RailPixCritic

Travis Dewitz: Random 25

2011-04-16T14:59:00.003-04:00

Some time ago while surfing around the web I had occasion to pop into Travis Dewitz' website (general photography website here, railroad specific website here, alternative railroad view here). I no longer recall why, but I was at the site for a particular image and I decided to poke around and see his other shots. I was impressed! What a series of excellent shots! Consider these samples from the 25 shots numbers 1126-1150 at this link, you may need to click to get to a previous or subsequent section of the sequence.

This shot is a wedgie zoom pan, nicely done, rich purple skies complementing the dark yellows further down. I like the blur in the sky, with the clouds particularly dynamic, and the train sort of zooms out of background. Nice action shot with interesting color.

Here we see a traveler of some sort crossing the tracks. I like how the light appears on both sides of the person, headlights on the right, headlight reflections on the left. The person's gaze is angled a bit some so one can see a bit of his face. Shallow depth of field and black/white treatment complete the work (and the bit of flare does not bother me). An interesting moment in the night time.

I love the idea behind this shot, as I see it, to emphasize the height of the bridge by capturing only part of the legs, and by showing an entire tree comfortably ensconced underneath. The train completes the scene, filling a bit of a hole in the middle, but for me it remains about the bridge and its context, which at this time just happens to include a train.

I am a big fan of town and train scenes, and this night version is a real beauty. The town is present as much in street and window lights as it is in buildings The train provides obvious interest (and its headlights create a nice code line pole silhouette, and reveal roadbed detail) but the structure is equally interesting. A small bar, open late, with one patron? What is that purple light shining out of its window? (The purple nicely contrasts with the overall mustard hue) A tree breaks up the horizon, itself silhouetted by an extra glow in the sky. (I might prefer cropping a bit off the right, but losing some lights in the background reduces the town feel.)

Of course, Travis can capture a traditional scene also, witness this bridge shot, framed in a classic manner with branches, and nicely capturing snow blowing off the bridge as the train passes.

Catching a snow plow snow blast at night had never occurred to me until I saw these two shots. Instead of the scene being too dark to catch the dynamism of the snow movement, it turns out that light sources shining through the snow from the back create a fascinating glow, and the lack of visible detail leads to greater abstraction. In the first show, the glow is great, the grabirons from the engine provide just enough presence (along with the ditch lights) to explain the scene, the car and structure (a sign?) establish the location, and the streaks of light along with the clumps of snow convey the energy and the motion.

The second shot tells its story through more complete abstraction. Capturing the snow being pushed over the grade crossing signal adds bold color; the crossbucks are barely visible above. The engine is essentially not visible, despite the bit of nose, and the white lights contrast with the red. The snow flies, there are few lines if any, everything has a soft feel. A real beauty of abstraction, a study of color and light.

Finally, a shot of the station at Red Wing, MN. A nice compositional choice to put the train in the background to feature the station more. Not ideal, in terms of edge distractions, and I think the placement of the light pole, but an interesting shot.

Now, I suspect that if one were to pick some other 25, one might not get quite the same number of special shots. So one might say I am cherry picking. But, in actuality I am not, I really did stumble into this set at random, and furthermore, while some other set of 25 consecutive shots loaded up by Travis might be a bit lower in quality on average, there will still be plenty of quality shots. Also, the shots I am featuring here do contain a strong share of night or approaching night shots, but other samples will feature other light conditions. Travis certainly has many excellent daytime shots, and I know him first for his "open spaces" shots from the west, including the PRB, with dramatic clouds. At any rate, Travis does outstanding work.

Telling the Story: Tension

2010-09-25T22:24:00.003-04:00

[This is a guest blog by Mike H. (RP images here, SmugMug here), taken with permission from a forum thread; I have added a few thoughts at the end. If anyone else wants to take a shot at writing down some thoughts, please let me know.]

The question is when is it OK to make the train the main focus and when is it ok to have more human interest? Well, I would suppose it depends on what sort of story you are trying to tell.

This one (by Ben Sutton, other shots here) fits together as a harmonious whole. The person is in shadow, and is obviously a supporting element. His gaze is directed at the train; so is ours. The train is well-lit, framed by the trees, and is therefore the main subject. This is a very soothing, peaceful photo to view.

In this one (also by Ben Sutton), there is tension between the person, the train, the magazine, the bright yellow fire hydrant, and the leading lines of the street with the many angular overpasses receding into the distance. We look at the train and the person, but the person's attention is not on the train or us, but the magazine, which itself is about trains. This isn't a "relaxing" composition, because the viewer is left wondering what is the "story". It is "strange". I like it anyway because of that tension and "strangeness".

Here, I was trying to show the train as part of the scenery. The kids and coaches are here to play football, not watch trains. The train noise nearly drowns out conversation, but the team ignores the intrusion. The focus is on the people; the train passes through, and the game goes on.

Not mine (by Andre Beverly, other shots here), but I love this shot. The girl stands mere feet away from the onrushing transit train, but is completely oblivious. We can imagine the noise and rush of air as the train enters the station, but she might as well be a statue. The viewer wants to look at the massive object in motion, but instead we are drawn to her handheld device. Who is she texting? What message is so important that she shuts out all her surroundings, including us?

What are you trying to say with your photos? Everything else should follow from that.

PS by Janusz: When I first viewed Ben's second shot above (which started the forum discussion) I felt it looked contrived and so I didn't really like it despite its obvious good qualities. Over time, however, I have come to like it more. Sure it is posed but there are lots of photographs that are and I am not interested so much in realism and the more I look the less it seems artificial. The shot is interesting, is well composed, and has nice color. I am not so negative on the cut off engine, although it would have been interesting to see what the shot looked like with more width. My only issue with the shot is the Railpace - it isn't obviously a train magazine but upon close inspection it is and it is a detail that doesn't really fit for me. (Well, add a second issue: not a fan of the contrast, I would adjust the midtones and shift the peak of the histogram left a bit, get rid of some of the HDR-ish feel.)

The shot definitely has a "story" in that it has tension in the composition, whether true to life or artificial does not matter to me if it fits together. One looks at the shot and wonders, just what is so interesting about that magazine that the train goes by unnoticed? A well-staged work, staged not so much for realism as for interest, and that it captures and rewards.

Blur and Abstraction

2010-09-21T22:06:00.002-04:00

Consider this image by Mitch Goldman, heavy on distortion/ blur (you will want to click through to see the blur at full size, it doesn't make sense in the thumbnail view). First, is it photography? Of course, but is it rail photography? It isn't representational photography, for the most part, and it doesn't really try to convey anything in particular about railroading. But as an abstract, and one that abstracts not through cropping or careful composition but through what I will call an artistic effect, it might have merit.

Thus, one might consider this image more in the realm of certain types of painting than in photography. Of course, photography has always pursued such types of abstractions, but in doing so, is this image still a rail image? Is it an interesting abstraction of railroading and of a particular event, or is the abstraction disconnected from the subject, call it a random interpretation?

My first impression of this shot was rather positive. Heat distortion is always attractive, and by presenting overall blur with sufficient definition of subject this image offered a consideration of what is the essence of a rail setting. But ultimately the image shrunk on me (or whatever the antonym of "grew" is). For one, I found the elements unnecessarily muddled. The endless blurred posts are heavy handed. They are bright and take the eye away from

the more important parts of the image. It isn't so evident what they support (signal bridge? pedestrian overpass?), in that the top is cropped too tight for my tastes, I want to see a clear bar across and not something merged into the upper margin. The bright rectangles behind the posts on the left are bad in this regard also.

The image does have an interesting deliniation between top and bottom, the top having all the verticals and the bottom having diagonals, with the action at the line - nicely done! But the bottom is rather dull, especially in color, all brown, and the ballast lacks in interesting contrast, it is a muddle. Perhaps I just find it washed out and ugly.

The point of interest, the train and person, is problematic also. The pilot of the train looks weird, too tall, something going on under the coupler I don't understand, and there is this large black area behind the person that at first I thought might be a dog but then realized was the shadow of the train. And there is this weird orange-y area on the left, below the posts.

The issue for an abstraction, I conjecture, is whether the abstraction offers a good balance between taking one away from the object captured but also maintaining identification of what that object is or was. This image suffers from both, I think, odd as that seems. The individual elements are identifiable (especially to a railfan), catenary posts, many rails, engine, etc. There is a line between interpretation and blur, and this one falls into the blur zone, I think because there is sufficient detail remaining, and that detail is sufficiently distracting (posts! orange! rails!) to suppress whatever mood or pattern the abstraction would otherwise convey. And at the same time, perhaps because one expects certain things at trackside, the distraction gets confusing. What is that behind the posts on the left? What is that orange zone? Some details are abstracted (ok, blurred :) ) to the point they cannot be identified, but others are not, and this is a problem here.

Put differently, what is the subject? I find that abstract works often put a focus either on one important element, or they put the focus on no subject, instead being primarily works that consider pattern, or texture, or other dimension. Here, there is a clear subject, there is an interesting event, a trespass, with the train bearing down. But, the blur confuses rather than focuses, it takes away attention from the action but does not replace it with something else for the viewer's attention, merely distraction. The eye recognizes the event and one wants to know more (does the person have a face of fear or of distraction?). But there is no more here, it is eliminated and replaced with other stuff. The balance between identification and abstraction does not fit the subject.

So, I am no longer a fan of the image. But this is inappropriate as a full consideration of the image. The additional question is where do we/Mitch go from here? Can one do full-blur rail photography in an effective manner? I don't know, but here are some dimensions I would consider. First, what spot make for a good subject for a blur? The poles here are awful, in my view, unless they become a focal point. At least in this take they are too strong as a secondary element. How much detail at trackside is too much for this level of blur? Are there other magnitudes of blur that work better, and does that vary by location? I would look first to locations with less detail.

Second, what is the blur, the art, trying to do? Is the focus going to be on color? On patterns? What are the elements that remain after distortion/blur that capture a viewer's interest? I suspect those will have to do with interesting color variation along with a simpler division of the image area, simpler forms that hold up well to blurring.

Just some thoughts. (BTW, I presume I took this waaay more seriously than Mitch did. I just find it worth pondering.) I view this as an interesting first attempt. We will see if Mitch or anyone else pursues this and finds images of greater artistic merit. Nice try!

PS: I encourage you to read the comment from Mitch regarding what he intended, what he did, and why he likes the result.

Keith Burgess: Mood and Texture

2010-04-23T00:25:00.006-04:00

With the annual CRPA conference coming up this weekend, I've decided to resume this blog with an appreciation of the work of two-time CRPA contest winner Keith Burgess. His work can be found here and here. His CRPA winning shots are here (2007) and here (2009).

Keith has an extensive body of work so I could pick out all sorts of themes; I'm going with a few shots that combine aspects of texture and mood. Texture, taken literally, conveys a tactile impression visually: soft, rough, slippery. I view it as more than that, as a way to emphasize part of the character of location. Texture itself also contributes to mood, just as light does, so photographs that emphasize both dimensions are particularly powerful.

The first image brings out the dryness of the high desert with a large patch of close-up rock in the foreground and general high contrast due to the mid-day sun. The textures of the arching rock on the left and the distant rock wall add to the roughness of the image, contracting with the curve of the arch. Desolate yet beautiful!

In the second image the use of texture is more straight-forward and at the same time more unusual. The shimmer and granularity of the water contrasts with the diffuse, soft slopes and the smoke off the engines, giving a counterpoint to the presence of the train. Beautiful terrain but it doesn't look like a great time to be there, the mood is somber, yet with signs of life from train and sparkling water. By no means a striking image but worthy of contemplation.

The third image is a classic B/W with low light creating strong shadows on the ground, highlighting the dirt, stones, debris, and rails of the yard, contrasting with the diffuse shapes and tonal variations in the steam and the rigid geometry of the wall and doors on the right. The presence of the shovel mechanism conveys a sense of abandonment or waste, or at least better days, even though the facility looks to be active and well kept. I'm a fan of the emphasis through contrasts and shadows on the rough ground textures.

