Your Opinion Please

[edblysard]

Just a guess, but I get the feeling the photographer was trying to capture the feeling that the GP30 was close to its owns time to be in the "graveyard".
The use of black and white was an attempt to capture the older flavor of photographs done during the war between the states, or around the turn of the century.
It would have worked better if they had sepia toned the photo.
And I agree, the composition isnt to great, the images are to broken up, noting leads the eye from one subject to another.
The photographed didnt follow the rule of thirds, where the majority of action occures in 2/3 of the photo.
Divide your photograph into 3 roughly equal sections, be it vertical, horzional or diagonal section.
One third should contain enough information to date or place your photo, out in the country, deep in the city, or down on the docks, background information that gives the viewer a reference as to where and what it is doing there.
The other 2/3s should contain the main subject, be it a static piece, or a locomotive in action, or people doing what ever work or task your were trying to convey to the viewer.
The composition should lead the viewers eye from one point to another, and the photo should tell a story, or contain enough elements of interest to make you want to invent a story of your own to explain whats happening in the photo.

The only info this shot contains is the date of the tombstone, 1820 something to 1911, which tells you its a old graveyard.
Beyond that, you cant tell if the locomotives are parked, moving towards or away from the photographer, or what they are doing there.
The telephone pole cuts thru the other locomotive, and detracts from the entire composition, it breaks the line your eye should follow.
Not real sure what the photographer was trying to say here.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

Just a guess, but I get the feeling the photographer was trying to capture the feeling that the GP30 was close to its owns time to be in the "graveyard".
The use of black and white was an attempt to capture the older flavor of photographs done during the war between the states, or around the turn of the century.
It would have worked better if they had sepia toned the photo.
And I agree, the composition isnt to great, the images are to broken up, noting leads the eye from one subject to another.
The photographed didnt follow the rule of thirds, where the majority of action occures in 2/3 of the photo.
Divide your photograph into 3 roughly equal sections, be it vertical, horzional or diagonal section.
One third should contain enough information to date or place your photo, out in the country, deep in the city, or down on the docks, background information that gives the viewer a reference as to where and what it is doing there.
The other 2/3s should contain the main subject, be it a static piece, or a locomotive in action, or people doing what ever work or task your were trying to convey to the viewer.
The composition should lead the viewers eye from one point to another, and the photo should tell a story, or contain enough elements of interest to make you want to invent a story of your own to explain whats happening in the photo.

The only info this shot contains is the date of the tombstone, 1820 something to 1911, which tells you its a old graveyard.
Beyond that, you cant tell if the locomotives are parked, moving towards or away from the photographer, or what they are doing there.
The telephone pole cuts thru the other locomotive, and detracts from the entire composition, it breaks the line your eye should follow.
Not real sure what the photographer was trying to say here.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by Alaskaman

Jim, take a look at this picture. You see the dates almost clearly. What do you think- is it appropriate?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=33578

Alex, Hey [:)]

I don't know what to say about this pic. Ed could see it and give a better interpretation of it than I can. I personally don't like the pic. Not because it was made from a graveyard but because the headstone is blocking the view of the engine. It is almost like you want to move over to see the train and not the headstone. This might be what he wanted when the snapped the shot. The engines and tombstone are the same color -- a grayish ghostly image. I'm sorry but I just don't like the pic. The fact that is black and white makes me wonder if there is a message that I just don't see. A color pic here would have been of course more colorful but the b/w might convey a thought to others that I just don't get.

