Thanks Mark, Yes, this was a close one. Personally I liked 'stickboy's' photo the best. I wish he would have fiddled with his camera settings to get better color. I'm sure he would have won. Congrats to all entrants, wonderful entries. Cheers, Jim CCRR/Socalz44
Crandell, I hope it gets better. This was a close contest and a fun one. I would like these contests to always be fun and close. Perhaps entrants should look at the 2009 winner's photos and try and figure out why each won. Stickboy should have won this contest, in my opinion. He did not because the color on the photo is all wrong and he could have lowered the camera a couple of inches. Grampy should have won but there is a tendency for all his photos looking the same colorwise, and composition wise. This week's photo was a great one, better than mine. Let's look again at winning photos. Sometimes winning photos tell a story. This is my main goal. Grampy's photo told a story, but my photo had more chapters. The scene was busy, very busy. There was something to catch the voters attention in every corner. ie. a light on in the roundhouse; a variety of steamers; more lights in the distance; a Climax; framing the photo is a boxcar on the left and a caboose on the right; in the distance mountains on the backdrop instead of just a couple of green/blue hills and sky. Hopefully, all of us, it seems like the same entrants all the time, will take some thought to story telling with their photos. Something other than a title to do these jobs. So why did I win? Probably because my photo was just 'busy'. Check closely, it is not even in focus, the lighting was poor and I only entered because at the time it didn't look like there would be enough entries. Lastly, as a former teacher I have a habit of always teaching. So please take anything above as corrective help from my point of view. Always willing to come in third. That means you've all stepped your game up. Cheers, Jim CCRR/Socalz44
It would be wise to take any criticisms by Jim as sage advice. The comments and critiques I've received from Jim and Crandell alone have improved my own photography 10 fold. Not only reviewing the past contest winners, but all entries from 2009, you can see a very prominent progression of quality through everyone's photos. Goal #1 is to have FUN! Goal #2 is to increase photo activity. Goal #3 is to improve the quality of that photo activity. From my perspective I think it's easy to say we're accomplishing all goals here! BTW- Crandell, I see you have a new avatar, born from your very own entry this week! I like it very much!
Congratulations Jim, a deserving winner and another ringing endorsment of the potential of Z scale:thumbs_up::thumbs_up::thumbs_up: ...and thank you for the advice and kind words. You are absolutely correct about the colour of my photo. My hobby room has standard flourescent lights, and my camera is very basic. My narrow gauge layout is only 4' x 2', so I should really have dragged it outside to photograph, or get some daylight tubes. I thought about changing the colour in P'shop, but wasn't sure if that was in the spirit of the competition? Here it is with a little tweaking, better? Thanks Phil
Thanks Phil, Yes, this is better. I use a very basic photo program mainly for correcting color. I'm not smart enough to use all the tricks that come with the program. If you have Photoshop go into the program and place this picture there. Somewhere you will have RGB (red, green, blue) buttons. Try adding about 4 or 5 clicks of red and subract 4 clicks of blue from the photo and see if you like the results. Most of us have flourescent lighting and adding red and subtracting blue is the cure in most cases. Simple, fair, and much more pleasing to the voter's eye. Cheers, Jim CCRR/Socalz44
I suppose most people do these days as the word 'criticize' becomes more and more of a derogatory term. Even a simple 'critic' as defined by Merriam-Webster has degraded from "1a - one who expresses a reasoned opinion on any matter..." to "1b - one who engages...in the analysis, evaluation or appreciation..." to "2 - one given to harsh or captious judgment" Attending an art school, it's forced pretty heavily upon us that the definition of critic and all terms related follow the 1a/b structure above. Adding 'constructive'/'destructive' to the mix is what decides the nature of the 'criticism'. *whew*
Mark, thanks for noticing my avatar. It is actually a Spectrum J that I imaged back in the last winter, whereas this entry is a newer BLI J. The Spectrum model was a poor mover, and will shortly be on that 'moving' site. Critiquing is an art. Few of us find it any easier than understanding probability theory. With good will and effort, it gets easier. Generally, I prefer to do it in private. I have at times added criticism openly on forums, but only when the recipient (victim to some) agrees to discuss it in the open. Even so, if others are engaged, I often resort to PM's. There is too much ego in the hobby for many practitioners, and I often see a "piling on" happening when someone's modelling is being 'evaluated'. It soon becomes a flood of criticism, or gets diverted into whose techniques are the better. It becomes counterproductive. When the person receives one or two private communications offering one or two points to consider, it is going to be more palatable, and it will be more manageable...as in, yeah, I can work on those two things for next time. Finally, I can't tell you fellas how much I appreciate your collegial nature on this forum. As you know, I have a footprint elsewhere, and this place is generally warmer, more friendly, more accepting and encouraging. In that milieu, criticism, by any name, is going to be more palatable.
Why indeed you're right. There is that water tower in the back of the avatar and we're up on the mountain pass for your entry this week. In any case I love both photos.