As usual the last image is my favorite of the set. The variety of textures! Snow blowing in the air, seen as distinct streaks of snow, and also as snow dust kicked up by the train; the ripples in the water; the fine lines of the tree branches; the ballast and ties. The backlight and the snow reduce the extent of color, and the yellow engine noses is soft rather than bright, subtle. The backlight also makes the blown snow streaks visible and creates a quiet mood.

These shots are not necessarily representative of Keith's work; none are strong in color or bold in composition. The effects are quieter but the photography is no less excellent. Well done; I'll have to revisit the collection some day, perhaps the night CPL shots or his other work.

Until then, consider what I have written as you contemplate this shot. It's like a homework assignment! :)

Upcoming Rail Photography Contests

2009-09-28T21:26:00.008-04:00

I was unaware that Railfan & Railroad magazine has a contest. Unfortunately entry deadline is extremely soon, last day of September or first day of October, something like that. $200 first prize; don't recall the theme, if any. Sorry for not having more info; I couldn't find any info online. Now I know to look for it next year.

Trains magazine also has a contest (link here, big file, 3.6MB), first prize is a Canon 50D! The theme: "Bridging the Gap." Deadline October 31; for details follow the link.

Finally, the Center for Rail Photography and Art is doing their annual contest again. This year's theme is "Beyond the Locomotive" with the added explanation that "This year’s theme challenges the photographer to understate (or even eliminate) the locomotive in the photograph and emphasize other aspects of the railroad environment." First prize is also a Canon 50D! Deadline December 31; modest entry fee of $10 for non-members of the Center. Link here.

Good luck, everyone!

PS: I forgot all about Day In North America, a competition/compilation where everyone submits their shots taken on one day; the selected shots appear in an issue of Railroads Illustrated. That day was October 3, 2009, so it is too late to make a plan, but if you took a nice shot that day, the information for submission can be found here.

"Great Railroad Photography"

2009-09-28T21:12:00.001-04:00

A new publication is coming out. It appears to be a magazine or an occasional publication in magazine form (it says "Premier Issue") but I can't tell the frequency. The initial issue has 8 essays by known names: Ande, Burgess, Crise, Flanary, Lawrence, Lothes, Scanlon, Zimmmerman. The webpage (link here) says 8 essays, 100 pages. It is being done by the people at Carstens and Railfan & Railroad magazine. Looking forward to it!

Tying it Together - Image vs. Viewer

2009-08-28T23:41:00.004-04:00

Early in the history of this blog it was suggested to me never to write about my own shots. Overall that is good advice, it is hard to be objective about one's own stuff, and frankly there is too much good stuff out there to write about instead. But sometimes one has a more intimate knowledge of one's own work, and sometimes one just has a point to make and so what, really, it's my blog. So I proceed ...

And besides, one point here will be that opinions vary and people approach shots from different places.

Consider this shot, what I call my "pumpkin" shot (captioned version here). One person whose opinion on rail photography I respect says they really like the shot. Another person whose opinion on rail photography I respect says the shot does not hold together. How can we reconcile these opposing viewpoints?

The shot is straightforward, a train in the background, some pumpkins in the foreground. The train is distant but conspicuous in location and motion and is obviosly the subject. So what ties the pumpkins to the train?

From one perspective, not much. There are no agricultural rows, say, that lead from one to the other. There is no apparent notion of the train serving the farm. Two objects, two worlds, arbitrarily brought together by the photographer. I see such shots from time to time, the photographer has stepped away from shooting the train to shooting the train in its environment, and the second object was present, and the photographer put them together. More to it than a simple wedgie but, really, it "does not hold together."

From another perspective, connections are prevalent. First, the frost on the ground can suggest late fall, and sure enough, a pumpkin suggests late fall. Second, while the compositional elements may not connect strongly, the shot has a pastel flavor throughout that joins, with various pinks throughout. The shot does not have a great deal of contrast, often a bad thing, but perhaps here it adds to a feel of softness, of lack of differentiation, of evenness. Third, the textures are harmonious - an expanse of gently frosted turf, and even the pumpkins nest into the plants, blend in, their forms becoming less distinct as they do in tonality as well. The train and foreground blend together and bond together, not in terms of compositional elements but in color and tonality and texture.

So the shot can be viewed in different ways. How it is viewed depends on what the viewer brings to the shot. Does he love fall, does he love the cripness of a frosty morning, and also the tranquility? If one misses the frost and the color then it is just a train here, some vegetables there.

Does she love agriculture, does she feel a bond to the land, to the farmland? There will be no flow between train and pumpkins, just two different spots on the image separated by dry weeds, unless one has an appreciation, a positive response of some sort, to the foliage. (I myself have a distinct negative reaction to an expanse of corn in particular that makes me less appreciative of the across-the-cornfield view seen in, say, shots from Ohio. They just have a boring foreground to me.)

Images come together, coalesce, in many ways. Commonly they do so in terms of composition, element A leads the eye to element B leads the eye to element C. Sometimes, however, the connections are through other dimensions, through common characteristics, repeated color, complimenatary tonality. Ultimately, however, that connection is made not only by the image but by the viewer, who sees with the eyes but draws connections and appreciates in the mind.

Two Interesting Sites

2009-07-29T00:40:00.002-04:00

I'm always looking for web sites with interesting images. Actually, I wish I could spend more time on that, and one goal of this site is to seek, find, and present the gems. Here are two gems I have run across.

Gallery of Steel: International Railway Art Exhibition is "where I capture and share the very best, most artistic, compelling, creative, moving, bold, original, unique, edgy, brilliant (in my opinion) railway-related photographs on Flickr." A person (persons?) after my own heart! A nice range of creativity, most notably in a sizable volume of HDR work, done not for realism but for expression. This is a Flickr-based moderated group of images. There is a regular page here but what is interesting and nicely done is the alternative black-background presentation linked to above. The regular page includes a brief statement of principles from which the above quote is taken.

Beyond the Wedge is less creative than Gallery of Steel in that it does not feature photography that deviates from representational photography to the same extremes. Which doesn't mean it is worse, or better, just different! One thing I notice (because my preferences favor them) is the many shots that involve capturing equipment and other details, plus broader perspectives, with severe and/or non-standard cropping. But that is just one part of a set of images with interesting variety. Also Flickr-based, also moderated.

Two website, recommended for you viewing pleasure! Always accessible through my links at lower right. I'll keep looking for more.

Steve Crise and Cut-off Elements

2009-07-19T23:07:00.002-04:00

A natural instinct for any photographer is to include the subject in the frame. This extends to supporting elements also. To many eyes something that is cut-ff is something that isn't right.

But it need not be so. Let's take a look at some shots by Steve Crise (webpage here, railroad stuff here). Yes, it is my second look at Steve's stuff, and there are LOTS of other photogs with great stuff, but the topic came to mind and it turned out he has some shots worth discussing. I go where my mind takes me! (And besides, as long as it has been since the last post, I really need to follow my thoughts while they are active and get some things written.)

Consider this signal shot (annotated version here). Why not include the entire signal? Well, for one, then the shot becomes a shot of a signal, an in-your-face signal to boot, with a background, rather than a scene with a signal in it. Cutting off the top serves to de-emphasize it somewhat in favor of the background (as does the corner placement of the signal head). The dueling sets of foreground and background lights are also in better balance.

Now, take a look at this shot featuring multiple cut-offs (annotated version here): crossing sign in the corner but also the boxcar, and signal post, at the bottom. The cut-off of the crossing sign is somewhat understandable, along the same lines as above: feature it more prominently and it becomes the story instead of contributing to the story. Here, keeping it in means that the shot has some depth rather than being essentially flat, and gives some context for the unusual signal.

But what of the cut-off undercarriage and trucks? Well, they are conventional but the don't need to be included. This shot is about a crossing, done with a signficant degree of abstraction, but hardly abstract. (I love semi-abstracts!) To the knowlegeable viewer, the undercarriage and trucks are inferred; we know they are present. In their place we have a stronger sense of color, a stronger focus on the details of the boxcar (excellent placement of the signal pole between black and yellow, by the way!) and more abstraction. Box car with verticals and horizontals (ribs in the door) in the lower half and curves and diagonals (in bracket, in signal face, in the fragment of the "X") up top. Here, the cut-off serves not so much to balance the image as it does to increase the degree of abstraction so that there is greater focus on the basic forms of lines and curves.

I can enhance the point by comparing with a more conventional shot at the very same location (annotated version here). In this shot the crossing sign is again cut off, to a lesser degree, but the other elements are not, other than the trailing end of the engine. So the look is more "conventional" in framing, much like the first shot, and has no abstraction. Rather, it is a "tight" look at a scene.

It isn't clear here why the cut-off was chosen, although one may surmise from the small distance between nose and left edge, the cutting-off of the back end of the engine (which does place the signal box in a good location close to the right edge), and the signal cut-off, which reduces the sky, that Steve simply wanted a cramped look, perhaps to increase the size of and attention to various details of the scene. Also, the sign is rather ugly, poorly lit (and thus oddly colored?). It doesn't work for me, so I'm not a fan of this one. But it isn't the fault of the cut-off sign.

Let's finish with another successful shot. This shot takes an ordinary (but attractive!) train and signal scene, one we have all shot a zillion times, and adds a second signal in the foreground (annotated version here). The signal head is trimmed just a bit on the side but the bottom half of the post is not shown.

So what does it add? Well, it adds a bit of framing and considerably extra depth. The two signal heads, blurred and focused, form a line with the nose of the train. The in-your-face signal - sure it is blurred but a sharp one would still be a red light in a black disk on a silver pole - tells a strong story as one associates the red with "stop" (never mind that the signal does not face the train). In this case I don't think the side cut-off matters so much, perhaps it mainly serves to place the pole against the edge rather than leaving a gap, while the bottom cut-off allows the signal's scale to be larger, a stronger presence. Many shots would be overpowered with such a close-in element but here the background, with both the scale of the mountains and the detail of the boarding crewman, holds its own.

These shots are examples of only some dimensions and styles of cut-off shots. I have seen lots of other varieties, but most seem to share the same motivation, to eliminate either extraneous detail, or extraneous lack of detail (as when cutting off part of a compositional element also eliminates a great deal of dead space) in order to focus the composition on what the photographer sees as important.

Variations on the Basic Pan

2009-02-17T21:55:00.001-05:00

I usually don't care for pans; to me they seem like roster shots with shallow DoF, just an engine and a blurred background, just a different kind of blur. Diesels especially, even with the implied motion there isn't much life in those sorts of shots. But I have seen pans that bring more to the table; here are a few. The key is that the background show some context or offer some contrast, some juxtaposition to the subject.

Mike Bjork's trolley shot above (captioned version here, RP shots here) does a bit of both. I like rain shots when they give the image a bit of shimmer and the wetness on the pavement does that here. The context is a busy intersection, and the contrast is in color, the right purple of the trolley versus the reds of the store lighting and the streaks of various other lights in other colors, a bit of yellow, a bit of green, a bit of white. Very nice (and not only because I am a big fan of rich color)!

Mitch Goldman, well known for his pans (and other great shots, RP shots here) has been developing his zoom pan technique recently. What I love about this one (captioned version here) is the context. It can be tricky to do an "electrified pan" because one can end up with just a mess of blurred wires and catenary structure. Mitch solves the problem here by doing a zoom pan at a station. By doing the nose-on shot he has room to include trackside elements; by shooting at a station he finds interesting elements to include, not just the shelter but the yellow warning stripe and the wooden paths for boarding on the inner track. He places the train further back, increasing the depth and thus adding to the sense of motion, not just a generic blur but an approaching speedster. Excellent!

For the final shot, let's go back to Mike Bjork. He recently shot what I will call a "wedgie pan" at Cascade Tunnel (captioned version here). The wedgie angle results in the pan only freezing part of the engine, but look at what one gets from that angle, a view going back down the train to the portal, adding context and interest. Given that the angled view means less panning is required, one gets less blurring of the background, which here means the trees retail reasonable definition. Add to that lots of snow and the semi-selective color that comes with shooting BNSF orange during darkening conditions and you end up with a super shot!

