CSX GRE MQT Train Location Update 5-29-08

[J T]

GRE then went west to Marne to get the 118. The 118 was on the interchange track by 5:00 (wasn't there at 4)

What is the 118?

Click here, Joe: http://www.railpictures.net/viewphoto.php?id=214124

[Racer]

Q327 cleared Plymouth diamond about 2:10pm this afternoon. CSX 468 pulling almost 40 cars. That's fairly long compaired to what I was seeing a few weeks ago.

Here's my picture of him in Plymouth by the old C&O Depot:

[Kartracer]

Nice shot Chris.

I caught an unexpected train at 7:02 PM through Riverside while working out in the yard last night (not that kind of yard).

[sd70accsxt700]

Somthing funky about that photo. It a very good photo, but somthing funky. Looks like a painting.

[Kartracer]

Somthing funky about that photo. It a very good photo, but somthing funky. Looks like a painting.

Yeah, it is a HDR. I just started trying HDR out. I still have a lot to learn.

Thanks for the comment though.

Edit: I actually did this one differently to look even more like a painting.

[SD80MAC]

That's really cool, Kartracer. What's HDR? Is it a program like Photoshop?

[J T]

Somthing funky about that photo. It a very good photo, but somthing funky. Looks like a painting.

Yeah, it is a HDR. I just started trying HDR out. I still have a lot to learn.

How is it HDR? Was the train stopped for you so you could take multiple exposures? If you made that from one exposure, it's not HDR.

That's really cool, Kartracer. What's HDR? Is it a program like Photoshop?

Jon, HDR is the practice of combining multiple exposures into one image, typically with a program like Photomatix or Photoshop (the newer versions have an HDR-merge feature). I haven't used Photoshop's HDR feature, but from what I've read from the experts, Photomatix is better. Read about it here:

http://www.hdrsoft.com/

Here is an HDR image I created with Photomatix using three different exposures. One was an "even" exposure (meter at 0), one that was 2 stops overexposed and one that was 2 stops underexposed. Three exposures isn't the rule, either. I've seen some made with as many as seven exposures.



This tractor is sitting in the woods near the ROW on the hill in New Richmond. I believe it was used for something when a train derailed in its location back in the late 60's.

[Kartracer]

That's really cool, Kartracer. What's HDR? Is it a program like Photoshop?

Thanks. JT explained it right. Photomatrix is the software I used. The main use for it is in high contrast situations where some parts of the photo would be "blown out" under the proper exposure and other parts may be underexposed. You take a few pictures at different exposures to bring out the different areas in the photo and then combine them.

How is it HDR? Was the train stopped for you so you could take multiple exposures? If you made that from one exposure, it's not HDR.

I shot it in RAW which allowed me to modify the exposure in PS afterward, save each different exposure, and then combine them as HDR. It may not be exactly the same as multiple exposures, but I bet it would be really hard to tell the difference. Shooting RAW gives you lots of options.

JT I really like that photo.

[J T]

I shot it in RAW which allowed me to modify the exposure in PS afterward, save each different exposure, and then combine them as HDR. It may not be exactly the same as multiple exposures, but I bet it would be really hard to tell the difference. Shooting RAW gives you lots of options.

JT I really like that photo.

Thanks. But virtually what you're doing is creating a shadow/highlights effect that you can easily do in Photoshop. True HDR is taking multiple exposures of a scene and combining them. Boosting or darkening levels in Photoshop is technically not creating new "exposures." Once you've taken one exposure, regardless if it's RAW or not, there's no way to achieve the same dynamic range had you taken multiple exposures at different settings to begin with. That's what makes the process you did different from HDR processing.

HDR from 4 exposures taken in camera:

[Kartracer]

I shot it in RAW which allowed me to modify the exposure in PS afterward, save each different exposure, and then combine them as HDR. It may not be exactly the same as multiple exposures, but I bet it would be really hard to tell the difference. Shooting RAW gives you lots of options.

JT I really like that photo.

Thanks. But virtually what you're doing is creating a shadow/highlights effect that you can easily do in Photoshop. True HDR is taking multiple exposures of a scene and combining them. Boosting or darkening levels in Photoshop is technically not creating new "exposures." Once you've taken one exposure, regardless if it's RAW or not, there's no way to achieve the same dynamic range had you taken multiple exposures at different settings to begin with. That's what makes the process you did different from HDR processing.

HDR from 4 exposures taken in camera:

Again, I like that shot.

I don't know what to call it, but it seems that it is quite common to "HDR" from one single RAW. Like I said, it may not be exact, but it would be hard to tell the difference.

[J T]

I don't know what to call it, but it seems that it is quite common to "HDR" from one single RAW. Like I said, it may not be exact, but it would be hard to tell the difference.

I know, I hear ya. I guess it's just one of those things that commonly gets incorrectly classified (like a lot of train stuff that I still screw up! haha).