Most of you received the January issue of Trains before I did and have probably seen the artistry of Samuel Phillips' photo in the two page spread on pages 70 and 71. To my mind it is one of the best I've seen in ages. I gave it a serious look while reading the magazine for at least the third time.
Lots of us do not have the advantage of the beautiful scenery of the Rocky Mountains or the Front Range to make our photos impressive but Samuel's photo truly impressed me. It appeared to me as the perfect construction of a beautiful scene with a train appropriately close the the camera. Neither took center stage and mad for an impressive picture.
Just a thought from a guy who considers himsel a "Hillbilly Snap Shooter".
I have neither the scenery nor the inate ability of good photo composure. I have to work at the latter to compensate and still find my photos lacking any dramatic effect I find in that photo.
Norm
Many folks do just take "snapshots." A hallmark of such images is that the center of attention is at the center of the picture, whether it be Aunt Fanny's head or the headlight of a locomotive.
If there's any one tool of photo composition that can change a snapshot to a portrait, it's the rule of thirds. That rule is very evident in the image Norm cites.
The key is to divide the image into thirds, both horizontally and vertically. I don't advocate actually drawing lines in your copy of the magazine, but if you work out about where those four lines would be, you'll find strong elements of the scene on them. In many cases, the focal point of the image is on one of the intersections.
Some cameras actually have said lines inscribed in the viewfinder (I always wondered what those were for!).
For simplicity, one should try to place the horizon (or other strong horizontal element) on one of those two lines. Any strong vertical element should likewise be placed on one of those lines.
If you're taking a full length picture of Aunt Fanny, try putting her face on the intersection, and have her turn slightly into the picture. Voila! Snapshot becomes portrait! If the lamppost she's standing near is on the other vertical third line, even better.
Of course, there are dozens of other things that can make a good shot great, but just embracing the rule of thirds can make a huge difference. How many of us would have put the lead locomotive square in the center of the image? Turn the page and see what applying the rule of thirds did for that image. Again, many of us would have centered the train in the image.
That image on pages 72 and 73 deserves comment as well. Note that while the locomotive isn't on a horizontal third line, it is on a vertical third line, and that there are strong scenery elements on the horizontal third lines.
Two great images made great because the photographers saw art instead of a snapshot.
Larry Resident Microferroequinologist (at least at my house) Everyone goes home; Safety begins with you My Opinion. Standard Disclaimers Apply. No Expiration Date Come ride the rails with me! There's one thing about humility - the moment you think you've got it, you've lost it...
Samuel Phillips is a brilliant photographer, though I haven't seen him post online much lately. He is another example of a younger railfan with a lot of talent.
One other thing - the images we see published ANYWHERE are rarely the complete image as the camera caught it. In most, some level or croping is involved to improve the 'drama' that is in the image that the camera caught. When dealing with photo prints, dark room magic is also applied to, among other things, amplify highlights, magnify constrasts and all the other tricks of the trade.
Take nothing away from Photographers - they have the eye and know what they are trying to do as opposed to snap shooters of Aunt Fannie, but if a Photographer got ahold of the 'roll' of film devoted to Aunt Fannie, you would be amazed at the print of her he could present from that roll.
Never too old to have a happy childhood!
BaltACDTake nothing away from Photographers - they have the eye and know what they are trying to do as opposed to snap shooters of Aunt Fannie, but if a Photographer got ahold of the 'roll' of film devoted to Aunt Fannie, you would be amazed at the print of her he could present from that roll.
That is doubly true since at least Photoshop CS. There are many things that can be done to "tweak" an image (see Ansel Adams, for instance) to bring everything together. With Photoshop, these things can be done in a relatively short time as opposed to getting the same result with optical printing. I'm pretty sure that Adams, Weston and a few others in their class would be as kids in a candy store today. The big difference is that the proficient photographers know where they want to end up with the image and that knowledge is what sets them apart.
ChuckCobleigh (12-30):
Greetings, Chuck!
Your above post appears more optimistic than factual. My colleague here in the office says TRAINS Magazine WANTS RAW pictures directly from the camera, which are unaltered ones. So, all the snazzy corrections and enhancements is what TRAINS Magazine does NOT want. Learning artistic composition is a waste of time, because even the best take few perfect photos. Adams, Steinheimer, and the likes would never have come about if TRAINS Magazine’s present perspective would have been prevalent with magazines decades ago!
If you think about it, today is a very different beast than yesteryear. Few took good photos, nor had the appropriate equipment. Today, everybody and his uncle can have a good camera. So, TRAINS must be inundated with photos. As you know, Chuck, I take a lot of photos. But, I wouldn’t waste my time submitting anything to TRAINS, that has a low jackpot environment. Why spend $100 in gas and time for NO return and Vegas odds? It is totally stupid! And, TRAINS must get inundated with news photos. If 100 newsworthy things around the country are photographed in ONE month, TRAINS Magazine doesn’t have the room to publish 100 news photos. It is as simple as that. Is it any wonder TRAINS has a policy to ensure NO Steinheimer ever surfaces again? Or, maybe they are not being totally truthful, if you know what I mean. Everybody believes TRAINS is THE magazine of railroading, so who cares if they really aren’t? (Remember the 100 photos?)