I am glad to see that people have found ways to liven up what to me is the rather staid if not dull basic pan shot.

Nick Suydam: Master of the Night

2009-02-06T22:42:00.001-05:00

I won't claim to have made a full study of all night-time rail photography work. I don't want to get into recent debates, or more serious ones, about what constitutes excellence in the night. All I want to do, really, is to point out that Nick Suydam's recent slide show, "A Late Night in the City: The Railroad Capital After Dark" is tremendous!

Consider the shot above. One of the hardest thinks I find to deal with is the "foreground obstruction." Put something in front of the viewer's face, and the viewer's eyes go there, generally to ill effect. Here it works, however, as the post serves to act as an internal frame, turning the scene into something of an asymmetric diptych, with the main scene on the left, a man and the train, and the secondary scene on the right. The man and the platform tie the pieces together as he is on the left side but about to walk onto the right, where the vanishing point for the various lines lies. The color is a surprisingly attractive yellow, with splashes of blue and red. One engine is seen from the side, the other nose-on. A really interesting combination of elements!

Here is an entirely different sort of shot. Moody, and telling a simple story, or perhaps not, perhaps it has more questions than answers. An engine, a backlit girl, and a round thing of some sort. Some fog, some beams of light, just a bit of track, the form of the engine invisible, with even the numberboards displayed only subtly. Very mysterious, where is the location, is it a pedestrian crossing, where is the girl going and what is she putting in her mouth, what is the mound in the foreground? A simple study, nice. (I'd like it a bit better if I knew what the round thing is.)

The next shot is a dusk shot. I won't claim that this is a great shot, maybe not even a good shot, but I find it interesting, mostly because of the compexity. It is a maze of geometric patterns and blocks of light. I like the way some of the cars have only single containers, exposing the ends of some of the containers to light, creating dark/light variation, with other bright blocks formed by the ribbed container side and the signal box. I like the way the signal bridge in the background is lit up but the foreground cantilever is dark. I like the way the verticals in the train (container sides, wells, container edges) go along with the verticals in the power line support structures. I like the way the yellows and pastels are accented with the red in the signals and the green reflecting off the sides of the train.

But does it fall on the busy, disorganized side of complexity? Maybe, but I am interested in how to capture complexity so I find it interesting to contemplate. Is there a lack of a recognizable composition? Maybe, although the solid rectangles among the complex mix of lines and the contrasting signals do provide some structure. Would I put it on my wall? Well, no.

Ok, then, let's now get to a shot I love. This shot is what pulled me in to this body of work, what led me to search it out to see what else was there. This shot has it all, forms, lines, mood, color, depth, motion. What a dramatic scene!

As always, I like to think about the nuts and bolts of the scene, but here that seems inadequate to the task. There is an internal frame of the train portrait, but it is itself composed a fascinating set of geometric elements and interesting color/texture patterns on the metal surfaces of what is customarily a forbidding place, the underside of a bridge/viaduct at night. And the bolts, both near and far, the shadows! Into that area the train is seemingly moving, but what an interesting angle! The distortions of the extreme wide lens and the fog cause the train to emerge as a monster, red eyed, and what is the nature of its lair with its glowing light underneath? A wondrous image, best thought of lyrically rather than analytically.

Consider the variation in compositions, in style, in abstraction versus documentation across the shots here, and in the all the shots in the slide show. Nick's work is not only fabulous but it shows his versatility and his artistry. An outstanding body of night photography. If you want to see more of Nick's stuff, go to his web page or to his Flickr site.

Running Gear

2009-01-27T21:43:00.004-05:00

I'm a fan of equipment detail shots, and one subject that always draws the attention of photographers is the running gear of a steam engine. But how to capture that scene? How to convey some combination of the grandeur (especially with very large drivers or cylinders), the power, the motion, the intricacies of the movement, in a still image?

In a sense this exercise reminds me of 12-bar blues. The limits of the form are narrow, yet the results span a wide realm. It is as if the constraints themselves inspire one to work harder to capture and present one's vision. With running gear shots the limits are not quite so narrow, but the possibilities are still endless despite the specificity of the subject. Here are some variations.

I'm a fan but not a huge fan of Nick d'Amato's shot (captioned version here). In looking at running gear I like the interplay between the curves of the drivers and the lines of the rods and so forth. In Nick's shot the curves are barely visible and the lines are primarily horizontal, with just the one short diagonal. The shot does not have a nice blend of geometric elements. Also, being a flat shot, a shot taken perpendicular to the subjext, it does not have a great deal of depth. What I do like are the textures on the metals, not to mention the wisps of steam here and there and the light coming through from the back at top center, not to mention the many bolts.

Keith Burgess goes for the angle and steam approach (captioned version here, website here), with the main rod and the steam telling the story. The presence of the steam is sort of a tradeoff; one loses the details of what is a magnificent beast but instead one gets a stronger sense of its life. The steam on the right also hides what would have been distracting complexity, putting the focus on two main rods and one wheel, although my curves-favoring eye is also drawn to the upper curve in the next driver forward. (I will admit to a bit of confusion as to why it is so high; I feel like I am misreading something in the mechanical arrangement.)

I'm afraid that this shot is also not fully successful to my eye, however. The upper left and upper center in particular is somewhat of a formless mash of elements, and the image does not have strong contrasts. The angled view offers depth in the presentation of the main rods, but the impression of depth is tempered by the steam to some extent. It is cool to see the detail in the layering of rod ends on a common pivot (journal?), but ultimately there are a lot of trees here but it is a bit weak on the forest. (I love lots of Keith's shots and will feature some down the road.)

Mitch Goldman goes for what I will call a "detail pan" (captioned version here) with interesting results. This one, unlike the others and unlike most running gear shots, shows the gear running! He's got the up/down on the rod and the circular motion of the drivers, excellent! There is a large expanse of open background flying by. For some reason, that does disturb me, I must say. I think I would prefer a bit more of the boiler to be visible to provide some more weight at the top of the picture. It is nice that the driver area is so open - and so well lit! - but there is a bit missing of what I can only call gravitas. Still a cool shot. I bet Mitch could take a running gear crop of any of a number of his pans and I would love it, but I only like this one.

Kelly Lynch's shot (captioned version here, website here) has some really interesting details. First, it has a particular, eccentric (a pun!) mix of focus and out of focus areas; Kelly used a lens baby to create the effect. The focus is on the pivot, an oddly-shaped piece of metal, but with the connections going to it and the contrasting angle formed by the line of the secondary rod and the U-shape in the right foreground, and the drivers in the backgrounds, with their spokes, there are lots of fascinating lines, curves, and shapes to feast on. All seen at a dynamic angle.

Second, the surfaces of the rods scream METAL! in their dull sheen, in their bronze/green/ gray colors, in the variations such as the varying thicknesses in the rods. The variations in the light, with stronger reflections on some surfaces than others, adds to the feel. This shot says machine in this added textural/visual dimension that to some extent Nick's shot also does but Keith's and Mitch's do not. (It occurs to me that the other shots do not have as much tonal variation as I would like to see in BW/monochrome images, with Nick's shot being perhaps an exception, whereas this shot has both color and tonality.)

Finally, the spray of water adds an interesting contrast in detail and in texture, and implies some motion and a story element as well. A fine, fine mix of characteristics resulting in a strong composition.

Boy, this has been an unusually grumpy thread for me! Some might say picky. I like these shots, and I especially like Kelly's shot, but I think I will just continue to seek what I will find to be the perfect running gear shot. Something with a stronger sense of drivers, of big wheels, yet preserving the other dimensions. Perhaps these photographers have already found their perfect shots. Nice work.

Simple Geometric

2009-01-14T18:25:00.005-05:00

I haven't posted in a while, but in advance of doing a major post I want to do an appreciation of an image, this one by Nick Suydam (link to captioned flickr version here, website here).

Everyone has their own preferences in what a nice image should look like, and this one pushes several of my buttons. First, the simple but strong geometry, with the arc of the gently curved rails as the dominant element and the straight of the road as the contrasting one, with of course the block of the train. Second is the color, the strong primary blue and red of the train for sure, and of course contrasted against the white snow they look great! But I like the detail colors too, the yellow of the bollard posts in front of the building, the green dot of the ground signal, the crimson of the car. Beyond that the setting is nice, snow is always great, especially fresh enough to cover some cars. The tight dimensions are interesting too, the tracks close to the building up to and also to the corner intruding lower right.

It's not a perfect shot; it seems top-heavy - yet I wouldn't want to cut anything off the bottom, and not really anything off the top either. But I like it, it provides great pleasure, it is up my alley, it is worthy of revisiting. It also teaches me another nugget about seeing images and seeing through my camera. Well done!

"100 Greatest Railroad Photos" Part III (Edited)

2008-12-31T22:28:00.001-05:00

This post continues the one immediately below, discussing the images in the Trains magazine publication "100 Greatest Railroad Photos."

The final section of the publication, "Environment," features not just scenic shots but also shots that show the railroad in its environment. Some or many of the compositions have much in common with what one might call the standard rail scenic shot, done well.

The Jilson numberboard closeup (page 92) depicts cold weather railroading nicely; I like the streaks of moving snow in the headlight beam. The Acton glint shot is nice but to my eye standard. The unusual frosty look in the Holmes WP shot makes up for it being a standard wedgie, and does not distract from the Stan Kistler under-the-cars view, which is creative and has nice BW contrasts, taking advantage of an extremely sharp (and temporary) curve.

On page 98 Philip Weibler's Chicago commuter scene, in the single train, the many tracks, the snow, the soft focus, reminds me of a classic photography scene from maybe a century ago by a big name photographer whose name I cannot recall. So I will insert that information down the road when it finally comes back to me. [EDIT: It came to me! It's the shot shown here, by Alfred Steiglitz, called "New York Central Yard" from the 1900s. Is it similar? Well, maybe, maybe not, but one made me think of the other. Link to a captioned version here.]

I don't happen to find the Tehachapi shot "magical" in part because I have seen versions of that shot a number of times, and in part because streaks of light winding around make it a fine technical work but not particularly artistic. The shot doesn't move me. The Hellman steel mill shot, page 104, is a well-done view of the inner workings. Scott Lothes' Hawks Nest shot is extremely well done, with the dawn sky reflecting in the river and the patches of ice on the water providing added texture.

I'm not a fan of the Rasmussen caboose loop shot; it seems out of balance. It documents the loop well but that is all. The other shots do little for me, and the closing Solomon sunset shot is too simplistic a composition to catch my eye despite the beautiful colors.

Can you tell I am not moved by this set of shots? What is lacking? The main thing is that the compositions are not interesting - there is a low weight on artistry as compared to documentation, especially a problem for the section of the collection where documentation is least important. Although there are relevant documentation shots, such as the Charles Brewster shot of a train going up Saluda (page 107). So the issue is really that I am expecting to see more on the artistic side, whether classic landscape or otherwise, and I am not seeing it. (Toward that end, where is the fantastic taconite yard shot by Dave Schauer with the steam rising off the cars and spreading over the yard? Unbelievable that one is not considered one of the top 100 appearing in Trains!) As a secondary matter, I don't see much in the way of vivid color (which I will admit a bias towards) or interesting light.

I'll do a summary in a fourth post.

"100 Greatest Railroad Photos" Part II

2008-12-11T00:10:00.002-05:00

This post continues the one immediately below, discussing the images in the Trains magazine publication "100 Greatest Railroad Photos."

The third section of the publication, "Locomotives," is for me the most disappointing section, as I only found two images there of real interest. Frank Barry's Big Boy shot on page 51 interests me because in a way it is a high-key shot, with dark engine against white ground, sky, and even signals, although the up from the ground angle does leave it imbalanced, bottom heavy. The Steinheimer shot on page 54, on the other hand, is all a shot should be, black water crane against the main light source, light gray engine, dark gray sky, almost white steam, a fabulous series of contrasts with an interesting composition to boot. A beauty!

