Trackside with Erik and Mike, Vol. 45: January 16, 2006

[Bergie]

This week's installment of Trackside with Erik and Mike is now live within the Railroading section on the Trains.com home page. Please read this week's column first then vote for your favorite photo below. Click here to read Trackside with Erik and Mike Vol. 45.

[Anonymous]

I like Mike's photo this time. Erik what happened your picture is a little slow (boring). I like the the conditions in Mike's photo. Well done Mike [tdn]

[kolechovski]

Erik's is quite good. I like that.

[sporegonfan]

I'll start with saying that I don't think very many people paid attention to the quality of the shot.

Even though Mike didn't use his night shot, I still had a hard time deciding. But eventually I went with Erik's because of the story it tells.

[Anonymous]

HNY from sunny AZ! Nothing like having Christmas dinner outside and 71 degrees!!

Not to be partizan, we go with Mike's shot. We too were put off by the saturated light spots in Eric's shot and preferred the moodiness of the UP train beautifully disguised with CP and rental power!!

Happy rails to you!
Jamie and Jamie's dad.
Shawmut rules!

[Anonymous]

I chose Eriks photo because it is out of the ordinary, and the photo is so great that you can beraly tell if it a model or real.Great job.

[Texas Zepher]

QUOTE: Originally posted by lrenee
I think what needs to be brought to our collective attention is the versatility of the digital camera for taking photos in unusual or difficult lighting situations that a film camera either could not handle at all or would require a great deal more equipment to provide a viable photograph.

Huh? Where did that idea come from. The only thing a camera with digital "film" can do different than one with real film is change the ISO/ASA on the fly. I don't understand how changing a roll of film classifies as requiring "a great deal more equipment". Don't take my word for it just go to any camera store and do a side-by-side compare of the Canon Rebel to the Digital Rebel. Digital cameras have only recently gotten as versatile as real film cameras.

The Fun thing about digital photography is one doesn't have to wait to have the pictures developed, and it is so easy to share them with everyone else.

[PRRK4s1361]

I know I'm running late this term for the voting but I have been rather busy. Both pix are really great but I went with Mike's CP SD40-2. Not sure why...Eric's scale model reminds me of the model that runs down at the Strasburg RR (Lancaster); impressive to say the least. Their model has a scale turntable right in the middle of the action for the steam trains run by either 2-10-0 90 or Ex- N&W 4-8-0 475. It seems to be a hit with the kids as well as the grownups. I think their model is a little samller than the one pictured. Keep up the good work guys!!

[Anonymous]

After much consideration, I voted for Erik's photo for much the same reason: I liked both of the night shots better then the "day photo" even though it was a "real train" --whatever that means. I think what needs to be brought to our collective attention is the versatility of the digital camera for taking photos in unusual or difficult lighting situations that a film camera either could not handle at all or would require a great deal more equipment to provide a viable photograph. Having said that, I do not own a digital camera and I don't have any $$ to purchase one either![8D][^]

[kicksvette]

Erik reminded us to cinsider the quality of the photo over the subject matter and that's exactly what I did. That's why I voted for Mike's shot. At full screen it became obvious that Mike's picture was better quality. The subject may have been ordinary and dreary compared to Erik's more unusual live steam tourist attraction but the photo was better done. The dreary overcast actually can work in a photographer's favor by eliminating harsh shadows and providing a more balanced overall picture. The bright/dark variations in Erik's shot are quite harsh in a situation that doesn't call for such extreme harshness. Mike's shot also has an overall advantage in depth of field. This becomes very visible at full screen viewing. Also, the ghosts in Erik's shot bother me. I know they are supposed to be passengers boarding for the next excursion but the just don't look like real people. Blur from motion is great for a pace shot or a high speed passing train or a race car blowing past the grandstand at 190mph but it doesn't work for people casually moving. The slow shutter speed, the short depth of field and the glare produced an inferior shot to the dreary gray on a photographic basis. And like many others, I would have preferred Mike's night shot.

[espeefoamer]

I voted for the real train.I looked over both photos closely first though.Mike, your night shot was far better than the photo you entered . I just like real trains better than models of any scale.

[Anonymous]

This is the first time I have voted. I love full size trains. I'm always looking for one along the UP main line going South from Salt Lake City, Utah.

[Anonymous]

Mike, Mike, Mike........Great shot

[Anonymous]

I voted for Erik's photo. It certainly is a departure from the usual photos we have to choose from, but that doesn't detract it from being a great shot. I absolutely love night photos of trains and this is an excellent example of one. I love the way the smoke is shown!

I'm quite surprised that Mike chose the photo he did for the competition instead of that night shot of a UP train. That is an absolutely fantastic night photo and is just the kind of picture that makes you want to climb onboard that train and head off into the night! If you had chosen that photo for the competition, Mike, I definitely would have voted for it.

[Anonymous]

It's maybe comparing apples to oranges but I'll go with Eric's photo this time.
Mike's is very good, composition-wise. I found Eric's was innovative and fun and gave it the nod on that basis. The little 10-wheeler's a good-looking engine too!
(Is my steam bias showing?)

Bob