I personally know of many things that take place here in southern California. But, TRAINS never mentions them. THE magazine of railroading? My hair is now graying, and I am not as stupidly gullible as I use to be. You, Chuck, are NOT using Grecian Formula, or whatever it is called, by any chance? (Hehehehe.)
Take care, and I hope you have a good laugh,
K.P.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- K.P.’s absolute “theorem” from early, early childhood that he has seen over and over and over again: Those that CAUSE a problem in the first place will act the most violently if questioned or exposed.
There's an old "rule" in photography - you'll get one good picture out of a roll of film.
Of course, with digital photography the roll analogy doesn't work, but the ratio still does - about one out of every 30-40 shots is a true keeper.
As was noted, it helps to take a good shot in the first place. Post processing can't save a shot that is poorly composed from the get-go. Trying to wangle a proper cropping from such a photo can result in pixilation and worse.
Every now and then I'll kick myself for not grabbing a shot that has interesting possibilities.
K. P. Harrier So, all the snazzy corrections and enhancements is what TRAINS Magazine does NOT want. Learning artistic composition is a waste of time, because even the best take few perfect photos. Adams, Steinheimer, and the likes would never have come about if TRAINS Magazine’s present perspective would have been prevalent with magazines decades ago!
My take on that is that the magazine wants pictures of TRAINS, and not FILTER WORX exhibits. Which I support. Lots of these guys get carried away with themselves "enhancing" their images to the point they no longer have any bearing on reality.
When you took a Speed Graphic and a few film holders a field, you thought. You thought a lot before you tripped the shutter.
Victrola1 When you took a Speed Graphic and a few film holders a field, you thought. You thought a lot before you tripped the shutter.
Even more if you were going to light off a half-case of flashbulbs with that shutter trip as well.
That probably has a lot to do with it. I'm not that good a photographer, I never had the self-discipline to put in the extra effort. That being said, shooting film imposes a certain amount of discipline since you have to put some thought and planning into your shots because you have fairly tight limits on how many shots you take.
Since you can shoot like crazy with a digital camera, you will probably get a higher percentage of so-so shots than with a film camera.
K. P. Harrier ChuckCobleigh (12-30): Greetings, Chuck! Your above post appears more optimistic than factual. My colleague here in the office says TRAINS Magazine WANTS RAW pictures directly from the camera, which are unaltered ones. So, all the snazzy corrections and enhancements is what TRAINS Magazine does NOT want. Learning artistic composition is a waste of time, because even the best take few perfect photos. Adams, Steinheimer, and the likes would never have come about if TRAINS Magazine’s present perspective would have been prevalent with magazines decades ago! .... K.P.
....
While Trains may only accept RAW shots, I suspect what actually gets printed in the magazine have been manipulated by Trains to specifically fit the needs of what they are trying to project. Trains wants to do the cropping and photoshoping of the image to fit their needs.
CSSHEGEWISCHSince you can shoot like crazy with a digital camera, you will probably get a higher percentage of so-so shots than with a film camera.
To the detriment of the skill, I would opine.
Considering that with my DSLR, three fully charged batteries, and two memory cards, I can take over 500 JPG images, and well over 100 RAW images, there is that temptation to trust to luck that I'll get a few good shots.
Giving some thought to composition means my ratio of hits to duds will improve, however.
That said, some folks will never get it, and will continue to take "snapshots" forever.
Or 3/4 view roster shots in the snow.
I found Eric Williams' photo on 72-73 equally captivating. Other photos on following pages also very good.
Ironically, better cameras and technology have made taking great photos so much harder. Now any idiot with a phone camera can take a photo that would have been considered "breathtaking" a generation ago. The bar has been raised... photo composition, it seems, is the last frontier.. where the skill of the photographer is still paramount. The best and most capitivating photos I find are due to the photographer's use of imagination in composing the scene.
Although Canon owners may disagree I find that my Nikon D-50 sutis my purpose well. Experience tells me it is not the camera but the eye of the photographer that makes the worthy picture.
K. P. HarrierYour above post appears more optimistic than factual. My colleague here in the office says TRAINS Magazine WANTS RAW pictures directly from the camera, which are unaltered ones. So, all the snazzy corrections and enhancements is what TRAINS Magazine does NOT want. Learning artistic composition is a waste of time, because even the best take few perfect photos. Adams, Steinheimer, and the likes would never have come about if TRAINS Magazine’s present perspective would have been prevalent with magazines decades ago!
As Balt noted above, TRAINS will have done their own manipulation and cropping, which is in essence a practice that predates digital photography for most magazines. Getting from the original image, whether it would be a 4x5 Ektachrome transparancy or a NEF file out of a digital camera, to a color separation for printing is not a trivial process, much as going from the original to a physical print for exhibit.