The remaining shots in this section are either documentary (nice N&W Y6's! The RGS shot is interesting for the brakeman riding the pilot) or wedges and other common views. Some of the material is topically quite interesting (a special kudo for including the Mingo Junction Alco's - I visited there at around that time as a teenager!) but not visually so.

The People section is of mixed interest. A straight person-doing-the-job shot doesn't generally interest me (two operator shots, an engineer shot, some track workers, a magazine-reading smoker in a station) and few of the shots represent compelling portraiture or action. There is little art in many of the shots here, in my view.

A few shots do catch my eye, the first being the Plowden shot of the coal pouring into a tender (and I'm not even a Plowden fan, really).The overhead shot of the Grand Central concourse is a nice abstract. Also, for some reason I am taken by the signal maintainer with the blurred train, which conveys some of the effort of making a RR go. It is documentary; I don't think it evokes any feelings of hardship or cold or something else, but I do like it.

Starting on page 85 it gets more interesting. I like the overhead shot of the track worker; it has simple lines and a nice contrast between color and bland. Furthermore, it reminds me of a favorite person/abstract shot, this one by MJ Scanlon (link only; I will try to get permission to do an embedded image soon).

The really interesting shot is on the next page, a brakeman gazing out upon the land. He has an alert look, not smiling but somehow appears to be pleased to be where he is, doing what he is doing (but is my opinion swayed by having read the caption?). The light on his face and the shade on the side is perfect and the curve of the train and the light on the land emphasize the open spaces feel. Nice portraiture, it offers a story.

The next shot is also nice, a platform action shot that is nicely framed internally and has excellent depth and movement, and the turned head of the lady is well-timed. Turning the page, the office shot is a nice view of the trappings of power: inner office, outer office, cigar (?), huge desk. Page 89 has a nice shot of traveling children, one asleep, one casually draping his arm.

I'm generally not a fan of the kid-looking-at-the-train shot, too much a cliche, but the presence and low position of the child on page 90 wonderfully highlights the size of the enormous drivers.

In the final part of what turns out to be a trilogy of posts, I will review the Environment section and then write a few things about photography then and now.

"100 Greatest Railroad Photos"

2008-12-08T20:40:00.007-05:00

It seems appropriate to say a few things about the Trains magazine special issue "100 Greatest Railroad Photos." By nature I get irritated by hype of all sorts, and while Trains has been an important venue in the hobby, it is of course ridiculous to choose the top 100 but restrict the selection to those shots. I'll try to let that go. :)

My tastes in shots differ significantly, however, as does my definition of greatest. I am not particularly interested in historical impact, for example. So, while I respect the work of Lucius Beebe and the efforts earlier in RR photography history to orient the hobby away from roster shots, today I look at the shot on page 4 and I see a boring steam wedgie. Just think of how far we've come since then!

Many of the shots are not especially artistic but rather document the industry. They are good photographs, and as documentation of a changing industry is central to the photographic efforts of many, some will consider them great photographs, but they don't interest me here. One such example is the GP-30 shot on page 69. I love the GP-30 but this shot doesn't move me; the framing is conventional, the detail sparse due to darkness, and the worker not particularly engaged in the scene. Another example is the shot spread across pages 70-71 of the M&IR articulated. It is framed competently and having the train on bridge over another track is of some interest but ultimately this is a roster shot of an elevated engine and, while a grand engine it is!, the shot doesn't do much for me as a photograph. No matter, others will enjoy those more and some of my favorites less.

So, the intro is done; what shots are particularly compelling, at least to this observer's eye? I start on page 10 with John Gruber's backlit steamer with the dazzling white fringe on the darkplume and the backlit engine framed in white steam. So nice! (For those of you equally taken by the night Morant's curve shot on the previous page, I simply don't much care for light streak shots, although here the moonlighting, to coin a meaning, is really interesting.)

The spread on pages 18-19 of the Mojave at dusk is really nice, great textures, different shadings of the dominant color, and the trains spread out everywhere, with a lumpy hill in the middleground adding visual contrast. Beautiful, Mark Hemphill! The Greg McDonnell plow and tree across pages 22 and 23 is nice but a bit dark and a bit too formless on the right side to be really compelling, despite the action; I prefer the Lew Ableidinger shots I features a few months ago.

Moving from the "Action" section to the "Icons" section, the issue leads with the tremendous Steinheimer shot (page 28) of the hand and stopwatch. What a hand! What an interesting hand, what work it has done! Page 32 has a fascinating view of the observation car on the 20th Century Limited, by Don Wood, with much to think about in terms of lifestyle and travel. Wonderfully framed.

The page 34-35 spread pacing a warbonnet is very nice; the background holds enough detail to convey context, and catching the engineer looking back at his train adds a nice reverse touch to the dominant left to right movement. By Linn Westcott.

The "under the car" shot by J. Parker Lamb on page 39 is very nice; the engine, the boy on the bicycle, the repeated framework under the roof, but I am turned off by the proximity of the camera to the nearby rail and the unusual appearance of that rail, sunk a bit below ground level or below the level of some sort of surface with a rough edge. The bottom foreground just takes too much attention. (There is a later "under the cars" shot which is really great.)

The final shot here that really captures my attention is the winter depot shot by Mel Patrick, pages 42-43. Foreground passengers in silhouette, middleground passengers and conductor lit, great textures in the stonework, steam coming off the train from the heating system. It is interesting that the people are disengaged from the train, despite some carrying suitcases. Where are they coming from, and going to?

I've only reviewed two out of five sections! I'll blog about the rest soon, and go back and write about how these images relate to those I view today, and some reactions to those images that don't meet my personal "greatest" standard.

My comments continue in Part II.

[Sorry for not having blogged for a while. Big push at work. I'll try to do better. J]

Backlit + Background

2008-10-09T00:18:00.002-04:00

Sometimes I notice an image, find it interesting, and then I notice other images in the same style or with the same theme. One such occasion was when I was viewing the 2008 winners of the CRPA contest. I realized the tremendous power of backlit photography with strong/detailed backgrounds.

We all have seen lots and lots of images where the train is strongly backlit or in silhouette. Generally, these images contrast a dramatic dawn/dusk sky with lots of great color against the black of the train. Compositionally they are often somewhat simple: a wedge of a train against a simple background, sky with maybe a treeline or distant mountain ridge, with some interesting clouds.

What has caught my interest is the possibility for a different sort of background, one that is more of a secondary element or even co-main subject, to support the subject. Thus, the subject, being backlit/silhouetted, may have some detail or only provide a shape, but the background provides a secondary element which contrasts not only in light but in having interesting detail.

Consider the shot above by Peter Lerro (captioned version here). It is a classic backlit image. But look at the background, what an interesting hillside! Not only the several structures, but also the line of the valley and the splash of light on the field between the engine and barn. The barn complements the train and itself is a combination of darker and lighter elements. The background livens things up. (As does the presence of detail on the visible dark side of the train.) The shot does not tend toward the abstract nearly as much as silhouette shots do.

I like the shot - very much - but it only pushes part of the way toward the sort of image I am thinking of. So consider this shot by Travis Dewitz (captioned version here). The background is strong with the grain elevator (but gets a bit muddled with what Travis calls a "utility mess"). But the train is small and is not backlit but rather sidelit, and thus does not have the dramatic separation from the background that attracts me to these types of shots (and I find the presence of the shack at the right too strong and also uninteresting).

What I love is this shot, part of the gold medal-winning portfolio submitted by Olaf Haensch for the 2008 CRPA competition. The engine is in full silhouette but has interesting edge detail. The background is well lit for a night shot and has impressive texture and details and just a touch of color. Putting a steaming train in front of it in a daylight shot would be just fine but the contrast offered by the dark train (and dark sky) makes the building leap out. The contrast also increases the sense of depth, as I suspect that a daylight shot would not have the same strong feel of separation between the train in front and the building behind.

Great details pervade the scene: the (lancet?) arches of the windows and doors, the two tones in the plume, the puddle reflections. But those are specifics, combining into an overall effect which conveys a strong sense of fine beauty, of the angel in the details. Click on it, take a look at a larger version, very well done!

Chris Crook: Complexity

2008-10-06T00:20:00.005-04:00

Lately I've been doing a lot of blogging on black/white pictures. That is sort of odd as I love color, but life is random sometimes, bad teams have winning streaks, and here we are. So I wanted to inject a bit of color (besides the terrific Troy Paiva shots a few posts previously) and this one (by Chris Crook) caught my eye. But wouldn't you know it, it has only a bit of color.

I like it nonetheless. We all have our biases and I have a soft spot for shots that emphasize complexity. [One of my goals is to take the definitive freight yard hub-bub shot!] This shot has all sort of industrial grid patterns, steam, lights, and tucked away in the middle just a bit of a splash of blue, and a switcher to boot! And it is at Mingo, my visit to which I still fondly remember, with my father reading the paper in the car while I wandered about, too young to drive there myself.

I'm not saying it is a great shot, but it is an interesting shot and I'll tuck it away, with its strengths and weaknesses (the composition is not that strong, I think, despite the grids) and ponder it as I search for that special shot of my own.

PS: Every so often I'm going to show an image that attracts my attention for idiosyncratic reasons, and present it without much text or justification, as here. Just another type of pix-musing to pop out into the world. :)

O. Winston Link: The Presence of the Train

2008-10-02T00:02:00.004-04:00

In reexamining some of the iconic images of O. Winston Link, I am struck by a particular issue of rail photo composition that has been interesting me for some time, the relationship between the train and the rest of the image. Is there a relationship at all, are they connected in the composition?

Consider the first image of people playing in a river as a train roars by. Well, that is just it; the train roars by but the people do not notice. That is OK to my senses; the river connects the people and the bridge with the train passing over it. To some extent the scene holds together.

But what of the second scene, also of swimmers? In this case the swimming/ people part of the image occupies its own, fenced space, and the train is outside of it. More than just outside, separated by the fence and some foliage, and no one gives it any heed. Two parts of the scene stuck together, as if by happenstance. The train is not "of" the swimming scene, it is an appendage.

An exagger- ation? Well, how about the third scene, the famous drive-in photo? A cluster of cars watching a movie with an airplane. The train passing - does its chuffing drown out the sound inside the cars? Does anyone notice it go by? At least compositionally its lengthy plume helps bring added attention to it, pulling the eye away from the plane (or away from the engine?).

The fourth image, the gas station shot, I find the most striking of all. Look at the action in the shot! The train is huge, so huge that the shot cannot contain it, showing neither the nose nor the cab, much less the tender or train. And it seems to be feet away from the remainder of the scene. And yet, no one notices it go by. How extraordinary!

The attendant and the couple are both focused (intently?) on the delivery of gasoline to the car. Perhaps this is a greatly foreshadowed metaphor for how our society today perceived cars and trains, the former a vital force to be kept fueled, the latter easily ignored despite its great presence? A massive stretch, and I don't believe that is the intent; too early in history for that, I think, and Link was not know for that sort of social commentary. But the presence, or shall I say absence, of the train in the story of the image is, well, astounding!

The last image is a different sort of discon- nection, one of minor presence. The scene is the interior of a hardware store, and it just happens that there is a sizable steam engine outside the window, so large we can only see the number and parts of two drivers. It is literally outside the scene, peeking in, but actually it isn't, it is merely stopped outside, minding its own business, with no apparent connection to or interest in the people and goods inside. What is the connection between train and scene?

These images seem to combine train and scene by happenstance. With the exception of the first, there are no obvious reasons why a train should be present in any of the scenes, not by geography or transportation need. Their presence is accidental, or perhaps coincidental; they are in the scene but not so much a part of it.

Of course, many or most of Link's images are not composed in this way. But I was struck by the parallels here, particularly noticeable to me because several of these images I think of as being the "most iconic" of his work. The question of connection between train and environment is one I intend to return to with reference to contemporary images.

