It's that time of the year...the Cheyenne Frontier Days train was back running between Denver and Cheyenne.
I started the weekend by chasing the northbound run up to Cheyenne. Unfortunately, the cloud cover was causing problems. Eventually I found a hole in the clouds up by LaSalle that allowed me to get a shot. Of course, then I was stupid and used big glass for the photo. One of these years I'll learn that I can't do that in summertime, LOL:
I thought about heading up North and trying to catch the train by Terry Ranch Road or something. A severe loss of time thanks to construction in Greeley ended that possibility. I didn't want to fight the crowds in Cheyenne proper, so I headed home and waited for the Southbound journey.
Cloud cover was causing problems for me for the southbound trip, too, so I didn't put a lot of thought into chasing, but decided to see if I could just catch it coming into DUS. The cloud cover may have been problematic at times, but it did give me some nice sunset light. I'd really like this shot if it wasn't for the fact that I should have bumped up the shutter speed because I was using an ultrawide lens:
After that effort, I got this shot of the train and the downtown skyline:
It wasn't until a bit later that I realized that I had satellite dishes growing out of the top of 844. Ooops! When I did figure it out, I worked a different angle to avoid that. As a bonus, 844 has her headlight on now, too:
After the run, the crew spent some time with the grease gun lubing up the locomotive:
As the train pulled out of the station, I got this motion shot of the train running over the 20th St. underpass:
And that concluded the first night. The train was supposed to be on display at Union Station yesterday from 10 AM to 8 PM. Unfortunately, because RTD has Union Station all messed up, there's only one track available at the moment. Because of that, the crew had to move the Frontier Days train out of the way for the CZ before I got down there for afternoon/evening light. They didn't have anyplace to really put it that gave true public access. The locomotives in particular were pretty inaccessible. I was able to see a bit of the train, though. Instead of throwing in the towel, I decided to see if I could work some shots of the train. I've already got some pretty decent shots of 844.
Please ignore the harsh light in this shot...it was taken more as a humor shot. What's wrong with this photo? :
Here's a faux pano (It's just a cropped shot, not a stitched pano) of the train and the Denver skyline from the Qwest Tower to Coors Field:
And finally, a shot I really need to tweak some...or possibly start from scratch with a new frame...but one that I think has possibilities. Moonrise Over Domes
When I was processing, I had decided to use this frame because it was the closest to keeping detail in the moon, and my flash had lit up the "Union Pacific" lettering the best. I think I need to pick a frame that was exposed for the foreground better, though and maybe photochop in a better moon. There's just way too much dynamic range there to get both foreground detail and detail in the moon without cheating.
Anyways...that's this year's efforts. Not my greatest ever, but at least I tried some new things. I'd been in a bit of a rut with the Frontier Days Train the past couple of years, so I think it was good for me to try some new shots.
C&C always welcome.
-ChrisWest Chicago, ILChristopher May Fine Art Photography"In wisdom gathered over time I have found that every experience is a form of exploration." ~Ansel Adams
Those are very nice shots, Chris. I really like the first shot, and Moonrise Over Domes is appealing too. It's something creative and out of the ordinary, which is a nice change of pace from many photos that I've seen.
Willy
You asked, "What's wrong with this photo?" My guess is that the coach is lettered "City of Los Angeles", when in fact it is in the "City of Denver". Other than that, I can find no fault in any of the photos other than the ones you allready mentioned. As usual, very nice images.
Willy - Thanks for the kind words. I'm always trying to get new shots...sometimes they work sometimes they don't, but it's more fun for me that way.
Jim - That's what I was looking for! IIRC, there is a car named City of Denver in the consist someplace, but I couldn't find it while in the limits of public access. Thanks for the kind words!
Gotta Tell Ya', Chris:
Shot #1, and then shot#2 are my favorites! I've mentioned around here before, I really like just about any shot, and any angle of 'Steam'. 844 and its train are some of my favorite subjects ( the colors in the sky of the second shot help to really make IT shine!) .
The rest of the pictures are very interesting and well done, but you really gotta quit trying to do the fancy stuff with those Wal-Mart disposable cameras!
Thanks for sharing,again!
samfp1943The rest of the pictures are very interesting and well done, but you really gotta quit trying to do the fancy stuff with those Wal-Mart disposable cameras!
Nah, he uses the good cameras, like the ones from Walgreens; plus he gets his prints done there as well.
And he just keeps raising the bar higher and higher.
