo editting.

[A No.1]

And my re-edit.

Its looking alot better. I think the color is a bit to bright though. I dont know about gimp but in PS you can adjust the color profile or camera profile that would allow you to tone the whole thing down a bit.

It lookong better though. To bad that second unit isnt in the lead.

[conrailmike]

First lets be honest Z...a camera is a "mirror image" producer and is used to get the best photo based on the settings and so forth. I use full manual on my XTI to get the best representative picture of the exact scene. This stands true with a digital camera, a 35 mm slide, disk, etc. You are overlooking what the big issue is in the editing world..if my picture doesn't come out exactly what the scene looks like to the human eye then oh well that's the point of trying to shoot it the right way the first time.

This may hold true for shooting in JPEG but if you're shooting RAW there's usually a bit of editing involved. There's no way around editing things like color temperature(different from color space) when you're in RAW mode because the RAW files do not store color. That being said, when I can control the lighting (with studio flashes, etc.) it is easier to get it closer to what you're seeing. You will see a lot more editing when people are shooting RAW because the camera is just capturing the "RAW" information from that scene. Which means stuff like contrast and color may need to be touched up because the camera is not doing anything to that image when it's made. One thing that MUST be done to a RAW file is sharpening because the camera doesn't do that in RAW mode, in JPEG the camera applies a bit of sharpening automatically.

And remember JQ, people like Ansel Adams spent countless hours in the darkroom altering his photos. Sure it wasn't digital but it was the equivalent of it. He spent hours dodging and burning to get the exposure he wanted.

Z you are looking over the point and that's fine but if you take a picture and its blurred because you didn't shoot the right speed then you can correct it with a edit of making it look crisp...thats altering the actual picture in the way it appeared from the original shot.

I would hope someone really isn't trying to make a blurred shot look crisp, that should be done in the camera and that's just basic photography

And if you cant get a shot to be level its called a tripod

Yeah, but there are those instances where time does not allow for setting up a tripod due to where you're attempting the shot from... example - this photo of Q321 I shot this past week, I was only 2 feet from Milford road and there's NO way in hell I would stand there and wait for a train due to the way traffic is through there. I had to park the car, wait a minute for the train to show up, jump out and run across the road (without getting hit) and get the shot.


Now on the subject of removing poles and such, I don't think anyone of us will ever agree on things like that. For me personally I only attempt to remove them if they're sticking out of a locomotive and even then sometimes I don't. I don't like to take away from the look of the actual scene if possible. Of course, this can be avoided by looking for a better spot if it's possible or a better choice of composition.

[J T]

if my picture doesnt come out exactly what the scene looks like to the human eye then oh well thats the point of trying to shoot it the right way the first time.

There is NO camera that can capture a scene how the human eye sees it. That technology just does not exist...yet.

And if you cant get a shot to be level its called a tripod

I'm going to take your smiley at the end to imply your comment is facetious. If not...a tripod guarantees nothing in the way of a photo being level. And aside from that, for about 95% of my railroad shots, a tripod is impractical (and I'm sure this holds true with most other railroad photographers who aren't just basic RR crossing wedgie shooters who stand and wait for a train to arrive). Creative railroad photography is WAY too fluid to be wasting time fiddling with a tripod. Monopod occasionally...yes. Tripod, nope.

[TrainWatcher]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject. ... 7082&key=0

..... I'm out of ideas.

[sd70accsxt700]

Like I said send it to me.

[JANGAJONGA]

He's too full of himself (and other "perfect" photographers) to do that.

Thanks for answering for me Y@. It was the wrong answer, but that is what I have come to expect from you.

BOOM roasted.

[conrailmike]

http://www.railpictures.net/viewreject. ... 7082&key=0

..... I'm out of ideas.

Send me the original if you want some help

[A No.1]

Or you could just be a "real" photographer and not a "digital editor" and accept the pictures for what they are and just work on your ISO/F stop and apperture when you are in the field as you go. I agree with Matt they are your best work so far and you have learned alot and I would be very happy with your results. ANYONE can edit a picture to make it look like it was the "perfect shot" or how about the guy who shot the UP SD70M's in CA at 0200 and then edited and made it look like it was daylight and then it got accepted to everyone's "god site". OR the IAIS pics that someone edited out the number boards? Not everyone can be a photographer is the problem

If you have ever developed your own film in a dark room, You would know that there of LOTS of editing steps that take place with film too. Computers just make it so anyone can do it.

While that is true, there is one big exception. When pulling shenanigans in the dark room, you had to have a good base picture. A pile of crap was a pile of crap no matter what one did in the dark room. Computers have gotten it to the point where with enough work you no longer need a good foundation to make something look good.

I don't think that you can take ANY pile of crap and make it good. Well, I guess if you just start cloneing photographs together you can make anything you want. BUT, If you stick to the basic editing that MOST people stick too, you do have to start with a good photo. Lord knows I have many that I would love to get on RP but I messed up when I took the shot.