[NOTE: I have tried twice to reach the copyright holder, Link's son, to receive permission to use these images here. On the basis of those efforts and my reading of the doctrine of fair use (in particular the "for purposes such as criticism, comment" phrase, combined with the non-profit nature of this site) I conclude that my use of these images is lawful and appropriate.]

Composition: Brake Wheel

2008-09-26T23:04:00.004-04:00

Consider this nice brake wheel image (captioned version here). It has some appealing character- istics. A nice contrast between the round brakewheel, with the rounded shapes inside the rim and the angular running board with its shadow in repeating diagonals, and underlying that the horizontals of the ribbing on the boxcar. Interesting textures, including both the wheel and the wall of the car. A very nice shot (by Bill Grenchik.

By contrast, the next image (captioned version here) has, in my view, a stronger composition, more interesting and more dynamic. Why do I like Nick DAmato's shot more?

First, Bill's shot is taken from a face-on angle, which I find inherently less interesting than an off-center angle. An off-center angle introduces depth and diagonals, which often add life to an image. Having a third dimension is important in bringing life to what is, after all, a two dimensional image. Depth is important.

Here, the depth comes from two sources. Obviously, the angular view puts the far side of the car end further away from the viewer. More subtly, the brake wheel casts a shadow which necessarily falls behind the wheel and thus generates a perception of depth, creating an implicit sense of in front/behind, although in actuality the shadow may be no further away from the viewer.

Second, Nick's shot has lots of diagonals, the obvious one being the top of the hopper running from upper right to middle left. But the brake wheel and its shadow form a second, implied diagonal from upper left to lower right. The diagonals form an X which, along with the depth, add to the dynamism, which the horizontal composition of Bill's, with the wheel on the left and the running board and shadow on the right, lacks.

Also, I'm not personally a fan of the somewhat 'up' angle in Bill's shot. I find it off-putting - insufficient to create a strong dynamic, yet not quite right as a flatter scene. All in or all out for me, I guess.

Of course, there are lots of things to like in Bill's shot and there are a number of things I prefer, starting with the textures. Also, the sky separates better from the car because the car is dark, and I'm not a fan of how the wheel shadow is cut off in Nick's shot. Both have something to offer, and for that matter opinions will vary and some will like the first one more.

Shaughnessy: Another Review

2008-09-23T20:23:00.000-04:00

A month ago I posted a link to a review of the upcoming Jim Shaughnessy book by Alex Craghead. I have since come across another review of the book, by Otto Vondrak. His review is also lengthy, shows several images from the book, and even makes reference to rock and roll. Read up!

Troy Paiva: Color

2008-09-20T00:14:00.012-04:00

One of my goals for this blog has been to find and present interesting rail photography that pushes the limits of the genre, in particular in the more-artistic, less-representational direction. One interesting example is this set of shots by Troy Paiva. These shots are all taken at night using gelled strobes and flashlights to create the coloring; details of the technique are here. (Thanks, Troy, for the correction.)

The first shot, above (original here), uses a strong red color to bring the inside of the switcher cab alive in a way that capturing standard interior light simply can not. The contrast of variants on the primary blue and red colors along with the rather bright levels of light on both inside and outside surfaces make this shot almost playful; a simple geometric study, happy.

The second shot, at right (original here), uses color differently, the green and blue being more complementary in tone, in a way, and the scene peaceful. And yet the colors take a rather drab peace of equipment, a rustic relic, and give it some life. The composition is enlivened by a wide white stripe that intersects with the lines in the car, and a well-placed puddle of water.

The third shot (original here) is a bit of a muddle, yet I find it interesting. While the right side is bold and clean, colorized cab, number, and (air?) tank, the left side has a jumble of hardware without strong definition. Note the light touch of added color on the domes at the top. I find the shot a bit out of balance, but the applications of color have a certain presence. Not a favorite, but interesting to look at.

I find the last shot (original here) fascinating! It appears to be a pile of taken-down signals, both crossing and line. The foreground has an upside down "STOP ON RED SIGNAL" sign (overturned sign, overturned equipment, overturned world) with red highlights, echoed in subtler red applied to a line pole in the background. The signals themselves either glow from moonlight or are lit/processed artificially and have a touch of blue tint. Their horizontal lines oppose the vertical of the pole and the square of the sign. The pole stands out against a plain background while the sign gives definition to the muddle of pieces below. It's a beautiful rendition of discarded material!

A bonus: Troy has some excellent shots from his night visit to the S.S. Independence, a decommissioned "ghost ship." While many of these shots (also found here) make use of the coloring approach seen in the shots here, a number of excellent ones do not. A stunning set of shots! I must say, more interesting than the train images. Other shots are here and here . I have yet to go through his entire website but I bet there is much more to savor.

Lew Ableidinger and the Open Spaces

2008-09-06T21:52:00.000-04:00

Lew Ableidinger works primarily in black and white. In going through his images, I immediately took an interest in several shots from the Woodworth, ND area. I love the ways these shots convey open spaces through composition and texture.

In the first shot, "Road to Nowhere," note the unusual angle of the train. It's barely in the frame and it is already up and out of here, heading over the small hill (an effect enhanced by the road which is also going up and out). This shot does not have en expanse retreating into the distance, and for that matter the train doesn't appear small relative to its surroundings. And yet, the unusual angle, the train sitting on some sort of a ridge, the balance with the road and the tree give this somewhat odd view great appeal. It perhaps does not fit with the rest of the shots here as the "open spaces" feel is weaker and there are more elements in the frame (including the grassy textures). But I enjoy the way the subject is the road, enhanced by the tree/bush and the fencing, and one is in effect driving up to meet the train and both will subsequently make their own explorations on the other side of the ridge.

I will treat the next two shots, "The Open Country" and "Life in the Vast Lane," involving the same crossing and tree, as a pair. They are simple compositions, a train, a road, a tree (or two), and the endless plains.

The first shot of the pair is a classic scene, a road leading up to a short train. The foreground tree provides depth in front of the train and the receding plains behind, and stands on the left, balancing the light source at the right background. The plains have just enough roll to them to provide a stronger sense of distance. The combination of snow and backlight make for excellent contrasts, both at the "macro" level in terms of the tree and train and at the "micro" level in terms of the grasses in the snow. It's a peaceful, interesting scene.

Sometimes a road takes the eye in a direction, but sometimes it frames. In the second shot of the pair, it forms a diagonal that "supports" the trees and train. The two trees create an internal framing for the train, helping to keep the eye from following the road to the right. In doing so, however, the road is left as a strong triangular element; too strong for me. To me it is a large dark object, dominating the smaller tree, the train, and what is visible of the open spaces. It detracts, without itself bringing sufficient interest in terms of its texture or otherwise (unlike the road in the opening shot of this post).

The final shot, "Trains and Plains," turns out to my eye, surprisingly, to be an abstract. Compositionally, it has three elements, two of which are the lines of the train and horizon and the block of the backlit engines. The third, subtle but to me rather striking, is a curve in the sky, a bowl shape formed by variations in the light and clouds.

Complementing these simple elements are restrained variations in light and texture. The fine granularity of the grasses poking through the snow fades into a formless sky with diffuse changes in light across the frame. The land has just enough roll to the land to convey a greater sense of depth. The light does not radiate but rather glows in an odd, foggy/hazy manner, with only a partial sense of the direction of light. The black, backlit power enters the frame from the left (presumably), proving a dominant element, but to me, participating in the scene as an equal party rather than being the focus of it.

I think of this shot as being conceptually equivalent to a pastel picture; just as pastels tend to have subdued colors, this image has subdued compositional elements and light, but the overall effect conveys an interesting glow and a strong, uplifting, almost spiritual sense or presence.

Recently I've been absorbing David Plowden's recent tome, which has a number of non-RR shots of this type. The present of a train makes Lew's shots more accessible to me, because they draw a contrast between the small train and the large space, a contrast enhanced by my knowledge that the train is actually large. And yet, the trains don't necessarily appear small in these pictures; it is not that the trains become smaller when faces with these expanses, but that the expanses appear timeless, permanent, as the train temporarily occupies part of the space.

Alex Craghead: Book Reviews

2008-08-23T23:22:00.002-04:00

Alexander Craghead is a self-described writer and photographer (whom I don't know). He has just written a detailed review of the upcoming book "The Call of Trains: Railroad Photographs by Jim Shaughnessy," due out in November but for which he received an advance review copy. I ran across his review in the Yahoo ObsCar group and found it fascinating, and his blog even more so, because he has also reviewed the David Plowden book "Vanishing Point: Fifty Years of Photography." (Several years ago he also reviewed "A Passion for Trains" by Richard Steinheimer; alas, only in a cursory manner.) He has also reviewed a number of other books on railroad subjects; here is his book review section and here is his personal web page (with a very interesting organization, analogous to sections and chapters of a book).

Shaughnessy is of course an important figure in railroad photography and I look forward to the book. But the review is worth examining in its own right, of course especially if one is considering buying the book (or putting it on one's holiday wish list, which I definitely am). He not only discusses some of the images in the book but also comments on the accompanying essay by Jeff Brouws and expands on that to discussing his own views of the (implicit) comparison to Steinheimer created by the mere existence of the book, in similar form and by the same editor/author as the Steinheimer volume. The review is detailed and rich.

His review of the Plowden book is equally valuable. He also gives significant attention to the included essay (by Steve Edwards) and also goes through the images, in even greater detail than in the Shaughnessy review. Having re-read the review with my copy of Plowden at hand, I can attest to the quality of the insights made. In turn, that makes me look forward even more to the Shaughnessy book.

One might quibble with some of Craghead's points. For example, in discussing Plowden he notes "the clinical inhumanity of a nuclear power plant" but later he says "We walk freely amongst barns and inside of feed mills. It seems that dust still hangs in the air, as if someone was just here, just working, but where have they gone? There is a profound solemnity, as if in church, and each successive image shows us less and tells us more." One wonders the extent the observation is driven by the actual differences between the images versus the personal perceptions of the nuclear power and agricultural industries. Having less of a romantic view of farming, I am less taken by the barn images, devoid of surrounding tools, animals, even footprints in the mud and thus quite dry (plates 213, 217, and 220 leave me unmoved) and categorize them more closely to a number of the images of industrial structures with a similar flavor.

Nonetheless I have learned much by reading Craghead's reviews. His mind operates differently than mine; I do not write phrases like "mixing a lyric style of photography with a documentary sensibility" or think thoughts like "beyond, there is no world, no ocean, no hills." By nature I don't read stories into pictures, or at least I leave them in my unconscious. By reading material like this, I can try.

In writing about the reviews and the reviewer, however, I should not overlook the reviewed! I have the Plowden and Steinheimer books and will purchase the Shaughnessy when it comes out. The first two are lengthy and beautifully printed compendiums, retrospectives of their work, and the Shaughnessy should be of the same editorial and production quality as the Steinheimer. I have contemplated blogging on some of the individual Steinheimer images and intend to inquire about the use of smaller versions of the images here; otherwise I might yet do it anyway without images, simply referring to the plate numbers.

Only a small portion of the Plowden book features RR images, however, 28 in the opening chapter plus a handful at the end; a few images elsewhere in the book have some RR content. I find them of less interest than those by Steinheimer, with the possible exception of plate 14 and 20 and perhaps 7 and 230. As a whole I find the images in the book more difficult to appreciate but am finding that the effort bears some fruit. Nonetheless, I don't favor Plowden's style overall, although a number of the images do move me or capture my attention.

[NOTE: I have not asked for permission to use the images from the dust jackets of the books. As those images are being used to sell those books, I presume there is no problem with my use of them here.]

Steve Crise: Shallow Depth of Field

2008-07-27T16:46:00.008-04:00

Steve Crise (website here; look not only in "railroads" but also in "Project 3751" and in "Urban Environments") has done some excellent work with extremely shallow depth of field. Here are some similar compositions, verticals with track as the foreground/in-focus element. In these shots the zone of focus is particularly narrow, encompassing only a few ties in shots with much more depth.