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...
The second dish shot is outstanding. What a story of temporal contrasts in that simple frame.
Your moon shot reminds me of Ansel Adams talking about his famous New Mexico moonrise shot with the grazing horse, etc. He had one, count-em, one unexposed piece of 8x10 film and a very short time to capture the shot, which he noticed returning from some other work that day. He exposed for whatever the zone number was for mid-day sun, as he figured that would be correct for the moon. Then later, in the darkroom, developed to bring up shadow detail. Now we do similar things, but our "darkroom" is a computer and PhotoShop, and it takes considerably less time to get the result. I really liked what you could get out of the moon shot, as that definitely is a big challenge.
Thank you all for the very kind words!
Sawtooth - I think part of it has to do with the simple need for power. This is a LONG train, and I'm imagining that it's probably pretty heavy. Uncle Pete likes to move the train right along, too, and speed requires horsepower. I always grumble a little about the fact that they use 6936 instead of the Es. Eventually I get over it, though. If they ever do put a combo of 844 and the Es together, I assure you that I will be out trackside with a Speed Graphic and some Tri-X!
Meanwhile, I was playing in the digital darkroom last night, and this is what I came up with on the Moonrise Over Domes shot:
It still needs a LOT of work, and I have some playing around to do to get the image to work correctly. The base of the shot was taken at ISO 125, so I had some more wiggle room to brighten up the overall image some without too many noise artifacts. The previous shot was an underexposed ISO 500. As good as the K-x is at higher ISOs, it demands good exposures to get that high ISO quality, especially in the blue channel. With the amount of blue present in this shot, I needed the better exposed ISO 125 shot to be able to play well, even though I don't like the composition as much (I was a bit tilted and I had to do some straightening in PP).
I went out and shot the Moon again last night. While not quite as full as the previous night, it was close enough for my purposes. Blending it in so that it looks natural was proving to be a challenge, and this is one of the areas that I still have a lot of work to do as I'm not quite happy with the final result yet.
I also cut and pasted in the lettering lit up by the flash in the original version I posted. I didn't use the flash on the new shot, and the lettering was a bit dull, and I think it's an important element to the photo. This lettering seems a bit blown out now, though. I'll have to look at some of my other frames and see if I can get the lettering where it's illuminated, but with a little more depth.
Thoughts on this one would be greatly appreciated!
CopCarSS Thank you all for the very kind words! Sawtooth - I think part of it has to do with the simple need for power. This is a LONG train, and I'm imagining that it's probably pretty heavy. Uncle Pete likes to move the train right along, too, and speed requires horsepower. I always grumble a little about the fact that they use 6936 instead of the Es. Eventually I get over it, though. If they ever do put a combo of 844 and the Es together, I assure you that I will be out trackside with a Speed Graphic and some Tri-X! Meanwhile, I was playing in the digital darkroom last night, and this is what I came up with on the Moonrise Over Domes shot: It still needs a LOT of work, and I have some playing around to do to get the image to work correctly. The base of the shot was taken at ISO 125, so I had some more wiggle room to brighten up the overall image some without too many noise artifacts. The previous shot was an underexposed ISO 500. As good as the K-x is at higher ISOs, it demands good exposures to get that high ISO quality, especially in the blue channel. With the amount of blue present in this shot, I needed the better exposed ISO 125 shot to be able to play well, even though I don't like the composition as much (I was a bit tilted and I had to do some straightening in PP). I went out and shot the Moon again last night. While not quite as full as the previous night, it was close enough for my purposes. Blending it in so that it looks natural was proving to be a challenge, and this is one of the areas that I still have a lot of work to do as I'm not quite happy with the final result yet. I also cut and pasted in the lettering lit up by the flash in the original version I posted. I didn't use the flash on the new shot, and the lettering was a bit dull, and I think it's an important element to the photo. This lettering seems a bit blown out now, though. I'll have to look at some of my other frames and see if I can get the lettering where it's illuminated, but with a little more depth. Thoughts on this one would be greatly appreciated!
Chris:
I think that Chuck Cobleigh. was highly complimentary, and deservedly so!
I think that you are wrong about the playing in the darkroom part, most of us might somehow play with something,
but you manage to get to a really different point with your 'messin' around!'.
This last shot of the dome is certainly another high water mark for you!
We are very fortunate to have the quality of photographers who drop in here,
and share their work with those of us who are not nearly as accomplished with their camera's and equipment.
