Your Opinion Please

Trains.com General Discussion (Trains.com)
21

I’m not sure where someone who’s “in the business” has an opinion on this topic that counts any more than any other enthusiast (or human for that matter). I’ll reply… but understand that this is coming from Erik the railfan and should not in any way, shape, or form be considered the official opinion of Trains.com or Trains Magazine.

I’m neutral. I can understand the point of view that cemetaries shouldn’t be disturbed. However, I don’t think walking through a cemetary, or taking a photo from it is disrespectful. (If a service is going on, you should obviously be respectful.)

Have I personally ever photographed from a cemetary? Possibly. I was in Kansas a few years ago on a railfanning trip with a couple of chums from the office. We parked in the cemetary outside of El Dorado. That cemetary is on a dead end road and sees very little traffic. I remember being trapped by a BNSF train for close to an hour. I can’t remember if I actually took any shots from the cemetary (prior to the train parking there). I do remember walking around and looking at the tombstones.

I’d say your personal judgement should drive your decision. I doubt it’s against the law. If it makes you uncomforatable or if you feel you shouldn’t be doing it, don’t. If you’re comfortable with what you’re doing and do it with all due respect, then so be it. This is more of a moral issue than anything else. I’m sure two people with differing opinions can argue this for days.

Erik

22

Thanks Bergie, your comments are appreciated. [:)]

Do you know or can you remember ever printing a cemetery/train pic in the mag? If so, can you email me a copy of it. The one Sask_T talked about sounded interesting but I don’t remember seeing it but it was in a book.

Thanks again. [:D]

23

Check out the July 1999 issue of TRAINS. On page 53 - within the story BNSF’s “C&I” Line, is a photo that was taken in a cemetary outside of Lee, IL. You can see a BNSF stack train in the distance with tombstones in the foreground. You can read the names on the tombstones. One has the name STACK on it. Guess what kind of train is in the background? You guessed it… a stack train. Now, the caption for the photo explains that “the photographer swears he never noticed the family surname on the large marker…”

Inappropriate? Again, it’s a matter of opinion.

Erik

24

I would go more with yes because you have the right AS A AMERICAN to go anywere and do any thing(without breaking the law) and clearly that not breaking the law so there you have it. You can take pic there just not every single day. Do it every oncce in a while like once a week or twice a week.
Theres my input for now so there you have it.
Hope this wasn’t confusing.

25

I would like to thank everyone for their posts. It is interesting reading. Keep the posts coming in.

26

Jim, take a look at this picture. You see the dates almost clearly. What do you think- is it appropriate?
http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=33578

27

Alex, Hey [:)]

I don’t know what to say about this pic. Ed could see it and give a better interpretation of it than I can. I personally don’t like the pic. Not because it was made from a graveyard but because the headstone is blocking the view of the engine. It is almost like you want to move over to see the train and not the headstone. This might be what he wanted when the snapped the shot. The engines and tombstone are the same color – a grayish ghostly image. I’m sorry but I just don’t like the pic. The fact that is black and white makes me wonder if there is a message that I just don’t see. A color pic here would have been of course more colorful but the b/w might convey a thought to others that I just don’t get.

28

I didn’t like it either.

29

The problem with this picture, I think, is its poor composition. Is this supposed to be a picture of the tombstone, or the train? The photo does justice to neither. It looks like a grab shot. Moreover, the pole in front of the locos doesn’t help. The brightness of the tombstone seems to glare some, and is a bit unnerving, as it competes with the locos for the viewer’s attention.

I don’t think the picture is necessarily in poor taste or disrespectful. It’s just not well planned.

Please note, I am not some kind of art expert. These are just my off-the-cuff observations.

30

I have seen train photos with a cemetary (or part of one) in front of the train. I don’t see any problems there. Just make sure we can’t read the names.

31

Just a guess, but I get the feeling the photographer was trying to capture the feeling that the GP30 was close to its owns time to be in the “graveyard”.
The use of black and white was an attempt to capture the older flavor of photographs done during the war between the states, or around the turn of the century.
It would have worked better if they had sepia toned the photo.
And I agree, the composition isnt to great, the images are to broken up, noting leads the eye from one subject to another.
The photographed didnt follow the rule of thirds, where the majority of action occures in 2/3 of the photo.
Divide your photograph into 3 roughly equal sections, be it vertical, horzional or diagonal section.
One third should contain enough information to date or place your photo, out in the country, deep in the city, or down on the docks, background information that gives the viewer a reference as to where and what it is doing there.
The other 2/3s should contain the main subject, be it a static piece, or a locomotive in action, or people doing what ever work or task your were trying to convey to the viewer.
The composition should lead the viewers eye from one point to another, and the photo should tell a story, or contain enough elements of interest to make you want to invent a story of your own to explain whats happening in the photo.