Let's start off with this frog shot, with intermodal cars in the background. Interesting shot, lots of details, muted yet colorful with browns and some reds and blues (compared to most people, I am more of a fan of rich browns). But I find the shot busy, cluttered; where is my eye supposed to go? The focal point is weak, due in large part to the frog being simply longer than the range in focus. Also, the background is rather busy and in some sense visually close to the frog, resulting in a lack of separation. Nice, but lets turn to shots that are really nice!

Really nice would be this track and signal shot. So much to see, two different signals, two different signal colors, pinkish hue in the sky which is picked up in the rails. I am a fan of what I think of as a triangle compo- sition, here formed by the two signals and the zone of the track in focus.

What I find interesting here is the choice to limit the focus to an arbitrary, nondescript section of track - no switchpoint, switchstand, spike, anything. I like the effect, I think because it equalizes the three points. The foreground, which could be a stronger element if more distinct, becomes equal in presence; the left signal is a strong element here. Overall, I love the peaceful flavor here, interrupted only by the knowledge that green over red means a train is coming. The shallow depth of field eliminates all minor elements that one might find in a scene, junk and weeds in the foreground, the signal boxes, details of the mountains, leaving a beautiful semi-abstraction.

The third image is powerful. The foreground is distinct, the spike, the complementary nearby fasteners. Balanced against this element is the train, strong and powerful yet not over- whelming, colorful (nice contrast against the overall coldness), with distinct form. The absence of focus reduces the nose to basic elements, three circles on a field of red (itself shrouded by clouds, with blue only above - cool!).

More than that, the shallow depth of field reduces the entire scene to basic elements, and the key here is that Steve has chosen the elements well, track and the train that runs on it. The blur gives added emphasis to the track, which to my eye results in excellent balance, just the right emphasis on the track, eliminating the natural instinct of any railfan to focus on the engine.

When I began to ponder this post, I was of the opinion that this engine/spike shot was by far my favorite. In pondering them more, I now realize that the signals shot is its equal if not more favored. The pastels are so nice, the lines (rail parallel to signal post) so strong, the essence of the scene so well conveyed. Sweet!

Steve, hope you don't mind, but I am going to copy this type of composition, if not the exact forms here, at the next opportunity! :)

Mechanics versus Artistry

2008-07-23T22:05:00.003-04:00

It has been noted that I take a somewhat mechanistic approach to an activity that is inherently spontaneous or inspired. Certainly true! I have a good bit of an engineer's mentality.

A correspondent recently wrote of my blog that "perhaps the process is one of trying to put into objective terms what was originally done very subjectively by the author." By this he meant that no photographer thinks in the terms I use in my commentary. (See also the comments made on my Subtle Color post.) This is undoubtedly mostly true, although I suspect some photographers to think about dimensions of composition in conscious or semi-conscious ways.

But what happens to spontaneity? One could argue, for example, that a rules-based (rule of thirds!) approach necessarily hinders one from achieving higher artistic qualities in one's work. Following rules stifles creativity, one might say. I suspect that, instead, the effect is in the other direction. Certainly the better we become at the technical aspects of photography, exposure and such, the better our images become and the more likely we are to achieve something beyond the mundane.

Surely this goes beyond the technical aspects to the creative ones, however! The more we know about, and internalize, aspects of composition like form, line, texture, etc., and the more we learn to see the aspects of light in a scene, the easier it is to release ourselves from the rules-based, nuts and bolts, mechanistic aspect of composition and see creatively, and thus achieve great results in our work. To internalize the objective in order to free the subjective.

But this blog is as much or more about appreciating shots already taken than about shooting. I find it helpful to think about these images in terms of principles of composition. "Debugging" these shots gives some insight into how they are put together. At the same time, I certainly realize that the best shots often have an extra quality that cannot be reduced into basic principles. Some shots "work" and some shots have innate beauty, and some of those qualities are beyond my language to express.

Any effect of these musings on the reader's practice of photography is, while welcome, incidental or at least secondary. Other than my hope that people are inspired by interesting images to try new ideas in their work.

As for my mechanistic approach in this blog, well, it's true! The principles of composition, as I have informally learned them, are the main "language" I have for expressing my thoughts. Over time here also I will be pursuing a non-mechanistic mode of expression, but it will be a while!

[The image is mine, one of the more creative shots I have taken. Captioned, B/W version here.]

Trains in the Distance

2008-07-12T15:37:00.001-04:00

In a recent post, I made the following statement: "The image is a train in its environment, not an environment with a train in it." By this I implicitly referred to a tension between the size of a train in a shot and its presence within the image. A train can be a small element within a shot and yet have a much larger presence, in fact, be a major focal point, as it is in the images in that post. The converse is not necessarily true, usually, as a train that occupies a sizable part of an image will necessarily tend to have presence. Nonetheless, size and presence need not be in proportion. Here I want to consider a set of images where the train is small but their presence differs from minuscule to significant.

Consider first this image by Justin Tognetti (captioned version here; more of his work here). The train is pretty small, but this is obviously a train shot, in fact, two trains appear. The scene is basic, terrain, water, sky. I just love the way the front of the more distant train is framed by cloud shadows, which also gives it a more distinct identity relative to the first. The terrain has lots of interesting textures and hues and the two trains have a bit of lower left / upper right positioning. Very nice!

But the train need not be such an obvious part of the image. This boat shot is by Gerald Oliveto (captioned version here; more of his work here). The light is nice and the color of the water is subtly gorgeous. But the train is difficult to find (and would be more difficult but for the precise framing of the power in front of a brighter spot of water). It's an interesting scene, but not particularly a railroad image, as the train is barely visible. (For my tastes, had the shot been a bit wider, so that the boat was less squeezed and more of the marina were present on the left, it may have had better balance.)

Both of those shots are landscape scenes. Instead, a shot can be more abstract. Here is one by Tom Mugnano (captioned version here; more of his work here). The train has a subtle presence here, but a bit stronger (and it is hard for me to judge since I know the location well and therefore the train is more obvious to me). What I find interesting is the layout of the town - all the blocks and buildings (and windows within them) give the shot a bit of an abstract feel. It reminds me of shots I have seen and taken, from a much lower angle, across an old European cities with a series of tile roofs. Lots of rectangles and such.

So, then, how does one consider this image, by Graham Williams (more of his work here)? This is the image that first compelled me to contemplate this subject. The scene lacks an obvious subject - there are a number of elements, (short) train, village, windmills, isolated farms, trees. One could say the scene is the scene, or that the scene is a pastiche of things, one of which happens to be a train. I happen to find this scene pretty, in a way, and interesting, in that my eye dances around the scene. At the same time, my eye doesn't stop much; perhaps I can exaggerate and call it an anti-composition because it lacks form. It's a jumble of elements with only tangential relationships to each other, in my view, but it all works for me. It's pleasant, it's interesting to look at. It's not a great shot, but it is a nice shot, and it's a bit off the beaten path of scenics, so it is inherently interesting.

Subtle Color

2008-07-06T20:23:00.001-04:00

My favorite dimension of photography is color. Yes, more than light, as much as we all love great light. Here are some shots whose use of color has particular appeal to me, even though in both cases its role is secondary.

First is a night scene by Michael Allen. One can photograph night scenes in many ways, such as the extensively-lit, colorful shots by Gary Knapp. Usually one must take a moderate approach, however. Michael's shot (captioned version here) was taken during a photo charter, using several light stands to light up the train but not the surrounding scene.

I love the rich yet understated hue of the caboose; one gets a strong sense of what it would look like during daytime, yet here it has a quiet presence. But in addition, there are splashes of green, in the marker lights and in the distance (a signal? on another caboose?). And the red of the caboose is repeated in the boxcar behind the tender. (I also like the hint of browns in the plume.) By no means is this a colorful shot, yet the colors make it rich and complete.

Next is an engine-shop shot by Brandon Smith (PBase site here, RP pix here). The light is muted, but the colors, while not vibrant, stand out (perhaps in part because they are primary colors, red, yellow, a bit of blue in the STOP signs). The yellow of the exhaust pipe is echoed in the yellow of the handrails and of the post on the left.

The composition (captioned version here) is interesting also, with the engine well off center and below. I think of the shot as two blocks, the big vertical rectangle formed by the engine staring in the lower left and taking up a good bit of the frame, and the smaller horizontal rectangle of the window above, slightly off center, and further weighted toward the right by the stronger pattern in the panes on the center and right compared to the left. The exhaust pipe ties it all together, and there is even a bit of steam.

In addition, there is a nice mix of textures, with the pattern in the bricks, the horizontal lines in the roll-up door, the smooth surface of the front of the engine, and the snow. All in all, sure I'd prefer stronger light, but still very nice work, so much else there to enjoy.

Finally, look at Mitch Goldman's shot (captioned version here). It's a better known shot than the other two, so normally I would not use it, but I just like it! and it's a shot I think of when I think of color. What makes this shot so nice is that strong colors are set in front of a black background, making them appear brighter and stronger. The dominant red of the cart is echoed in the PRR keystone on the nose of the GG-1. Softer reddish hues appear in the bricks, the lamps, and to some extent on the pilot of the GG-1. The splash of bright blue above the engine, the area of reflected light, and the yellow stripes give the left side a bit of color complexity to balance the strong presence of the red on the right.

Overall, the first two of these shots use color with some subtlety. They are not about color primarily, but color greatly contributes. The third shot has dominant color, but what is of interest to me is the color in other parts of the image that makes subtle contributions.

Extreme Positioning

2008-07-01T06:05:00.001-04:00

Photographers pursuing making images beyond simple snapshots tend to quickly run across the rule of thirds. But rules are made to be broken, as the cliche states, and sometimes a shot works well with the subject closer to or at the center. (For that matter the "rule" of thirds is only a guideline, after all.) What interests me here is the opposite, where one moves the subject of a shot, or at least one of the important elements, further away from the rule of thirds locations towards the boundaries of the image. Here are two images that do so quite successfully.

The first image is a mountain image by John West (captioned version here). And that is the point; in one sense it is a mountain image, against which the train measures up as a trivial presence. Of course, the primary subject is the train. In particular, it does not appear so small that it is difficult to observe and relate to, and for that matter the mountain is not so much a second element in the composition as the primary background and definer of scale. The image is a train in its environment, not an environment with a train in it. And yet, the mountain is huge; its peak is clearly well above the top of the image. Its height receives greater emphasis because of the placement of the train at the very bottom of the image, instead of, say, at a rule-of-thirds location.

Of course, there are other things to love about this shot, the falling snow, the splash of yellow in an otherwise field of muted colors.

The second shot, by contrast, is a flatland scene by Francois Iliovici, taken at Fagelsta in Sweden. This shot also reduces the scale of the train relative to that of nature, albeit in a different way. The shot has two elements, of course, train and moon. Francois could have easily placed the train at the lower rule of thirds location and the image would have been just fine. Instead, he places it further down, not on the margin but well down toward it. As a result he creates a greater sense of space, in the compositional meaning of the term as well as the astronomical! Thus, here, instead of a mere mountain, it is the cosmos itself that is being juxtaposed with the train.

Notice also the gradual transition, the gradient, in the sky color, from whitish blue at the bottom with hints of light red to a full sky blue at the top. Very nice! [BTW, the orientation of the scene is such that it appears not to be level, but it is.]

It comes to mind that this type of composition has something in common with the Cut The Corner compositions I discussed a few weeks ago. Both posts show examples of how photographers can successfully go beyond standard approaches.

This Website Will Continue!

2008-06-27T20:50:00.004-04:00

With a gap of three weeks between posts, some may have wondered if this was a flash in the pan. While I have had family and work (and therefore sleep!) obligations crop up, I want to say I have a number of ideas accumulated, a number of photographer permissions to use pictures received, and continued interest in pursuing this approach to my interest in rail photography. I expect going forward that I will continue to post at least every two weeks, with some waves of extra effort and, necessarily, the occasional hiccup, leading to the occasional gap in timing of new material. The effort is harder than I expected (individual posts are not put together in 10 minutes but take contemplation over time as well as writing and rewriting to bring ideas to final fruition).