Like I said, Ed could see this pic and give a much better interpretation of it than I can. AND HE DID [^] I had noticed the telephone pole but didn't say anything about it in my first post. Yes it does distract from the picture and from the engine.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by jhhtrainsplanes

QUOTE: Originally posted by Alaskaman

Jim, take a look at this picture. You see the dates almost clearly. What do you think- is it appropriate?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=33578

Alex, Hey [:)]

I don't know what to say about this pic. Ed could see it and give a better interpretation of it than I can. I personally don't like the pic. Not because it was made from a graveyard but because the headstone is blocking the view of the engine. It is almost like you want to move over to see the train and not the headstone. This might be what he wanted when the snapped the shot. The engines and tombstone are the same color -- a grayish ghostly image. I'm sorry but I just don't like the pic. The fact that is black and white makes me wonder if there is a message that I just don't see. A color pic here would have been of course more colorful but the b/w might convey a thought to others that I just don't get.

Like I said, Ed could see this pic and give a much better interpretation of it than I can. AND HE DID [^] I had noticed the telephone pole but didn't say anything about it in my first post. Yes it does distract from the picture and from the engine.

[AltonFan]

Wanna bet that that pole didn't materialize until after* the photo was developed?



*I am not ascribing supernatural/preternatural cause to this. More likely an occurrance of Murphy's Law.

[AltonFan]

Wanna bet that that pole didn't materialize until after* the photo was developed?



*I am not ascribing supernatural/preternatural cause to this. More likely an occurrance of Murphy's Law.

[Anonymous]

Its funny, but i din't notice that pole too. I had my mind concentrated on the headstone.

[Anonymous]

Its funny, but i din't notice that pole too. I had my mind concentrated on the headstone.

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Alaskaman

Its funny, but i din't notice that pole too. I had my mind concentrated on the headstone.

WELL, did you see the helicopter? [:p]

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by Alaskaman

Its funny, but i din't notice that pole too. I had my mind concentrated on the headstone.

WELL, did you see the helicopter? [:p]

[edblysard]

One thing about cameras, they dont have a automatic "edit the junk" feature.
Dig through your old photos, the ones you dont like.
Bet you find the reason you dont like them are things like the telephone pole in them, (and you cant really remember the pole,) or the trash on the ground, the assorted "junk" in the foreground and the old car up on blocks next door when you took the photo.

Your mind has the ability to edit out this junk when you look at a object, building, or a train in motion.
It fills in the blanks with details you want to see, and edits out the things you dont like.
Your camera, on the other hand, captures everything in the viewfinder, the good, the bad and the ugly.

How many times have you seen a really interesting old building, with details that just blow you away.

You take a photo, sure you captured the image you wanted, only to get your film back, and find a power line right through the middle of the photo, a trashcan full and overflowing in the edge of the photo, and bottles and trash in the gutter out front?

You brain edited these out, because you were concentrating on the building as a whole image, not the details surrounding the image.

You never even noticed the power line, it wasnt in your mental image of what the building should look like.

Ever take a photo of a girl outside at the park, and when you sit down with her to view the finished photos, you realize she has a tree "growing" out of her head?

Thats the rule of thirds again, 1/3rd of your photo should be about the "details" surrounding your image, the part that sets the tone, or time and place, for your image.

Take the image Jim has in his profile.

This isnt a knock on the photo, just what I would have done, and why.

Instead of taking the photo from the bottom of the ladder, I would have moved forward and to the right enough to get the tail of the aircraft as a background, and zoomed in enough to get a clear image of Jim's face, with the tail fin curving up behind him as the background.

Not only would you actually see Jim's face in enough detail to reconize him, the tail section as a background would have told you where he was and what he was doing.(sitting on the rear of a airplane, and no, I don't know why)

Say you want to take a photo of your buddy on a locomotive.
You pose him on the front porch, and then back up till you can get the entire locomotive in the photo.

Great shot?

Sure, of a locomotive, with "someone" standing on the front porch.

But your so far away you can't tell who the person in the photo is.

Better shot, move in, have your buddy stand to one side of the headlights or the nose door, and frame your friend with the roof line and number boards, with the nose door or headlights to the side.

Only the very dense would not know he is on a locomotive, and you would have enough, or 1/3rd of the photo setting the place and tone of the photo, the other 2/3rds are your friends face and upper body, clear enough so you can tell who it is.
You can flip the ratio around, 2/3rds of the photo setting the place, and 1/3rd showing your friend, as long as you can see enough detail of your friend to reconize them.