Thanks, from the digitally challenged!
I think that Chuck C. was highly complimentary, and deservedly so!
Sam,
Thank you for the very kind words!
No offense, Chris, but are you ever satisfied with any of your shots? You show us a wonderful shot, then procede to tell us what is wrong with it. You must have incredibly exacting criteria. I would be thrilled to have taken a shot as well done as the dome shot.
Your redo of the moon shot is fantastic! There is nothing about it that I don't like. The detail in the shadow areas is fantastic, as well all of the brick detail and the rivets on the coach.
zardozNo offense, Chris, but are you ever satisfied with any of your shots?
No offense, Chris, but are you ever satisfied with any of your shots?
I think I can answer that one and it is probably the following: not completely.
From what I have seen here many times, Chris has something I call simply "the eye" which plainly stated is the ability to visualize a real world scene as a finished image. That finished image is mostly there in his mind by the time he presses the shutter release button, but regardless of whether the capture is in silver or silicon, what is recorded is only a starting point.
Where levels of skill and artistic vision take you after that point is not necessarily a done deal, especially when things are unique and/or extreme, as in the case of the dome shot.
In the world of dip and dunk, you could spend a week or more in the darkroom trying to get your inner vision of the image to come together on paper. In the world of click and save, it might be a little faster (and probably a lot less odorous) but the same things are getting done.
The problem is that most of the time, you can always find some little detail that you might want to do a little better, bringing up a tone here, subduing something there, maybe a little minor local color correction ... things that only one out of maybe ten thousand people would even notice. But that troublesome "eye" is rarely completely satisfied.
As I look again at the original dome shot, Chris, I find I like the overall tonality, excepting the blown-out highlights in the moon's disc. In the "darkroom play" image, I see more detail in the moon, but still I gravitate to the tonality in the original shot for everything else. Just how my jaundiced "eye" sees it.
Oh, and yes, for sure I intended my earlier post to be complimentary to Chris, because I enjoy the images he shares with us and I admire (and heartily encourage) his urge to tackle the more difficult images that have exceptional artistic quality. That and the fact that he also has a bug about view camera usage, which is a strange addiction for which there is no known cure.
I should caveat the comment about "a lot less odorous" in that, for sure, you don't have the sulfur dioxide smell from fixer or the formaldehyde color print hardeners or some of the other wonderful chemicals used in the photographic past, but you could still have that garlic and onion pizza standing by for sustenance, so the "new" darkroom might not be completely odor free.
Jim,
Chuck has it pretty much dead on. When I hit the shutter button, there's an end result in my mind that I try to work towards in the post processing. Getting to that point is what gives me the most trouble sometimes. My post-processing skills aren't where I'd like them to be, whether it be in a wet or dry darkroom. Ansel Adams' decades old adage still applies: "The negative is the score, the print is the performance." I think my "scores" are getting better (though I still need little tweaks like watching my shutter speed when using an ultrawide lens), but the "prints" still could use some work.
So what do I see wrong in the Moonrise Over Domes shot that I'm still working on?
So that's my kind of thought process. I should really take a course in both darkroom and photochop techniques one of these days. While the shooting aspect has come fairly naturally to me, the after work is decidedly not so. I think when I'm pointing out faults in here, it's just a bit of frustration coming out that I can't get the picture on the screen or in print to look like the one in my head.
Chris, I believe I know exactly how how feel. Perhaps I'm just too old and jaded, but I've kinda given up on my aspirations of great photography. I absolutely do not understand Photoshop (I have version 8), even with add-on instruction books. I do ok with Nikon Capture, as it seems more intuitive. But Photoshop - forget it!
When digital first came out, I was totally against it because it allowed someone to use a computer to somewhat make up for poor photography. I used to take pride in the images I actually had on my original slides. I felt that Photoshopping an image was tantamount to cheating. Now I find that since I switched to digital, the only way to make an image look as close to good as I remember Velvia 50 looking, is to use photo editing software. A case in point is your dome shot.
What I have come to realize is that it is the final image that is important, not how the image was arrived at. A computer and photo-editing software are just another set of tools, just like a camera and filters, that are used to try to make an image that comes as close to what we wanted to capture as possible.
Many of us are photographers; but you, Chris, are an artist.
zardozWhen digital first came out, I was totally against it because it allowed someone to use a computer to somewhat make up for poor photography. I used to take pride in the images I actually had on my original slides. I felt that Photoshopping an image was tantamount to cheating.
