Trackside with Erik and Mike, Vol. 11: July 12, 2004

[walthuston]

I chose #2 because the cars on the left in #1 are distracting, and the light of #2 is easier on my eyes. I agree that half way between the two would have been even better.

Hope you enjoyed your time at the NTS...I did. I must have missed you at your booth...hope you saw me at my layout.

Walt

[Noah Hofrichter]

I voted for two because of the way the cars are going up the hill with the conture of the land, really neat.

Noah

[Bergie]

QUOTE: Originally posted by vulpine

While I agree with Mike's analysis of the engine detail, unfortunately some color saturation and detail is lost in the overall image. Personally, I think Photo 2 is better, but the best would have been somewhere around halfway between the two. This is never easy to set up on site because if you use an automatic mode, the camera bases its exposure on a balance of light and dark to attempt to make white White.

Picture 2 appears to be shot as the camera would have analyzed in full auto, which gives good saturation and detail, but because the sunlight is essentially in front of the camera, it loses locomotive detail in shadow.

Picture 1 brings out the detail on the locomotive, but unfortunately overexposes the photo, thus washing out color and giving the entire image a faded look.

Given these two images to run through post-processing, I would take Photo 2 and attempt to lighten it slightly either with Levels or, considering RAW format, lower the f-stop by about 1/2 stop using Canon's RAW editor.

Hi vulpine, and welcome to the forums!

Actually, I just spoke with Mike and confirmed that we both shot in manual mode. Read our column next Monday... we're going to discuss our photos' exposures then.

Also, we have an agreement in this column not to use any type of software to adjust our images... except for occassional cropping. We didn't want this column to turn into a battle for who's better at PhotoShop or RAW editor. Maybe I should add that disclaimer to each week's photos. Basically what we shoot is what you get.

Again, welcome to the forums and thanks for participating.

Erik

[Anonymous]

I think that the overall composition of the first photo is better, it seems to me that you can see the "power" of the engins better, however, the aformentioned exposure issues is what pushed me to vote for photo two. I would also like to applaude Eric and Mike in that they don't use any computer editing on the photos, anyone can get good pictures to come out of the computer, but to get a good "raw" shot takes talent.

Scott

[Anonymous]

I went for #1. While a bit dark the overall color saturation seems better. I also found the "swayback" train and signal box location in #2 distracting.

DHC

[Anonymous]

I agree with the good points made for Photo 1 and also the comments on coloring and contrast for Photo 2 and that one's better if you are looking for that. But, I voted for Photo 1. I could really feel the power of the engine, the ground trembling. There are so many "good" pictures of railroading, and I appreciate those as well, but sometimes a picture that has that little difference artistically really stands out and Photo 1 is that for me.

Charlie T

[locomutt]

They are both good shots,and I'm not going to critize either.

I went for #1,it's like it jumped out me!

[Modelcar]

...I voted for Photo #2...I happen to like the first impression of an overall lighter scene and I like more exposure to the whole train...showing the physical plant [track], for a greater distance including the dip in the allignment.

[espeefoamer]

I voted for photo #2.The overall lighting was better and it shows almost the whole train. I also liked seeing the change in grade in the distance.

[gannbb1]

Sorry guys, I didn't vote. You can do better than this. While the photo is a pretty good railfan photo, there is only one photo. Looks like a pro photog bracketing his shots.

For you younger guys that means taking the same shot two or three times with the exposure varied a couple of stops. gannbb1

[BobbieVee]

I like photo no. 2 because it show's that train's do go up and down hill's. Sorry fella's but I have no comment's on composition, lighting, framing the shot, etc, etc etc.

[Anonymous]

I like photo 2, I like the way you can see more of the tankers.

[tree68]

When looking at the "thumbnails", #2 immediately caught my eye. On closer inspection, it's hard to tell the difference, and the subtle features mentioned start to come into play. As also mentioned, #2 could be a tad darker, but overall takes the prize.

[Anonymous]

I liked photo #2 better. #1 is underexposed, although I think its better composed due to the train being closer and the hoppers cars to the left leave something for the imagination. But #2 wins it for me because of the better lighting.

[Feather]

Photos 1 and 2 seems to be of the same subject, taken at the same time from the same location. Photo #1 is too dark, and Photo # 2 is too light, but of the two photos, # 2 is a better rendition since I can actually see what the subject was. I'd like to see # 2 printed down a bit to make it a bit more dark and brooding.

As Ansel Adams once said, "expose for the shadows and print for the highlights."

SteveF