RailRoadFan.com

Ok I shot both of these today in Durand and I think they have a chance at RP. Anyone have any concerns? I feel that the 2508 photo is leaning right.

The first one is overexposed, Soft and yes it is not level. Work on it a bit and post the results.


The second one is overexposed, Soft and the cropping is questionable. Not sure how that will do.

Cropping on #2 will get it rejected, no question. #1 is good though. Do what Aaron suggested and try that.

Guess I gotta play with the color a bit.

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

TrainWatcher wrote:Guess I gotta play with the color a bit.

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

Holy crap Batman! That color is awful

Zack might have to change my tag to: "RP Pic Editor Fail". I thought it looked better

No. Way worse... I really can't help you with that because I don't know what you did. But whatever you did, you screwed it up!

James dont do anything to drastic, it is not off by much. Those are hands down by far the BEST photos I have see from you yet.

Thanks TTAM.

Y@ I held onto the origioanl so, i'll try again tomorrow.

I agree with the consensus that it's a nice photo to begin with, but I don't think changing the clouds from greyish-white to green was quite the approach to take Good idea to try again with the original, maybe just decrease the brightness a tad, level and sharpen. Your "oxidized" version still looks to be leaning, as well.

The pole to the left and the one sorta growing out of the cab is distracting... the color adjustment you did was whhhoooaaaa cowabunga! #1 is almost there, just needs a little color boost, but #2 just won't work with the way the train is cut off and the angle of that photo.

I think # 2 could work, it is going around a sharp curve as evidence of the way the track turns. Could very well work, all you can do is try. Send me your origonals right out of the camera James. msmithcsxt700@hotmail.com

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

Number 1 is certainly rp-able with a little bit of work.

number 2 is two engines and a boxcar. It may be accepted, but it's a rather bland composition. I guess if it just has to be uploaded, it'll stand a chance with some color and contrast work.

Loyd L.

mlmphotography wrote:number 2 is two engines and a boxcar. It may be accepted, but it's a rather bland composition. I guess if it just has to be uploaded, it'll stand a chance with some color and contrast work.

I guess it depends if he's playing the quantity game, or the quality game.

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

gridejq wrote: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

Being a good photographer and a decent editor go hand in hand these days.

gridejq wrote: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

Could you post the links to those two? They sound entertaining and I don't recall seeing 'em.

I completely agree with the idea of "focus on becoming a better photographer" first. When it comes to editing, if you're starting with a turd you can try to photoshop the $hit out of it but it's still a turd. PS is good for minor corrections/adjustments but if you don't get it at least close to right in the camera you have to completely *fake* it in PS to even get close to something that looks decent and I'm not a big fan of any of that.

EDIT

To Jon's point above - you do need to master at least basic 'editing' to 'finish' what comes out of your camera - just like exposed film needs to be processed to produce a finished slide.

gridejq wrote: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

Typhoon wrote:

gridejq wrote: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.