Rate this picture plz..


Rate this picture

  • Very Good

    Votes: 38 40.0%

  • Good

    Votes: 40 42.1%

  • Hmmm! Its OK

    Votes: 15 15.8%

  • Bad

    Votes: 2 2.1%
  • Total voters
    95
OK where do I begin on this...

I am going to go against the perceived norm here and say that I actually like the background. Its bokeh (background blur) is fairly consistant and clean. It does not really in my opinion give the effect that you took it outside your layout except that layouts arent usually shot using real "sun lighting". The statement above about it being "above the grass" is exactly why in my eyes the shot works for me. It gives the effect that the ROW is on a slightly higher level than the surrounding areas.

I am not sure as to your photo skill (level) but I will throw a couple things out and ask a question or two... hopefully to better understand what and how you took the shot.

First off can you tell me what camera/lens/settings you used? I ask because the EXIF data on the image is missing.

It seems to me that you were using a camera that you can get the aperture down low enough (large enough) to give you decent background blur. If thats the case does your camera have manual mode or do you have the ability to change your exposure compensation? If you cant see the next paragraph.

One thing I am seeing actually wrong is the amount of contrast in the image. It feels overly "bright" or slightly under exposed to me. Thats not the end of the world though. You can use EC if your camera has it and go down to -1/3 to -2/3 and reshoot the shot... OR you can fix this in software using levels or contrast. Depending on the software you use you would want to do levels (if you have Photoshop) first. By doing the levels you are trying to remove any unused area from the histogram. That will bring up the colors and the contrast slightly in a very realistic look. If you are using a program other than Photoshop you can add a slight amount of contrast directly and or maybe bring down the brightness ever so slightly.

Sorry for the long response... I added that I really liked it on the poll...
 
I would have rated the picture very good if you had either waited until the sun was exposing the entire engine or you used some additional lighting. I think the track and background look great but the lack of light on the bottom of the engine only allows one to see the brake cylinders on the trucks.
 
It's a nice shot.

I'd recommend "softer" lighting earlier or later in the day rather than the harsh light in the current photo. The track looks overexposed. That may well be because your camera's light meter freaked out at the black loco. Try an 18% grey card and manual exposure to correct that problem or just back the EV down 1/2 to 1 stop and try again.
 
One thing I've noticed about people shooting outdoors is that they tend to be after two things:

1. "real" light and;
2. real background stuff, like trees and hills.

The light you've got.... but the photo is shot at the wrong angle to get a realistic background. Most of the ones that have it that I've seen were shot in the middle of a field or parking lot so there was no "near" scenery and the distant scenery was properly scaled for the scene.

As a photo though, I don't have any heartache with it.
 
I voted "very good." The one thing that jumped out though is the glossy red paint on the front of the engine. If it were dulled/flat like the black I think it would look more realistic.
 
I probably shouldn't be commenting here, because I've never considered myself a very good photographer, but aside from the fact that I had to scroll a lot to get the entire photograph, I thought it was well done--especially the ballast, track weathering and the weed detail. I'd be very interested to know what code rail you're using--it looks a little like Code 83, but the weathering is really quite good IMO. I can't comment on the loco itself, since I'm not that familiar with diesels, but the lighting and contrast seemed pretty good to me. I've seen quite a few outdoor shots of models lately, and I have to say I like their ambience--it seems softer than the often harsh artificial light we have to work with in the train room.
I liked it.
Tom
 
I didn't vote because, as mentioned numerous times before, I am unsure of the specifics of the rating request. It could be great or super, depending on what you are looking for in particular.

I'll preface this mess by saying that model (HO) photography is the Original Great Satan when it comes to my particular photography hobby, and now low-priority business.

I too started with taking the models outside, since indoor shots needed more skill and hardware than I had at the time (film days, folks…). I have only recently returned to model train photography after a few spastic episodes thru the years

Most of these comments have already been made, but I’ll repeat them with my twist on them anyway….

1) angle: for realism, a low angle is absolutely required. No one ever sees the top of an engine in normal viewing.
2) Background: study photos of prototype trains. Note that the background usually ISN’T blurred as much. So instead of the normal tendency to use large apertures (small #s), go the other direction and take the aperture to as big a value as possible (the ultimate being pinhole, like f150-ish).
3) For indoor shots where you CAN control the background, use a tripod and aperture priority on your camera. Then you can set the aperture (f24? f32?) to get a better and more realistic depth of field, but also using Av will tell the camera to leave the shutter open as long as it needs to get the shot. This might mean an exposure of many seconds. Hence the tripod.
4) Be aware that once you start down this path, you will quickly realize just how awful most of our modeling skills really are. There is no known cure……except patience. Which I have yet to attain….

Some of my attempts over the years:
http://www.railroadforums.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/17300/ppuser/136
http://www.railroadforums.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/6208/ppuser/136
http://www.railroadforums.com/photos/showphoto.php/photo/17215/ppuser/136

all of those were taken with a very simple digital camera quite obsolete by today’s standards (Nikon Coolpix 950); indoors, with room light, tripod and aperture priority.

Fast forward 6-7 years and $$$$ in camera gear later, I recreated some of the shots with the newest gear. The images aren't that much better, confirming that it isn't always a case of better cameras make better shots.....

http://www.modelrailroadforums.com/forum/showthread.php?t=8027


The most important rule? Have fun!!
 
Ken, you are confusing terms...with the result that you may also be confusing someone looking for advice.

Aperture and f-ratio are not the same thing. Making your aperture "bigger" actually reduces the f-ratio, unless the focal length of the optical system is commensurately increased. I think what you meant was to increase the focal ratio by reducing the aperture. The only way to pull that off (and I agree that it tends to improve depth of field tremendously), is to shoot outdoors in direct sunlight, or get lots of lumens onto the subject with lights.
 
(deleted)

you claim: "The only way to pull that off (and I agree that it tends to improve depth of field tremendously), is to shoot outdoors in direct sunlight, or get lots of lumens onto the subject with lights.


no, that's what long shutter speeds are for. See the linked pics. All were taken in available indooor light: no flash, nothing more than room light. And shutter speeds of 10-15 seconds.

Now if you want to handhold that camera, yes, a bunch of light is going to be needed. But if you know what you are doing (using a tripod in particular), it isn't necessary to pour on lots of light.

Merely moving outdoors and using a lot of light will do NOTHING in itself to improve DoF. What you are confusing is that by doing so (outdoors and more light), you have ALLOWED the camera to SELECT a different aperture, probably smaller (bigger #) and therefore you get more DoF by happenstance. But moving outside is not what gave you more DoF, the aperture change that resulted did.

Speaking in simple terms, the depth of field is controlled by the Aperture (f). Using a small aperture (a large number like, yes, F24 or F32, which is where most of the linked shots were taken) gives you more DoF, a small number (large aperture, which on the lens I used is a max of F2.8), will give you a depth of field of a few millimeters and is not very realistic.

Now the DoF isn't a constant, it varies with the distance to the subject, the focal length of the lens and lots of other stuff which we won't bother with here.

EDIT: ok a wikipedia search found your f-ratio term, but since it isn't commonly used, i'll just assume you have been reading too much and haven't spent much time actually taking pictures.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
MLW said:
I'm experimenting with outdoor pic, so please rate
this picture:

2007610174543_33.JPG


Thank you for your time
Click to expand...

What are we rating?

exposure
depth of field
level of detail
weathering
lighting angles
view angle
background choice
realism

any or all of the above?

-G-
 
Anything you want.

Just look at the feedback I got for ideas.

Thanks to everyone so far. Appreciate it
 
You must log in or register to reply here.



Back
Top