The photo then would become a locomotive, that Jim was standing on,
instead of Jim, on a locomotive.

You dont need the entire locomotive, or airplane, to tell where he is, just enough detail to let the viewers imagination fill in the blanks.

Think about it, are you taking a photo of the locomotive, or your friend?
The airplane, or Jim?

Stay Frosty,
Ed

[edblysard]

One thing about cameras, they dont have a automatic "edit the junk" feature.
Dig through your old photos, the ones you dont like.
Bet you find the reason you dont like them are things like the telephone pole in them, (and you cant really remember the pole,) or the trash on the ground, the assorted "junk" in the foreground and the old car up on blocks next door when you took the photo.

Your mind has the ability to edit out this junk when you look at a object, building, or a train in motion.
It fills in the blanks with details you want to see, and edits out the things you dont like.
Your camera, on the other hand, captures everything in the viewfinder, the good, the bad and the ugly.

How many times have you seen a really interesting old building, with details that just blow you away.

You take a photo, sure you captured the image you wanted, only to get your film back, and find a power line right through the middle of the photo, a trashcan full and overflowing in the edge of the photo, and bottles and trash in the gutter out front?

You brain edited these out, because you were concentrating on the building as a whole image, not the details surrounding the image.

You never even noticed the power line, it wasnt in your mental image of what the building should look like.

Ever take a photo of a girl outside at the park, and when you sit down with her to view the finished photos, you realize she has a tree "growing" out of her head?

Thats the rule of thirds again, 1/3rd of your photo should be about the "details" surrounding your image, the part that sets the tone, or time and place, for your image.

Take the image Jim has in his profile.

This isnt a knock on the photo, just what I would have done, and why.

Instead of taking the photo from the bottom of the ladder, I would have moved forward and to the right enough to get the tail of the aircraft as a background, and zoomed in enough to get a clear image of Jim's face, with the tail fin curving up behind him as the background.

Not only would you actually see Jim's face in enough detail to reconize him, the tail section as a background would have told you where he was and what he was doing.(sitting on the rear of a airplane, and no, I don't know why)

Say you want to take a photo of your buddy on a locomotive.
You pose him on the front porch, and then back up till you can get the entire locomotive in the photo.

Great shot?

Sure, of a locomotive, with "someone" standing on the front porch.

But your so far away you can't tell who the person in the photo is.

Better shot, move in, have your buddy stand to one side of the headlights or the nose door, and frame your friend with the roof line and number boards, with the nose door or headlights to the side.

Only the very dense would not know he is on a locomotive, and you would have enough, or 1/3rd of the photo setting the place and tone of the photo, the other 2/3rds are your friends face and upper body, clear enough so you can tell who it is.
You can flip the ratio around, 2/3rds of the photo setting the place, and 1/3rd showing your friend, as long as you can see enough detail of your friend to reconize them.

The photo then would become a locomotive, that Jim was standing on,
instead of Jim, on a locomotive.

You dont need the entire locomotive, or airplane, to tell where he is, just enough detail to let the viewers imagination fill in the blanks.

Think about it, are you taking a photo of the locomotive, or your friend?
The airplane, or Jim?

Stay Frosty,
Ed

[brilondon]

I think that it not only is ok for graveyard pictures but you could get creative and really get some great shots at a cemetary.

[brilondon]

I think that it not only is ok for graveyard pictures but you could get creative and really get some great shots at a cemetary.

[Anonymous]

ED,

I was trying not to break the camera [:p]

And we had to take the shot and run if you know what I mean. The girl who took it wasn't familiar with the camera and had to take it fast so she could get back to the aircraft she was working on. We had planned to take more but "things" didn't work out.

And you know LC was my (pardon the pun) role model. ha, I kill me.

(Trivia question--WHO said that?)