Please continue to check back occasionally; I intend to continue to provide commentary worth your time. Toward that end, I now provide RSS links on the right hand side of this page.

Scott Lothes: Bridges

2008-06-27T20:12:00.010-04:00

Scott Lothes (website here; take a look at the image on his home page!!) has graciously offered to have me write about some of his shots. He sent me six and I have chosen these two for discussion. Neither is the best nor the worst (least good?) of the six, but both serve as exemplars of his style without additional complications. These are different shots of the same bridge, one Scott has been "working on" for some time.

My first observation is simply that his style here is different than I am accustomed to. I am used to looking at rail and non-rail landscapes that are somewhat dramatic, colorful (or broader tonality in B/W) and sharp.

These shots are interesting to me because they are just the opposite; the effects are subtle. Yes, they are silhouettes, but the light in them is neither colorful nor bright. The light is quite dull, both faded and subtle in shading. They approach B/W in feel, in emphasis on tonality, yet by retaining what appears to be natural color, they retain a presence in reality.

This is my bias; while I love good B/W work, my reaction to it has always involved an element of distancing from the subject, an abstraction. While viewing a B/W shot, I never feel as though I am standing trackside myself; rather, I absorb the image much as I would a painting. Thus, I view B/W work as a bridge, to some extent, between the realism inherent in photography and the abstraction in painting.

Back to these shots. I have mixed preferences here; I like some aspects of each shot. The first shot has more implied action, in the cloud bank moving in and in the lights on the distant shore under the bridge, a motion in time rather than space, towards nightfall or daybreak.

I also see the pattern of the wavelets in the water. I notice these wavelets in particular because I am a windsurfer (lapsed, I should say) and I have learned to see the wind coming/shifting through them. There is a zone, a triangle at the lower left, continued a bit somewhat higher, just in front of the left end of the bridge. [I'll make the probably obvious comment that we all bring our own experiences to bear when we look at an image.]

The shot has an interesting three-zone layout, sky at the top, then darker cloud with dark, then light water. At the same time, this is the major weakness of the shot, in my view. I find that the bridge and the train get just a bit lost in the darkness. My reaction would be less so were there not brighter areas elsewhere in the frame. Also, the bridge separate poorly from the darkness of the far short below the bridge, especially on the left side.

The second shot is simpler, a more pure silhouette, albeit one with more going on in the darker elements. The medium tone of the distant port, to the right of the bridge pier, is a nice second focal point. [Again, my experiential baggage, I love ports. Does your eye go to this area of the shot the way mine does?] The birds bring an element of life to the shot, always dynamic, that the first shot lacks.

However, it has less interesting color, sort of like a sepia in that there is one dominant hue, whereas the first shot has a bit of yellow/orange in the sky, a bit more reddish in the quieter water in the lower left corner, and some bluish in the clouds (the latter I think is actually not part of the actual hue, but my brain basically puts it there as a response to the entire image). The image is a bit hazy, in a way which seems to be part of the style but I personally don't find interesting. Again, I tend to like things to be more dramatic.

[It occurs to me that another dimension of this is that these images by Scott are not razor sharp; that does not bother me at all and I think that aspect intentionally contributes to the muted feel of the shots overall, but I know some will find it a distinct shortfall in image quality.]

The question of drama is a good point to end on. There are various levels of pizazz in images. These shots feature reduced tonal and color drama in favor of other elements. The amount of drama is one of many choices in our palette of style elements. Ultimately, I doubt I will become a fan of this style of shooting. But exposure to it, and seeing and contemplating what it does and what it conveys, helps in gaining a broader appreciation of photography.

By the way, take a look at Scott's website, which has a modest number of excellent shots, culled from a larger body of work as among his best. If your tastes run toward mine, you will find plenty of interest, with notable differences in styles. I would argue that many of those shots are "better" than the two here, but of course that reflects my preferences. I would love to write about the others down the road, and thanks to Scott's further permission, I will!

2009 CRPA Contest Theme

2008-06-08T20:40:00.002-04:00

The 2009 contest theme is "light impressions." I should take some time and mull over what this means, especially given that photography is all about capturing light. My initial thought (after having read the additional text in the announcement, link above) is that this means any sort of light except plain light. In other words, an image that has some combination of interesting pattern, texture, line, form, and color, but nothing interesting or noteworthy about the light, will not do well.

So, while light is an important element in photography, one can get excellent shots which emphasize other dimensions. For example, it is often suggested that outdoor portraiture can be done well when it is overcast, because then the light is soft and thus more flattering. I view "light impressions" as excluding shots for which light is not a predominant defining factor. My suspicion is that this excludes much mid-day rail photography - even during times of the year when "high sun" is not a factor - because, while the subject are well-lit, they are not necessarily lit in an interesting way. A well done sunny postcard-style landscape shot is a well done shot, but is not artistic in how it uses light.

However, the guidelines make explicit reference to "mid-day light"! How about that! As I shoot most of the time in such conditions, unfriendly to interesting light, I will be contemplating what one can do during that part of the day.

The included image may not be the ideal illustration for "light impressions" but it is at least interesting in that dimension, and I feel a bit lazy today and I want to get this out (blogging is hard, I am finding!), so I have simply grabbed an AB2 shot (captioned version here); thanks Andrew! I love everything about this shot (except, for some reason, the headlight beam grates on me, perhaps because it is off-color, bluish, compared to the rest of the shot). Note how the reflection of the light coming off the engine lights up the water and the stone, and see how the pinkish hue of the glint upper right is complemented by the pinkish glow of the limbs near the water lower left. Subtle details like that expand the image, adding to its complexity and the unity of its structure.

Cut the Corner

2008-06-07T12:56:00.012-04:00

When I spotted this shot by Walter Scriptunas (captioned version here), I was immediately reminded of a favorite Andrew Blaszczyk shot. In both shots the tracks cut off the lower right corner, running from the lower margin to the right margin. Why did this particular style of composition work for me?

Let's take a look at Walter's shot first. Shooting steam results in unique challenges. One, for me, is that having the plume come up out of the engine means that one tends to think vertically in composition, especially if the shot is nose on (or, here, tail on). If one goes horizontal, one has to use the considerable space on either side of the subject.

The best way to fill that space is with interesting environment. But Walter is in a stand of trees - what to do? First of all, he shoves the engine to the right. Since the plume hangs off the left side a bit, he is able to fill the middle of his shot, not only with the top of the plume, but with two well defined tree trunks that lead the eye upwards. And he has a nice bonus for the viewer, a water tank peeking out from near the right edge. So, while all of the hardware action, so to speak, is in the right and lower right, he uses the plume to spread things out.

Andrew's shot (captioned version here) is a beautiful town and train shot. I see a diagonal with the railroad world on the right and the town on the left. The houses face the railroad, both literally in the position of their porches and in how their horizontal lines, the rooflines, the pieces of siding, lead to the tracks. The railroad side, by contrast, is a series of near verticals - the tracks, the engines in a pleasing near-vertical diagonal. The engines are a helper set, so the train fits completely within the frame and the eye is not drawn to the edges of the frame. The snow on the ground and in the air gives a nice base for the BW treatment.

One can always quibble. In particular, I think Walter leaves too much space on his left margin, so not quite enough compositional oomph over there and a bit of imbalance. So I would have cropped more. But then, I would not have gotten this shot in the first place! But both shots are the sorts of shots I think about when I am out, or that come to mind when I am at home and realize some missed possibilities. Try putting the train in a corner and fill the frame with elements that complement it.

I really, really like Andrew's shot and so I may return to it in a different context.

2008 CRPA Awards

2008-06-07T06:25:00.002-04:00

Every year the Center for Rail Photography and Art has a photography contest. The most recent theme was "sense of place" (I will blog about that another time) and the winner was Olaf Haensch. See the winners here; I hope to talk about Olaf's shots when I get permission to show his shots here.

What Pans Out?

2008-05-26T22:13:00.006-04:00

Let's talk pans! What makes some of them better than others? IMHO! Let's take a look at some of Mitch Goldman's pans.

First of all, I'm not a big fan of many pans. A roster shot with a blurred background, that's all. A technical trick, but one that doesn't add too much compositionally. Why not?

Well, let's start with why we do pans - because they convey a sense of motion. Some of that motion is implied by the train itself, of course, presumed to be moving forward; the blur makes the movement more overt. Thus, it helps if the blurred background contributes to that. A blur of trees is neutral, to my eye, a jumble of shades, with the result not that much different than a roster shot; the focus is the engine and there is nothing else to look at. A blurred building, on the other hand, conveys a sense of a second object that the first object, the train, is moving past.

Steam is particularly good as a subject for pans, because the plume clearly indicates direction. In addition, the plume adds a secondary compositional element; a diesel pan can end up being a simple box in the middle of a blur background; boring. Also, that element is a pleasing diagonal up above the engine which makes for a nice contrast with the generally horizontal lines of the engine. Of course, one also captures driver rod blur for yet more dynamism, and often the shape is more interesting than a rectangle, with a smokestack on top and interesting exposed running gear.

Here is the link to 25 of Mitch's pans on RP. I'll talk about a few here. First up, geesh, what a shot (captioned version here)! Steam, of course. The plume has a nice blend of whites and grays, set against a blue sky. The snow means that the engine is surrounded by a light background (yet multicolored and thus more interesting: sky blue, snow white, weedy beige), making it stand out; the light sheen on the engine adds to that greatly, as does the excellent light overall. Extensive detail in the sharp detail (despite the 1/25 shutter speed!) makes it all the more compelling.

To illustrate the comparison, I will be a bit unfair and show one of Mitch's poorer pans. If I had one of my own to use, I would! Consider this picture (captioned version here). Put aside the somewhat "high sun" lighting for now. The background is a weakly-defined green blur. The plume goes straight up and out of the frame, eliminating the second compositional element. The wedge angle creates lines that are off horizontal, some slope, but not enough to make them stand out (or maybe I'm just jaded by having seen, and shot!, zillions of wedgies over the years). The wedge angle means the entire engine can't be in focus because of differences in movement relative to the film plane.

In Mitch's defense, he did shoot this back in 1999! He's come a long way.

As for compositional differences inherent to steam vs. diesel, take a look at Mitch's recent TC&W shot (captioned version here). It's a rectangle on a blurred background, a very simple composition. Don't get me wrong, there are lots of what I will call "plus factors" here: the semi-glint, the contrast between the side in light and the nose in shadow (a plus here as it breaks up the rectangle in terms of tonality). I really like the verticals of the dark tree trunks, which adds a pattern to the background. Compare the strength of the background's presence here with the previous shot, just blurred leaves. And, I just like the purple hue of the engine. It's a very nice diesel pan. But I think a well done steam shot is heads and shoulders over this one (for photographic reasons, and not because of any steam bias!).

Looks like there is much to be said about this topic. I'll revisit Mitch's pans another time, and find some others as well. Suggestions about other shots, particularly those with interesting backgrounds, welcome. Part II, down the road someday. :)

A Big Welcome to Everybody!

2008-05-21T20:23:00.003-04:00

Hello, everyone, welcome to my blog. This one is all about train pictures, why I like them, what I see in them. For details as to what I want to do, and my qualifications (if any), read the first entry, which is now way at the bottom. (Or click on "What this blog is all about" on the right.) But in general, I intend, in each post, to talk about one picture or a few using basic terms of photographic composition. No technique, no equipment stuff here.

So welcome, take a look around, if you like what you see, come back every few weeks. You can click on any image and see it full size (if there is a way to make those to open in new tabs, please tell me!). I'll try to post once per two weeks, hopefully weekly; I doubt I'll have time to do more. Send me hints, please, as to topics of interest to you, and especially links to good artistic photographers outside of the RP realm. And leave comments, lots of comments, especially any that forward the discussion of the image(s).

Welcome!

