[mumrar]

Me and three mates went on a photting day up North, and we found a cracking location to shoot a 60 on loaded aggregate hoppers. The conditions were less than ideal, and so it presented challenges for taking the shot and post processing the photo.

As I have been allowed access to all of their images to demonstrate our different shots of the same thing, I thought I'd post up a little info with the images, and gauge opinions on which shot people prefer and why. Initially I shall just label the shots numerically, but one of my friends can get off the hook slightly as he has to convert the RAW file on the camera (Nikon D90) rather than a computer until he gets software for it.

#1

#2

#3

#4


Let's start the debate here with a poll on which shot is preferred.

I also promised to chuck a link up to all of their sites, except for the one who is already on Railforums, links below

http://www.lee-rutter.fotopic.net
http://www.matthew457.fotopic.net

[Swift-Deere]

1 because it looks more natural

[90019]

I'd say #1.

It was between 1 and 2. The colours in 3 and 4 just look unnatural, especially the green in the background of #4.

I would've gone for #2, but there's something doesn't look quite right about it, can't work out exactly what it is though.

[Oswyntail]

Just to be perverse (what, me?) I wish the train had been a couple of wagons longer. The earlier shots of the first two are, for me, enhanced by having more of the "tail" on the curve, which makes them feel more dynamic. Of those, I prefer the angle and positioning in the overall shot of #2, with the loco slightly higher and across (probably something to do with golden ratios or the like). However, I do find the "hair" that the loco is sporting in all except #4 distracting. It is a good location, though, with all the natural features working in the same direction as the shot. A little more cloud contrast (there is some there to be had) would have enhanced things.
Nice idea for a thread.

[37401]

number 1 or number 4, ive gone for number 1

[matt]

Number 1 looks more natural but the sky looks better in number 4.

[curly42]

For position I think shot 2 is the clincher - it just seems so right.However the colours are awful.Shot number 1 is perfect for exposure and colour/tone but I'm not so happy with the shot (too much sky area for one thing).The other two hold no interest at all,with major colour and contrast problems.
That's not really a problem in this day and age,could be fixed fairly easily post-camera,but why bother when shot 1 is available ?

[lifeboat1721]

for me it's number 1, the colours on three loo harsh..

[devon_metro]

I like 4, however I think it's a tad over-edited. A little bit of post processing of number 1 in Photoshop and it comes up a treat.

[Bill EWS]

No. 1 definitely. All the others look as if they have been processed, colours either too dense or unatural. On their own they may well be acceptable but the processing really shows up when you see them together. However, just as with different makes of film, makers of digital cameras also build in their own colour preferences so you will always notice differences in examples such as these. I used Fuji digitals for a while and I can always tell the difference between those and my Canon 350D, especially in the rather unusual blue of the Skies with Fuji.

It's the same with TV sets! Go into a TV shop with numerous brands of TV's running and you will note as many different colour balances and colour hues, them watch one set in particular really stand out. That's probably the one you would purchase, if the price is right.

[mumrar]

Just to compliment this topic, here is two versions of the same single RAW capture. The first one has nothing done whatsoever after coming out of the camera and was took to retain some detail in the sky.

This version has had tweaks in the Adobe Camera RAW plugin and then further work to enhance an rebalance the shot in Photoshop CS4

I like the fact that a shot can be rescued to this degree, but it doesn't mean it has to be everyones cup of tea. But given poor lighting conditions and a very rare working scenario, it would be useful to be able to do if absolutely needed

[D1001]

I think no 1 has the most natural colours, but that makes the photo flat and dull. The sky is quite blown too.
No 2 has better sky (more detail), but looks oversaturated overall. Alot of detail of the bushes in the foreground is lost.
No 3 is also oversaturated and the contrast is a bit too high - it almost looks like a scanned 35mm slide or print. The colours are certainly more vibrant.
Despite the pea green field in the distance, no 4 has alot going for it - the colours aren't oversaturated but the brightness is a bit high resulting in a lack of contrast. However, the amount of sky visible is probably the best of the four, bearing in mind that we are looking down on the scene - the photographer has done well to keep the detail in the clouds. Do something about the brightness and the pea green field and I think this is the best of the four.