That being said, certain photgraphers like Adams, Weston, and a few others with such clout would have told a magazine "this is what you get" and that magazine would have to accept that. Most of us do not have that clout, so we put the raw material in their hands and hope for the best. (Of course, when you are supplying reflective art to a publisher, they have to accept whatever manipulations went into making the print, I guess.)
As for our SoCal presence (or lack thereof in TRAINS) I agree, but we have the forum to bring out a lot of local detail here and elsewhere, through your and others' postings. That reminds me that I need to check out the San Diego River second bridge span work, which was moving along quite nicely when I drove under the construction about three weeks ago. It appeared that the new sections were mostly in place (and already grafitti defaced, thank you very much) so probably they aren't too far from doing actual track work.
I can't afford the amount of Grecian Formula I would require, even with my hair cut as short as my barber keeps it these days. Besides, the missus would probably break a rib laughing at me if I did that at this point!
The standards defining what constitutes a good photo are now much higher than they were.. Lots of good photos out there now that are as good as or better than what the greats of yesteryear put out. I guess the same with music.. a top ten song of 1965 would likely not even be good enough for the bar circuit now..
Norm48327 Although Canon owners may disagree I find that my Nikon D-50 sutis my purpose well. Experience tells me it is not the camera but the eye of the photographer that makes the worthy picture.
Ulrich a top ten song of 1965 would likely not even be good enough for the bar circuit now..
Depends on the bar. Solid gold is pretty popular in some places.
Gen X'ers might disagree, but there were some pretty solid songs put out in 1967. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1967 In fact, a song from 1964 generated new-found interest when a current group did a cover of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fWyzwo1xg0
In fact, a song from 1964 generated new-found interest when a current group did a cover of it. https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=4fWyzwo1xg0
[quote user="tree
Gen X'ers might disagree, but there were some pretty solid songs put out in 1967. https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Billboard_Year-End_Hot_100_singles_of_1967
[/quote]
I prefer the older stuff too but wonder how well Seville's "Witch doctor" would do if he wrote that today.. Back in 58 that was edgy stuff.. same with some of the Beatles and Stones.. But then again. I don't know how some of the whiney drivil that passes for music today makes it on the charts.. ah well I've digressed.. back to regular railroad programming and photography. i've got some really bad photos in my collection.. overexposed and underexposed.. a true testament to my total lack of artistic ability.
ChuckCobleigh (1-2):
ChuckCobleigh K. P. Harrier Your above post appears more optimistic than factual. My colleague here in the office says TRAINS Magazine WANTS RAW pictures directly from the camera, which are unaltered ones. So, all the snazzy corrections and enhancements is what TRAINS Magazine does NOT want. Learning artistic composition is a waste of time, because even the best take few perfect photos. Adams, Steinheimer, and the likes would never have come about if TRAINS Magazine’s present perspective would have been prevalent with magazines decades ago! That being said, certain photgraphers like Adams, Weston, and a few others with such clout would have told a magazine "this is what you get" and that magazine would have to accept that. Most of us do not have that clout, so we put the raw material in their hands and hope for the best. (Of course, when you are supplying reflective art to a publisher, they have to accept whatever manipulations went into making the print, I guess.) As for our SoCal presence (or lack thereof in TRAINS) I agree, but we have the forum to bring out a lot of local detail here and elsewhere, through your and others' postings. That reminds me that I need to check out the San Diego River second bridge span work, which was moving along quite nicely when I drove under the construction about three weeks ago. It appeared that the new sections were mostly in place (and already grafitti defaced, thank you very much) so probably they aren't too far from doing actual track work. I can't afford the amount of Grecian Formula I would require, even with my hair cut as short as my barber keeps it these days. Besides, the missus would probably break a rib laughing at me if I did that at this point!
K. P. Harrier Your above post appears more optimistic than factual. My colleague here in the office says TRAINS Magazine WANTS RAW pictures directly from the camera, which are unaltered ones. So, all the snazzy corrections and enhancements is what TRAINS Magazine does NOT want. Learning artistic composition is a waste of time, because even the best take few perfect photos. Adams, Steinheimer, and the likes would never have come about if TRAINS Magazine’s present perspective would have been prevalent with magazines decades ago!
Just a great reply post, Chuck, just a great reply post!
It is the kind that should be framed and hung on walls.
UlrichI prefer the older stuff too but wonder how well Seville's "Witch doctor" would do if he wrote that today.. Back in 58 that was edgy stuff..
Indeed - some of the music of the late 50's and early 60's was a bit inane by today's measures. "Itsy, bitsy, teeny, weenie, yellow polkadot bikini..." Perhaps it's because rock and roll was just figuring itself out.
I also agree that today's music is heavy into mediocrity. Between the whiney drivel and the "rage rock," I don't often tune into contemporary stations.
But, I digress. Back to railroading.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.