I like all three for different reasons. I like the use of a framing object (the tree) in #1, but feel that there is a bit too much tree to be a winner.
I like the sense of “being there” of # 2, but don’t like the white sky. (Especially since I know it wasn’t hazy that day.) I don’t have a problem with the shady nose, since this isn’t supposed to be an inspection shot, and we already know what a trains nose looks like. Besides, you can see a profile of the crew which adds a bit of character. I also wi***hat the loco wasn’t so centered.
The sky in #3 is great, and the rest of the shot looks good, too. But it has a feeling of static-ness (as does #1). That we’re looking up a bit at the engine, helps.
I predict that Erik took #2, Mike took #3 and Tom took #1.
Before I vote, let me add to the chorus of safety consciousness. It really is surprising how something that big and noisy can sneak up on you. I am curious whether you chased off the kids or they left on their own.
That said, I put the question to myself: “Which one would you want on your wall?” Hmmm. I voted for #3.
Tough choise this time! I was really split between 1 and 2, there’re both great shots of the very uncommon clean locomotive!!! I like the setting too, it’s interesting to see a train next to a neat and good looking area.
#3 for obvious reasons. I don’t have a photo to post this week! OH NO! My camera shot craps and is in the shop for repairs [:(], I hope to have it back soon! But until then, keep up the good work guys. [;)]
I voted for No. 3 for much the same reasons as other voters. No. 1 had that intrusive tree. No. 2 looked, generally, as washed out as those sorta brown trees in the background. Usually I do like trees in the background but those trees just didn’t do it and the color seemed washed out of the whole picture. I did like the composition of No. 3 and the great color and I could swear that No. 3 was sharper then No. 2.
Irishpat70
Thought the trees in #1 were distracting, while in #3 you naturally focus more on the train. Picture #2 has the train framed nicely and I like the feel of the train coming right at you, but I didn’t like the coloring. The sky looked washed out and the bare trees in the background are not pretty.
Photo #3 shows more of the train, the contrail is clearer then #1, and overall has better composition than #1 or #2. I voted for #3.
I also agree that the shots don’t have to be identical. Actually it might be better to have different shots so that you can decide on who took the better picture, not who had the best shot of the same thing.
I voted three! It seemed to have an edge although Im not sure what gives it that?! I have a suggestion on the type of camera being touted. It seems to me that if you gave a picture of the controls and the setting if posible it would help visulize whats being talked about! I for one dont have a digital as of yet and Ide like to see whats being used. Maybe Ill buy the Rebel thats being used in this series of outstanding photos.[:D] I feel sorry for the kids in this weeks instalment. I remember being bored and playing around the trains and not having a mentor to tell me what I was looking at![:(][D)][2c][sigh]
Please allow me to help provide food for thought on the great debate on whether to polarize or not.
I shoot outdoors with a circular polarizer at all times. I refuse to shoot outdoors without it. Here is why. I come from the premise that I am where I am and will only have this chance, this light, this train, this place, one time, and it could be a long time before I get “this opportunity” ever again. So why take a chance? Why not stack the deck in your favor by making the best of your chances to get the shot with the gear you have?
First, in either film or digital, the Media simply does not have the full range of adaptability to see what the eye can see. There are pictures that simply cannot be taken without filters, Neutral density, Graduated Neutral density or polarizers in place. The range of brightness is seen by the eye, but the optics and film or media cannot make this stretch. Further, it is always wise to shoot with a UV filter over the lens as well. These rays have a different effect on film than they will on the eye. Film and CCD’s in Digital do not and cannot see what the eye sees in term of brightness to darkness in the first place and photographic Media does not “See Light” the same way our eyes can, They also do see light in ways that eyes do not, and this is apart from the “visual effects” of Focal length and Aperture/Shutter speed situations. Ultimately, we want the photo to reflect what we saw when we were there, and so we use the filters to help this process along.
What a polarizer does is align the light waves so they arrive at the film at the same time and Vertically rather than both verticaly and horizontally random times during the exposure, this is partly why color seems more real to the eye than it does on film without the Polarizer, when you look at it on slide film. It can make the difference of a shot you can use and love and a shot that goes in the trash as a failed attempt. I am a big fan of Polarized Sun Glasses. I work outdo