Trackside with Erik and Mike, Vol. 19: November 8, 2004

[zardoz]

Since we are supposed to vote, I am voting for Mike's. The CP shot looks too much like a grab shot, while Mike's seems to have taken some preparation. This may not be the case, but it is how it appears to me.

Regarding image manipulation:

I have feelings both ways. One one hand, is it not the final image presented for consideration all that matters? How the image was created, and to what extent modified, would seem to irrelevant to the 'bottom line' (the image).

On the other hand, post-image capture manipulation seems like that could be considered cheating. "Photography" is defined by Webster as:
Main Entry: pho·tog·ra·phy
Function: noun
: the art or process of producing images on a sensitized surface (as a film) by the action of radiant energy and especially light .

By this definition, post-capture image processing turns the image into something that was not "photographed", but was "created".

But is this a meaningful distinction? I always prided myself on the fact that every image I show was taken in-camera, by myself alone, without any help from some software program. Perhaps I'm just an old stick-in-the-mud. Perhaps I'm just jealous of those folks that seem so masterful at image manipulation. I do not know. Perhaps the advent of digital image capturing will render the skills of photography obsolete, in favor of the skills of Photoshop operations, perhaps not.

This site showed the image that Mike took of the NS and the smoking UP unit both 'before & after'. Sure, the 'after' looks better. But perhaps the shot could have been more properly exposed at the time of image capture. There are likely subtleties that will forever be missing because the 'original' was not properly exposed. Then post-processing would not have been neccessary. And you can say what you want about image processing, but I feel that the better the original, the better the result.

Sure, sometimes digital manipulation can save a photo. I've even used it on occasion. It's great for removing dust specks, power lines, scratches, and so on. It can even be used quite successfully to restore original color to an old faded slide. But I do not think it should be a crutch, used in place of developing some real photographic talent.

I vote for NO manipulation.

[H Garvens]

Use only enhancements done at the time of taking the photo, that can be done with the camera

[Anonymous]

I like the artsy stuff like Erik's picture this week and usually vote for it, but Mike's was better in my opinion. I love how the numberboards and other things are lit up in the night. It has something of an eerie sensation. Very excellent picture!

[Anonymous]

My vote went to Erik, I too love morning shots and that particular shot had the action Im used to seeing in the AM watching the trains I do.

[Anonymous]

Viewing this for the first time since 'subscribing' I think you both should get the votes, and the recognition for all the time you both spend giving pleasure and enjoyment to all who view your good work. Many thanks from the UK.

[Anonymous]

Love Bergie's photo but went for Mike's. It's just beautiful, I wish I could get shots like that. Fantastic!!

As regards major surgery on the entries, why? When the photos are of such a high quality anyway, it's surely not necessary.

Andy,

Tunbridge Wells,
Kent,
U.K.

[espeefoamer]

I chose Erik's photo.I like sunrise ( and sunset ) photos.I also liked the way the tracks curve off to the right in front of the loco.I might have chosen Mike'sif the background had been less cluttered. There was a pole growing out of the loco,and the houses to the left of the engine were distracting.I know these could have been eliminated using photoshop, but consider this much playing around with photos a no-no.Clearing up the sky,as in the NS photo is OK,but I would not allow anything further.Just my [2c] worth.

[Anonymous]

I liked both but went tiwh Mike's photo just for the look. It appeared crisp and not as washed out.

As for the photo "touch up" I don't mind that. I agree with others comments on this as far as seeing the before and after pictures.

[mandelswamp]

I voted for Mike's artsy shot because Erik's shot was negatively impacted by the lighting conditions. Regarding Mike's comments about manipulating the image to make it more vivid - yes, the image that was adjusted via Photoshop does bring out more details and I liked it a lot. However, I would prefer for the voting that the current policy of requiring unalterred images be maintained. In the comments prior to the voting, you could present an alterred picture to show what could be achieved (as you did here) but I think it best that we vote on what the camera captured rather than the best shot that can be achieved by manipulating the image. So, Mike, you got my vote for this week's picture but failed to get my vote for a policy change.

[wcfan4ever]

I had to go with Mikes shot of the WC GP40. It's rare to find a decent night shot of a WC. Especially a GP40. They seem to be roaming IC and BNSF more than CN/WC tracks. Love that shot! Get some more!

[Anonymous]

I went with the night shot this week. Good use of light and an interesting shot.

Don't think you should retouch at all. I'm an o'l film user and what you get is what you get. It is the understanding of light, composition and the use of your equipment which
should make the difference, not what you can do with a pretty good shot in the computer. Good photography is done behind the camera not in the lab. A little cropping is fine as adjustments must be made to have the picture fit the intended use, however if you go beyond that then you are just doing computer made graphics and not photography. I think you will do all of your readers a greater service but continuing to show what you have actually taken, warts and all, and discussing what works, and why, and what doesn't work, and why not. Keep up the good work.

[lhtalbot]

I liked the WC nite shot. It is technically a good nite shot. But for all I know, the engine could be stuffed & mounted. The lites do seem to be on, so I guess it's working at the moment, but it seems so isolated.
On the other hand, the the other train seems to definitely moving or at least gives that illusion. The composition is great, I love the curve in the tracks & of course that low in the sky sun glow. I vote for the latter.
Larry

[wildbill]

In addition to a calendar, we could also have the additional choice of TIE for this contest. Two photos in two completely different settings (both would make good calendar shots), very hard to make a choice. As far as the enhansing debate, I think you should post the best shot possible. This capability is what makes digital photography so great, no more wasted film and better train shots.

[wcnut]

I had to go with Eriks shot this time. Not often you get a good shot into the sun. There were some compositional items I didn't like in Mike's... pole out of the long hood and the car lights.... sorry!

As for manipulation, my vote is for thumbs down, unless it is presented as it was this week as a before and after. Even shooting with digital you guys have shown that with no manipulation you can still produce wonderful shots that would fairly rival shots from traditional print and slide film. However when you begin to make changes for the better, even if it is to compensate for conditions not controlled by the photographer (bad light, cloudy, etc.), I think you are entering a whole new category. Just because one shoots digi, it isn't an excuse to shoot a poor shot only to be able to fix it later.... but maybe I am just too old school! [8D]

Greg

[Anonymous]

Since I'm not a photographer, I did not like either shot. But I voted for Mike's photo if only because you saw more of the locomotive (I do not care for silhouette shots).
RE photo manipulation I would not mind if a photo was manipulated but limits would have to be set.

Ron[:)]