PS: You will see a number of posts below with various dates going back a few weeks. I have had this private for a bit as I did initial development and I am finally going public now. I don't see an easy way to change those dates. Doesn't matter.

More than a Wedge

2008-05-19T21:56:00.009-04:00

I'm not a big fan of wedgies, although of course I take zillions of them, just like most of us. Well, maybe fewer than I used to, but still, plenty. But sometimes that is what can be done, or sometimes doing something else is a lot of effort and one is constrained by time or company. So, can one max out the wedge?

Well, here's one example, by Mitch Goldman (captioned version here). Now, this one is not constrained; taken during a photo charter. But there wasn't much to work with, in terms of immediate scenery. So what does one do? Do a pan, as Mitch is wont to do? Tele-smash? Mitch went wide, not ultra-wide (17mm on a crop body), but wide. But what else did he get in the shot?

First, there is something about the way the wide angle enhances the angle of the pilot (and the far grabiron on the nose) that gives the shot a stronger dynamic feel than most shots. Of course, can't do that with a diesel (unless it's something like an EMD E)!

Furthermore, the sky is helpful. Not glorious, but it contributes, as the lines in the clouds, a gentle diagonal from the left edge, the near-vertical diagonal of the leading cloud edge coming down from the top, draw the eye to the engine. Some of the swirls near the top give a subtle framing to the plume. (Too subtle? So subtle that this comment is a real stretch, making something of what is really nothing?) The sky has an interesting presence, not at all strong, but not blank blue either. Furthermore, the relatively monotoned gray plume sets off beautifully against the white.

Up front, the whitish grasses help enhance the presence of the black engine. Finally, the linepole adding just enough to make it more of a scene than a roster (of course, the trailing cars also, but the pole does a lot). Call it an action-wedgie-portrait. :) Not an excellent shot, but a really likeable shot. It has grown on me. Mitch got out of it all that was there and a bit more.

Bye, Bye, Train

2008-05-17T19:52:00.008-04:00

Consider the end of train shot. Not shot nearly as often as head end shots (helper shots excepted), unless everyone is shooting them and keeping them to themselves. Generally speaking, it's harder to take a picture that tells a story. The front of a train has an inherent dynamic, a story, its motion or pending movement. The tail end, especially now that cabooses are not in general use, just does not, or its dynamic is muted. How can one make the story?

Well, here's a gem by Brian Plant, my favorite EOT shot. What makes this shot work? First of all, the low angle. The strong element of the track in the close foreground stretches the picture, from just in front of the photographer to the distant mountains. The train adds to this feeling of depth, especially since one is looking at the tail end; the eye has a stronger desire to go to the "back" of the picture to find the power. Were the train coming toward the camera, one would take a much weaker interest in the far end. The shot is so "big" in terms of space that one is surprised to see that it was taken with a 100mm lens!

The BW is nice, first of all because it is well done, but furthermore because removing the color places greater emphasis on the elements of the composition. It's not a pretty, colorful scenic with a dynamic composition, it is a dynamic composition. At the same time, it conveys a full sense of "wide open spaces" and of the desert but through light and tonal contrast instead of color.

Now consider a different shot, one from my personal collection. The concept is simple, common to many shots: have a strong foreground element and something of interest in the background, creating an emphasis on the distance between the two. The somewhat dull light is unfortunate - the snowfall is quite fresh but the location is fairly well shaded. I am OK with that the grayness contributes to a theme of abandonment and in fact, I can now see the shot being a bit darker. Still, overall there isn't that much going on here. So a few of the basic elements are there - some depth, a bit of mood - but it does not have power like Brian's shot.

One factor that may or may not detract is the diagonal symmetry. There is an element in the lower right and one in the upper left. One might say they occupy the "rule-of-fourths" positions, were there such a rule. It works for me, but then I like compositions that are in pairs, horizontals that are left-right combinations. Brian's composition is much more complex, with significant curves, a train that goes front-to-back and side-to-side, great light, distant horizon mountain elements. By contrast mine is just a simple thing.

One question I have is the appropriate distance to the receding train? I personally like this somewhat extended distance. The train is goooone! And there is more depth. While the train is small, its red marker lights strengthen its presence in this grayish scene. Would you prefer the train nearer, or farther? Sorry, no comparison shot available; I didn't see the shot develop and this was the first of the series.

Anyway, I am interested in seeing more such end of train shots, so if you know of a decent one, please send me a link! I might even add to this post, or revisit the subject from scratch, down the road.

Studies in Texture

2008-05-09T21:18:00.012-04:00

This pair of sepias by Kevin Ashbaugh are nice studies in texture with plenty of other interesting dimensions. The first one (captioned version here) is a lock on a flange greaser, but the details of what it is are less relevant given the tight crop, which reduces the focus on what it is, on the documentation component of the shot, and heightens interest in the surfaces of the various objects, on the artistic component.

The composition begins with a dominant shape, the lock, in the lower middle, an interesting parallelogram. There is contrast between the dark left and brighter right. The diagonal, not quite vertical, line on the right, the edge of the flanger?, is a nice element. The chain lower left is balanced by the bracket through which the lock passes, upper right.

But the shot, to me, is all about the cool rough surfaces contrasting with the smoother body of the lock. On the right, the flanger has a finely detailed, granular surface. The lock itself is smooth. Above the lock the bracket is flaky, or smooth but variations in color give it a flaky appearance. Blurred in the upper left are much larger chunks, of ballast. I find this mix of textures compelling.

Am I reading too much into this (or any other) shot? Perhaps. But these are the things I notice, that I like to think about, that result in my liking a shot, and now induce me to write about.

The second shot (captioned version here) has different textures, and variations in light contribute more. The composition is a simple sideways T where the horizontal element is enhanced with a spike. Three textures contrast each other - finely grained rail surface, the wooden tie with a different sort of grain, the leaves with their smoothly lumped surfaces and their irregular outlines. The whole definitely exceeds the parts.

In noticing the textures, I can't ignore the composition, how the intersection brings the eye to the leaf, glowing in light and casting a strong shadow that reminds one of a bird taking flight, with its narrow sparrow beak pointing up. Great stuff! The interesting glow on the surfaces of the leaves is a bonus.

Now, one can always find something, and this shot isn't perfect. I think the large dark area on the left leaves the shot a bit imbalanced. I might have considered rotating the shot a bit to get the rail and tie at a bit of an angle rather than parallel to the sides of the shot; that would introduce a bit more visual interest, or tension, or energy, or something. But who's to say? I'd have to see it. Still a very nice shot.

[Note: this post greatly expands on one I made in the RP forums.]

Tight Cropping Towards Abstraction

2008-05-08T20:36:00.014-04:00

I have a particular interest in making tightly cropped shots of engines and cars. By removing the totality or the easily recognizable form of the engine, I hope to highlight the individual components, both for their own sake as interesting elements of an image, and as a form of abstraction.

Here I want to focus on two shots. One is by Alex Ramos (his pBase gallery here), whose work I enjoy viewing. The other is one of my own.

Alex's shot (captioned version here) offers an interesting contrast. At the bottom, a bit to the right of center, is a round element with interesting detail (cool "EMD") and texture. The round shape and its flat position relative to the viewer contrast with the remainder of the image, which is a set of various lines that project to a vanishing point off the top edge of the frame. There is sufficent detail to make it easily recognizeable as an engine nose, but nonetheless quite abstract. The top of the frame has a bit of visual closure through a pair of horizontal elements, the handrail and chain.

The shot also has nice depth, using a wider angle to get the cable opening cover close yet show the rest of the nose.

My shot, by contrast (captioned version here) does not have the sense of motion conveyed by the vertical lines in Alex's. Instead, mine is a study of two round elements, the cable end (nicely standing out in a bare metal silver) and the ditch light, and the various yellows, the dominant area above complemented by the grab irons below. There are various details that add a bit of interest if not spice, such as the white sticker, the portion of the number board (with a bit of glint nearby) and the hoses and cables.

I do think my shot lacks in balance a bit. The angled view puts greater weight on the left side, but there is not enough on the right. Perhaps I should have included the knuckle, but then the framing would have been squarish and more empty space would be in the upper right. Something to work on.

By the way, don't get me wrong, I love engines! There is plenty of interesting detail in both shots to enjoy. But there is much more, especially in Alex's.

As a follow-up, here is a shot by Alex that is not, in my view, an attempt at abstraction. Rather, it simply frames the relevant part of the engine to focus on the lettering (full size here). I like the textures in the peeling paint and the color/hue is interesting also.

A favorite shot by J Alex Lang

2008-04-28T22:03:00.006-04:00

The image here is what compelled me to start thinking about writing about rail images. Alex showed this shot (captioned version here) in a forum years ago and I was struck by its excellence. What makes it so good? A combination of compositional elements leading to a complex yet accessible image.
First, there are lots of interesting dimensions of lines and forms. The structures form repeating patterns of verticals and angles, the gray building echoing the red in front of it, as does the tan building to the left. The upper half of the image is dense with various angles and lines, but the lower half has the graceful arcs of the trackage to go along with the smaller boxes of the engine and cars.

Second, note the variation in light. Above, much of the structures but for the roofs are in shadow, yet part of the red is well lit and has a bit of glow to complement its beautiful color. Near the bottom the opposite holds, much of the very bottom is lit and highlights the presence of the engine and cars. The colors themselves are rich, not only the red (also appearing as just a trace on the engine handrails), but the yellows, repeated three times: building posts and two switchstands. The remaining browns add to the warm feel, and the engine then stands out in bright blue.

The engine also stands out by its position. Most of the elements of the scene face to the left, the structures, the slopes in the dirt, the gondola cars (but one). The engine, by contrast, faces to the right. At the same time, the large structures put the engine in context, reducing its size and, perhaps, indicating that the lowly switch engine exists to serve mighty industry.

Finally, look at the overall balance. In the middle (offset a bit to the right) is the large red structure, and arranged around it are the gray building above and left, the tan building, and below the tracks and equipment. There is a swath of shadow going from center left to upper right, but the bright snow on the red building balances the bright snow at the bottom. The steam behind the gray building adds another touch of light, as well as a softer texture in contrast to the dominant hardness of the various steel elements.

An all-time favorite of mine!

[PS: As introduction, this will be one type of post that I will do, evaluating a shot (or contrasting a pair) according to its design elements.]

Welcome to my blog!

2008-04-28T21:36:00.010-04:00

My intent is to explore what makes some rail photographs excellent or notable, by discussing individual shots and by comparing sets of shots. At times I will feature shots by one particular photographer of interest, at times I will feature shots of a particular type of subject or in a particular style, and at times I will focus on the results of a particular technique. The view will always be that of the "consumer" of images; I will not be offering advice on technique. I intend to be a hobbyist commentator on photographs and I am starting this blog to find my "voice."

My formal qualifications are minimal. I am a competent photographer who has moved beyond the wedgie to somewhat more creative compositions but who has no particular notable successes, although I have several shots I am particularly pleased with. This leads to one particular complaint that some make of critics, both professional and amateur; that they don't know enough to express a relevant opinion. However, much as a restaurant critic need not and almost always is not a professional chef, and a political commentator is often not a politician, so I am not an expert photographer. I believe that my views stand by themselves; either they make sense, they are effective commentaries on the images, or they are not. Take a read and decide for yourself.

In discussing the images I will rely on basic concepts of composition: line, form, texture, color, and of course light. As I am not trained in art, I may occasionally deviate from how artists use these terms, but I believe what I write will be self-explanatory. If not, I will edit and fix it!

Toward that end, critical yet informative comments are most welcome. I will be thrilled to get a pointed criticism. As I intend that each blog entry be a permanent expression of views on an image, I will be revising them or supplementing them in response to any comments received. Thus, this blog will be more like a set of entries than a continuous conversation, at least in format.

By the way, all images used with permission of the individual photographer. A number of images will be taken from railpictures.net; in those cases for convenience I will leave the RP copyright strip at the bottom, as that indicates ownership of the image lies with the photographer.

Click here to see my shots on RP.