Group, I really, REALLY want these shots to work, and I don't know if I can save them. One is too dark, the other has overexposed highlights in the background from city light pollution. Are they save-able, or should I just trash them? I shot them in RAW, and processed with some minor tweaks (cannot remember what software). Shot 1: Westbound manifest freight slowly drags up the .6% grade out of Minot over Gassman Coulee Trestle. 109mm, f/10, 396 sec Shot 2: Eastbound doublestacks make track speed downgrade into Minot over Gassman Coulee Trestle, the longest on the former GN. 109mm, f/10, 660 sec. Is shot 1 even worth saving? The trestle is too dark, grainy, and the locomotive headlights dominate the scene. Is shot 2 composed poorly? I could have composed more left, but there were some annoying trees. Is the exposure off? The city lights in the background blow out the shot, too.
Personally, I love both. The city isn’t so bright as to ruin the rest. #1 could have had less headlight glare, but the shot really shows how bright those lamps really are. #2 is AMAZING! Seeing those red lights snaking down “empty” track is just too cool.
I love both of them too... And if on the first one the trestle is too much embedded in darkness, one may work it with Photoshop... Dom
The second is interesting. It's fun to see the FRED flashes hovering there. But obviously the train wasn't in the shot for much of the eleven minutes the shutter was open, because it just doesn't show at all. But it's a fun conversation piece. I like the first one. It's dramatic and appealing. The light playing on the snow is wonderful, and when you look close enough to see the ice on the branches it's just magnificent. I love the way the headlights basically turned the rail into one long neon light. The glare got a little bright when it slowed approaching the bridge, but that's where the real drama is. You can reduce that by sticking a filter--or just waving your fingers--in front of the lens while the lights are aimed right at you or the train is going slow, but I'm glad you didn't. Stars just aren't bright enough to show up unless you overexpose literally everything else. But if you really want to make it pop, you could try this: Some night when you're out far from town (and maybe at high elevation), set up a low numerical ISO, point the camera at the sky, and leave the shutter open until Kingdom Come. A wide shutter will be fine (low numerical f-stop, to those trying to follow along here). Your subjects are all a long, long way away, so you don't need depth of field at all, and you don't want this shot to take an hour. Then you have a nice, dark, speckled star field you can use to replace a light--polluted sky using Photoshop. I don't know that I'd rush to do it to that shot, because no one expects to see stars over a city. But it could improve some of your rural shots from the other thread. The eye adjusts so quickly when you look up, you expect to be able to see stars even when you actually can't see them unless you look for them. A photograph doesn't come out that way, though, so you have to give your dark sky a little help sometimes. It doesn't actually make the shot more realistic, but it seems to because people expect to be able to see stars when they look for them. That would make the first one even more appealing. It would be kinda unrealistic, but it would catch the eye very well. Fact is, you could probably use a wider shutter more often than you do. I get a really nice shot now and then stopping it down, like the time I got a night shot of a local art deco church tower in the background and one of its pretty lamps about ten feet away using a tripod, f/22 and quite a few seconds of shutter "speed" (shutter slow?). Had to guess at the focus, of course; I focused a little closer to the lamp than the tower. But I digress. If nothing is within about sixty feet of you, you really don't need much depth of field. If nothing's within two hundred feet of the lens, you can open the shutter as wide as it'll go and it won't affect things even a tiny bit. That'll allow you to increase resolution with a lower ISO without having to leave the shutter open all night long. On the one hand, you did improve the atmosphere. But on the other hand, I really, really hate to see that trestle disappear into the shadows.
I think both photos are excellent art, each with their own merit. The first appeals to the supernatural and/or the sci-fi mentality. While the second is an interesting study in light patterns. To me, they both are fascinating. Please do not "correct" either, but use the settings of each to determine how to create your next photo.
Honestly, I want to try submitting one to Railpictures.net, but the reviewers are darned picky, they reject most. The f/ stop was tighter to avoid overexposure. I took test shots wide open to check the composition, and stopped it way down to keep the details.
Here is a totally bogus version that probably couldn't be submitted, but I just wanted to try out some techniques. It involved merging the two separate pics and adjusting parts and using one or the other. Criticize if you will or ignore, your choice.
Some of those railfan sites are a lot more interested in roster shots than actual art. But the flip side is, with photos that interesting you can enter train pix in photo contests that have nothing to do with railfans...
So, I tried submitting the eastbound shot, as well as the signal bridge shot on the autorack train as well as the Amtrak depot time exposure shot to Railpictures.net, and of the 3, the bridge shot was accepted. Will wonders ever cease? ...If at first you do succeed, try to hide your astonishment... The other 2 were rejected for "poor aesthetic quality."
Thanks for the feedback guys. I really want to improve the westbound shot, but the headlights just blow everything out. And I don't know how, except to try closing the shutter when the headlight illuminates the tracks on the trestle, rather than see the lights streak across it. If I do it this way, and shoot more wide open, it might work better.
Might want to try a neutral gray filter hand held in front of the lens while the headlight goes by. Worth a try! Edit: would start with about 25% density and see how that works.
I have mixed feelings about that. When the train is going very slow, or the train goes around a curve, and for a few moments the headlight is shining directly in the lens, by all means hold a filter up--or even something solid and totally opaque (closing the shutter, then reopening it on the same image isn't possible with all cameras). But using it the whole time also cuts down on what you want. Remember, you're painting with light, and you want to capture the way the headlight (in this specific case) illuminates the snow so nicely. A filter will throw that baby out with the bathwater.
No snow yet, but the filter might be worth pursuing too. Snow is coming, eventually! I thought about building a simple filter holder that would attach to my tripod to hold a filter in front of the lens (without shaking the works), and dropping it out of view when not needed. I might still try that.
