Forums

[Anonymous]

QUOTE: Originally posted by atsfan1

Neither shot had great lighting-head on shots require better lighting but #2 had better contrast with the light that was available. I like the head on view of #1 but the low light just killed it.

[#ditto][#ditto][#ditto]

[Anonymous]

Both were very excellent pictures and it was a VERY hard decision to make. But in the end I picked Number 2.

[brilondon]

is there really a difference??

[dabhid07]

I went with #2. The sky is bluer, the train is better lit, and you can see a bit of the second engine. I like the composition of #1, but the long lens flattened the depth of field a bit too much, imho.

[JEIERMANN]

I went with 2 but both photos were ok, not outstanding, so it was hard to choose. #1 looked like a power shot, that is showing the power of the locomotive. And #2 was a brighter shot but was the train moving? 1 looked like it was leaning hard into the curve pulling hard w/ditch lights going etc. Can you just cast a 1/2 vote for each???

JE

eee rr

[Anonymous]

Guys: I've loved trains for most all of my 59 yrs; but standing around in the snow in a Wisconsin winter to take sapshots of a prosaic local! Come on, get a life.

[Anonymous]

A shot on a curve is always better than a photo of a train on a straight piece of track. My favorite is actually some 8mm movie film in 1959 or 1960 of a Reading Rail Ramble photo run at Port Clinton, PA. That Reading Company T1 2124 was just terrific.

[wstiebitz]

I enjoyed both pix- am a rank amateur at photography Just like the composition of no. 1.

Walt Stiebitz

[fiatfan]

I voted for number one but number two looks like the track was laid on cork roadbed!

[piggyjo]

[8D] Love the sunny blue sky in pic # 2, but, [:(] I still have to pick #1, the view of the locomotive staring you down, while the rest of the train comes around the curve, like a great dragon with a fierce long tail.[:)]

[M636C]

Mike, (and bnsfjth)

Thanks for the information on shooting modes. I haven't worried about adjusting exposures yet, partly because the good shots from most other respects haven't needed it, but I hadn't thought about that advantage of raw format.

I haven't had any problems yet with headlights upsetting the exposure, but I only got the EOS 10D in August, and although it has been to Argentina, it hasn't been through a winter yet, and the winters here are mild. It is hot and fine and summer here right now.

I don't have either the camera or its specs with me right now, but I was in Raffaela in Argentina on the New Central Argentine waiting for one of the GP 40M-3s (a broad gauge GP40 with export 3-axle trucks and four only GE 752 motors - guess it seemed like a good idea at the time). The light was poor and it was gently raining , on and off. The exposure in "Program" indicated something like 1/60 at f4.5. I thought, what would I get from "Sport" and it gave me (if I recall correctly) 1/350 at f5.6. This seemed like a good move, and the resulting shot was ok, althogh the colour saturation wasn't great. The loco was in fairly poor dark blue paint, a bit like the current CSX shade but without even the yellow lettering, and this ended up looking a bit blue-grey, but it was quite a clear shot, and one I didn't want to miss even if it was running long hood first.

I have since tended to try "Sport" for such shots, since I can then return to conventional settings for better conditions without thinking too hard about what settings I've changed.

For a professional mechanical engineer, I'm sometimes a bit of a luddite. When I'm taking a photo, I like to concentrate on composition rather than the technicalities of the shot. It's hard enough to try to predict if a telegraph pole will end up behind a locomotive in the finished shot, or in a crowded landscape, in front of the unit!

Peter

[peppee]

Are both those photos slightly fuzzy? Or is it the motion of the train or high ISO that causes the lack of crispness?

[Anonymous]

both shots fantastic, prefer multiple unit shots, as it shows power, and railroads denote power and size, keep up the good work. 41 years a railroader, i still get a thrill watching trains.

jim

[ReimanTrainfan]

I voted for #1. You really got the feeling on how large the train is. You can also tell that this is a moving train by the heat "waves" coming off the radiators. Great Shot!

[mikeyuhas]

QUOTE: Originally posted by peppee

Are both those photos slightly fuzzy? Or is it the motion of the train or high ISO that causes the lack of crispness?

Both original photos are sharp. The "lack of crispness" is a function of what happens when a large photo is scaled down. As shot, they're 3072 pixels wide, but only 550 pixels wide as displayed on trains.com. In future installments we'll make the photo larger, or include a small detail blown up to original size, like Bergie's conductor shot in the first installment, http://www.trains.com/Content/Dynamic/Articles/000/000/004/891rynvy.asp.