Now these first 3 are not good pictures. I do not think they are good. The first one was taken with a cheap camera. I am asking for a critique of the concept.
Picture 1: If I pan up a little to get all of the mountain in, good, right?
Pictures 2 and 3 were taken with a new lens that does not accept filters. Aside from the blurring and blue tint, what do you think? Maybe I should move lower down the hill?
This one was taken with the horn blaring, so again it’s a bit blurred…if I try to sharpen it, do you think it’s railpictures quality?
A picture that I am trying to improve on with a telephot. Think it would be better with a more telephoto veiw?
And one last one.
All comments are appreciated.
A little extra information about my equiptment:
The first picture is a Pentax Espio 115S, a cheapish automatic camera with a built in zoom. I have now stopped using this camera.
The next two are from a Pentax K-1000 with an Asahi Pentax-A 70~200mm zoom that has a number on it, 6745519, not sure if it’s the serial number or what. It does not have the ability to use filters.
In picture 1, I’d love to get rid of the cement plant, but I find that the key to this shot is to get Heart Mountain into the picture at the top. I am on a rock outcropping here, and I didn’t get all the mountain in the picture because I was testing out the camera to see if it still worked after a wind gust blew it off the cliff! (No, the camera wa
They were taken at Mile 100 Laggan Sub, at the Storm Mountain veiwpoint/picnic area, just west of Castle Junction on the 1A highway. If you go there yourself, you have to walk a little way west along the bluff to get to the point where you can see around the curve.
And I thought the exhaust made it very dramatic…
A general question first. I’m curious…is your subject the whole train, the engine, or the landscape the track goes through?
It seems to me that if you wanted a cool “general” picture of a train coming down the pike, then your 2nd or 3rd photos would work. If you wanted a picture of an engine, then #4 would have worked, except for the diesel exhaust. I like #2, #3 the best, as general photos.
I am not a rail photographer and am prejudiced by my likes and dislikes, but it seems to me that it all depends on ‘what you are trying to accomplish’ with a given photo opportunity. Are you going to submit the photos for publication? Enter a contest? Put twelve cool train shots into a personal calendar?
Then each of these different applications has rules and requirements that the photographer needs to know and follow in order to have their photo judged to be a serious contender in a given project.
I like most all of these shots. I wish I had time ( or a job) that allowed me to do this type of work. Keep it up. Let’s see more of your photos!
GREAT pics- i like the one w/ diesel smoke, but it’d look better if the smoke was shooting stright up rather than blowing over – the last pic is my favorite (cause it’s BNSF)
Critiques as requested: #1. Too much contrast. The sun is on the wrong side of the train. And yes raise the view to get the top of the mountian, or zoom in on the train more to make the mountain irrelevant. #2 & 3. Depends on what you are trying to show. Aside from the technical issues you mentioned (perhaps a polarizer?). The vertical view enhances the height of the mountain and smallness of the train. The landscape view is just kind of blah ho hum. Train is too small to be a good train shot and mountains & scenery isn’t spectacular enough to make it an impressive generic shot. #4. I presume the shot is taken with a very wide angle lens, hence the leaning of the locomotive toward the outside of the frame. But I love the lean even if it wasn’t on purpose. It in conjunction with the exhaust it says this train is working hard and earning its money. A little too much nothing on the grass in the for ground. If it wasn’t for the fuzziness that you already mentioned, I would blow this one up and frame it. #5. I think it is perfect as it is (save some dust/hair on the lens?). Lighting is wonderful. The bridge provides the perspective needed for the train and shows it is coming toward me. Any more telephoto and you would loose the tree in the upper right or the full base of the mountain in the middle left. Perhaps if the photographer could get higher up the shot could be made tighter. But if you have a full resolution one of this, I would like it for my collection. #6. The last one doesn’t do anything for me. Not close enough for locomotive facts. I can’t even tell if the 2nd unit is a war bonnet or a less faded Heritage. There are no interesting details on either side. The stuff in the back ground is too small to be significant. Just a picture of four train tracks with a train on one of them.
Bill, Great edit there! Unfortunately, I have no skillz in the computer editing department, and the only modifications I ever do are in the original picture, in how I take it.
Seems like you haven’t been there!
This is actually a somewhat famous location frequented by Nick Morant.
I agree with Texas Zephyr on almost everything. If you are taking pictures of trains concentrate on the trains.
I like 2 and 4 best. The smoke ads energy to the photo, that train ain’t parked.
For 5 and 6 let the train get closer. My old 35mm I could have ripped off 3 more pictures before the trains went past but my digital is so slow to store the image I have to wait for just the right shot.
Ah! you’ve hit the point and don’t even realize it. One shouldn’t have to have been there. If they have been there, what is the point of a photo? The photograph is supposed to “take the viewer there” and make them feel the impressiveness. If it doesn’t, the photograph is not succeeding.
I like them. You have a natural eye, and an understanding of the technical processes involved, trains are always good, trains and mountains are even better.
I’m guessing that you also think they’re pretty good, they made you happy, and there’s nothing wrong with that, that’s what photography is supposed to be all about. I found that out several hundred years ago when I had to shoot to eat for a while. It takes a lot of the fun out of anything when you have to do it.
I also suspect you aren’t willing to settle for less than perfect and are looking for ways to make them even better. or else you wouldn’t have asked for a critique. So, even though they look good to me, you might experiment with the following:
Sharpness. Somewhere in the processing chain, you’re losing a bit of detail. Your glass is adequate, but if you’re looking for commercial production, you’re going to need Nikkor, Canon or Takumar glass. Takumar used to make Pentax’s top level lenses, there should be plenty of them around with a mount to fit a K-1000, for not much money. Fixed focal length lenses will always produce sharper images than variable zoom lenses.
Use a tripod. Whenever you can possibly get away with it. Use a shutter release too. If there’s much of a wind, carry a potato sack, weight it with locally collected rocks, and hang it from the bottom of the tripod’s center post for extra stability.
Use low ASA film, the lowest you can get away with. Learn about how the different films affect color balance first. Your delicate hues, captured in mountain air, would probably lose something with a high saturation film like Velvia. Good old Ectachrome might be worth a shot there.
Scanning would be my first guess as to where your sharpness is going. There’s a limit to what you can do with a cheap scanner, and at this level, anyhing less than $25,000 is cheap. You can send them out, though it’s expensive, but there’s no comparison between a high end drum scan and a hom
I suggest though for serious critiques, try an RR photography forum - the one at railpictures.net has friendly people there who will honestly tell you how to improve the pic. Just ask politely as you’ve done here.
Ya um, since when does exhaust or a cement plant ruin a photo.[8]