The only info this shot contains is the date of the tombstone, 1820 something to 1911, which tells you its a old graveyard.
Beyond that, you cant tell if the locomotives are parked, moving towards or away from the photographer, or what they are doing there.
The telephone pole cuts thru the other locomotive, and detracts from the entire composition, it breaks the line your eye should follow.
Not real sure what the photographer was trying to say here.
Stay Frosty,
Ed

32

Like I said, Ed could see this pic and give a much better interpretation of it than I can. AND HE DID [^] I had noticed the telephone pole but didn’t say anything about it in my first post. Yes it does distract from the picture and from the engine.

33

Wanna bet that that pole didn’t materialize until after* the photo was developed?

*I am not ascribing supernatural/preternatural cause to this. More likely an occurrance of Murphy’s Law.

34

Its funny, but i din’t notice that pole too. I had my mind concentrated on the headstone.

35

WELL, did you see the helicopter? [:p]

36

One thing about cameras, they dont have a automatic “edit the junk” feature.
Dig through your old photos, the ones you dont like.
Bet you find the reason you dont like them are things like the telephone pole in them, (and you cant really remember the pole,) or the trash on the ground, the assorted “junk” in the foreground and the old car up on blocks next door when you took the photo.

Your mind has the ability to edit out this junk when you look at a object, building, or a train in motion.
It fills in the blanks with details you want to see, and edits out the things you dont like.
Your camera, on the other hand, captures everything in the viewfinder, the good, the bad and the ugly.

How many times have you seen a really interesting old building, with details that just blow you away.

You take a photo, sure you captured the image you wanted, only to get your film back, and find a power line right through the middle of the photo, a trashcan full and overflowing in the edge of the photo, and bottles and trash in the gutter out front?

You brain edited these out, because you were concentrating on the building as a whole image, not the details surrounding the image.

You never even noticed the power line, it wasnt in your mental image of what the building should look like.

Ever take a photo of a girl outside at the park, and when you sit down with her to view the finished photos, you realize she has a tree “growing” out of her head?

Thats the rule of thirds again, 1/3rd of your photo should be about the “details” surrounding your image, the part that sets the tone, or time and place, for your image.

Take the image Jim has in his profile.

This isnt a knock on the photo, just what I would have done, and why.

Instead of taking the photo from the bottom of the ladder, I would have moved forward and to the right enough to get the tail of the aircraft as a background, and zoo

37

I think that it not only is ok for graveyard pictures but you could get creative and really get some great shots at a cemetary.

38

ED,

I was trying not to break the camera [:p]

And we had to take the shot and run if you know what I mean. The girl who took it wasn’t familiar with the camera and had to take it fast so she could get back to the aircraft she was working on. We had planned to take more but “things” didn’t work out.

And you know LC was my (pardon the pun) role model. ha, I kill me.

(Trivia question–WHO said that?)

39

Cant answer the triva question, but understand the “take the photo and run” concept.
Wasnt trying to knock the photo, the though that you couldnt spend the time, or were forbidden to take photos in the first place had crossed my mind.

I was trying to explain, using that photo as an example, how to take what is a snapshot, and by just paying attention to a small detail, where the photographer is standing and whats behind the subject, and make it into a better photo.
I have yet to find one of my own photos that, in hindsight, couldnt be improved.
Sometimes you use gotta take what you can when you can get it.

Got your Duchess’s photos, what kinda dog is she?
Looks like a mini doberman.
Stay Frosty,[:D]
Ed

40

Duchess is full blood Doberman, AKC.

As was said in previous post Little Red Princess Sasha was a much better dog. Duchess Von Levy might still turn out to be a good dog but she has a long way to go to walk in Sasha’s paws. Right now Duchess is restless and want to chew everything including me. She is 15 months old and I hope she grows out of it soon. She has destroyed 2 couches , 1 coffee table, untold books, mags, mail, clothes, $ 12 a pair socks, pencils, ink pens, silverwear, 2 or 3 billfolds, one of my collector cars, even candles, pillows–can’t keep em, and I can’t remember all she has gotten ahold of and torn up. Sasha was never this way. If I sit down on a couch Duchess starts chewing on me. When she decides its time to get up, you might as well get up because she will not let you sleep. She is stuborn and pigheaded. Sasha never was. Duchess will do exactly like a kid, you tell them no and the second you turn your head she starts doing what you told her not to do. Sasha minded so well, Duchess doesn’t. If Duchess would have been my first Dobby there wouldn’t have been a second. But Sasha was SOOOOOOOOO good. Duchess has been to Obidence School, Sasha didn’t need it. They are as different as night and day. They are not the evil dog as seen on TV. They are very loving and want to be with you every second. They usually take well to people and are very, very smart. With Sasha I knew who was at the door before I ever opened it. Duchess is hyper, but she likes the kids in the hood here. She will sit down and wait on them to get to her. But once they pet her she is all over them jumping and wanting to play. She plays real rough, scratching and nipping. She has the whitest teeth you have ever seen. lol. Hopefully, she will settle down and I can get some new furniture and not have to worry about it. Until then, heck no.

Now back to the original post that started this thread.

No one has commented on the second story about the funera