When digital first came out, I was totally against it because it allowed someone to use a computer to somewhat make up for poor photography. I used to take pride in the images I actually had on my original slides. I felt that Photoshopping an image was tantamount to cheating.
Easy to feel that way, for sure. You can see people taking the "blind squirrel" approach and fill the memory cards with several thousand shots on a weekend and say that they really aren't exercising skills very much. If, like some of us seriously old geezers, one grew up where you made the exposure and then went into the darkroom to make the image, then with digital, you just see post processing on a computer as the digital analog (how's that for an oxymoron) of printing and reprinting until you get what you want.
The trick, of course, is to translate some of the skills of dealing with light from what was done in silver to what is done in silicon. For me, it's a "kid in the candy shop world" when I actually get the chance to do it, because in the back of my mind I am thinking about how much work this was in the darkroom, plus there are things available in PhotoShop that while possible were not reasonably possible in the old days.
Chris, like Jim, I am old, jaded and worn (yeah, he didn't say "worn" so maybe only two out of three here), but I still have the delusion that I will get back out with my trusty Z and do some fun shooting again, at least after I get done with the ill-conceived home improvement projects going on at the present. In the meantime, I hope you don't mind my vicariously enjoying your efforts as I certainly understand the wonder that you find in what you are doing with your art. And even if you do mind, I'll still do it, because I really enjoy your images.
ChuckCobleigh For me, it's a "kid in the candy shop world" when I actually get the chance to do it, because in the back of my mind I am thinking about how much work this was in the darkroom, plus there are things available in PhotoShop that while possible were not reasonably possible in the old days. Chris, like Jim, I am old, jaded and worn (yeah, he didn't say "worn" so maybe only two out of three here)
For me, it's a "kid in the candy shop world" when I actually get the chance to do it, because in the back of my mind I am thinking about how much work this was in the darkroom, plus there are things available in PhotoShop that while possible were not reasonably possible in the old days.
Chris, like Jim, I am old, jaded and worn (yeah, he didn't say "worn" so maybe only two out of three here)
I wish I could figure out how to use Photoshop, as some of the results I see from those that understand the program are fantastic. I am pleased with the results I get from the Nikon program; it's just that Photoshop seems to do so much more.
Jim and Chuck,
Thank you so much! Those are some of the nicest compliments I've ever received!
zardozChuckCobleigh For me, it's a "kid in the candy shop world" when I actually get the chance to do it, because in the back of my mind I am thinking about how much work this was in the darkroom, plus there are things available in PhotoShop that while possible were not reasonably possible in the old days. Chris, like Jim, I am old, jaded and worn (yeah, he didn't say "worn" so maybe only two out of three here) Yes, "worn" also applies. I wish I could figure out how to use Photoshop, as some of the results I see from those that understand the program are fantastic. I am pleased with the results I get from the Nikon program; it's just that Photoshop seems to do so much more.
Jim, a few years ago, sometime after my retirement, I attended an Epson Print Academy presentation down here. It was an all-day thing with some video and some live presentations. One of the live presentations was a tour through some of the neater features of Photoshop CS, which had not been out very long, as I recall. Modification layers was one of the big topics, which I fell in love with and very shortly thereafter I upgraded to CS from whatever version I was using at the time. The layer mask, which allows you to limit the area of correction, is a marvelous capability. The other great tool that I saw either there or at a photo show at our convention center is the history brush, which is much better than burning or dodging.
Point being, sometimes watching someone demonstrate the features is much better than the so-called documentation, often written by a tech writer who doesn't really understand what is going on. At least Adobe's documentation is better than some of the CAD SW manuals I use, which are pretty darned useless. A "highlight" demonstration can save a lot of mucking around in the ocean of features that PhotoSHop has become.
Hey Chris, Don't listen to Zardoz, stay unsatisfied ( no offence Zardoz ), and keep up the comentary on you're own critique. That's where I seem to learn the most from you're skills.
As to Photoshop and 'cheating'... I only wish I had the time to post process my work to make it "look like I saw it in my mind". I have much respect for those that have the time and talent to do so . And Chris, your work is just downright inspirational when you consider the results. 99% of what I post or upload to rrpicturearchives is right out of the camera. I know it looks it too , but it's more a lack of time then want...... ............someday......
Psst.. check you're e-mail.
Our community is FREE to join. To participate you must either login or register for an account.