'Royal Scot' Loco

JohnC6

JohnC6

Messages
10,369
Name
John
Edit My Images
Yes
I drove to Patney,near Devizes today to get this shot. I was a race between the heavy shower clouds coming in,with hail and the loco's arrival. Just about managed to get some reasonable light. Just prior to this it had been very sunny.

6ss028.jpg
 
Unfortunately way too 'static' not even any blur on the con rods and the smoke is all over the place. Was it stood at a signal?

Buffer beam looks a bit oversaturated too.
 
No, Ian...- it wasn't static. The shutter speed was 1/1600 sec f7. I'm wary of 'low' shutter speeds as a couple of times the loco number on the boiler hasn't been as sharp as I'd like but I don't think that if 1/800 sec. gets a tack sharp photo having a higher shutter speed isn't going to make it look any different. so I'm not sure what could be done about it,as a slow shutter would give a blur.Any suggestions would be appreciated.

There was smoke, not a lot though, I have to say..I noticed that as it rounded the bend a half mile down the track so I was aware of it but the small amount there was has been visually,in the photo, lost against the white cloud. I don't think the locos need to do a lot of work along this stretch. Nearer home we have hills but it's not often they come through them..Stroud Valley.

Here's a photo posted by SwissToni recently and that also looks static - no blur on the con rods either...apart from the smoke it looks pretty much the same so if it's the apparent lack of smoke I can't disagree. .
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/flying-scotsman.620358/

Re. the buffer beam,I've looked at the my non-edited photos and the red is at that intensity..looks newly-painted to me. I found these photos..it's the same depth http://www.iconsofsteam.com/locos/royal-scot/

I should be seeing it again tomorrow in Bristol and I'll take particular note of the depth of that red . I've just taken it into edit (Develop in LR4) and toned the 'reds' down in saturation in the HSL/Color/B&W edit box and it seems to take the life out of it. There's a touch of vibrance, I don't use the 'saturation' tool..over the whole image and I reduced that to zero and it made barely any difference so it hasn't been that edit. My editing is always light touch, just the basics. I'll compare tomorrow's photos with these re. that buffer beam so if you could keep an eye out. I won't get back home from seeing it until 8.00pm so if it's a reasonable shot I'll probably post it Thursday morning, see how I feel.
 
I must admit I have the same issue, especially when dealing with stuff like this that's past the vantage point in a few seconds. Do I go for a slower shutter speed to give a bit of an impression of speed and risk other parts not being sharp, or do I go for fastest shutter speed to improve my chances? I took some photos of Leander last week, I just didn't want to come back with unusable photos because around here, steam specials on lines that aren't electrified are quite unusual - were that not the case, I might have risked a bit more as I sometimes do at Llangollen where if I mess the shot up, there's another one along any time now. As it is, I've got a series of photos that are sharp but give no sense of motion.

Smoke is one of those things that is easily lost on a sky like that - if it's just running along I don't think it's supposed to be sticking out a lot of smoke, that's more noticeable when stopped. We'd had clear blue sky for most of last week, which of course went to grey on the day I might want to get a photo of a steam loco. I guess it's a bit more visible.

webImgp9616.jpg
 
Thanks,Both.

Mike..That makes me feel a bit better. I assume Ian is speaking from a technical point of view regarding the photo,I don't know if he takes steam loco photos.

It's the same for me,I get two chance or maybe three in a month without travelling too far..(it's usually 50-odd miles I do) and I don't want to mess up. It's looking better than it has been up to now with all the cancellations. I was due to see Princess Elizabeth next Thursday, May 5th. but it's just been cancelled. Three in May, two in June but looks ok thereafter until October…two within reach.

You can be sure if you do go for a slower speed someone will tell you you didn't have a fast enough shutter speed or if you did your aperture was too wide to get the rear coaches sharp.

Anyway,off to the station soon to get a train to Bristol to see Royal Scot there…from Penzance…the train, not me lol. Real time trains show it left Plymouth at 1352 and it should be at Totnes now…1430.
 
I don't check anywhere near often enough - I missed a Crewe / Chester / Shrewsbury train at the start of April because I assumed the WCRC thing would take longer to sort out. Great that it's sorted, but that was the other one of the few on the non-electrified lines. And it seems I missed Duchess of Sutherland arriving in Crewe this lunchtime. Oh well, can only do so much.
 
droopsnoot said:
I don't check anywhere near often enough - I missed a Crewe / Chester / Shrewsbury train at the start of April because I assumed the WCRC thing would take longer to sort out. Great that it's sorted, but that was the other one of the few on the non-electrified lines. And it seems I missed Duchess of Sutherland arriving in Crewe this lunchtime. Oh well, can only do so much.
Click to expand...


I don't think you did miss Duchess of Sutherland, according to this forum a piston has broken. Scroll down to post by beast66606 (blue hat &with camera) at 2016 yesterday and and MarkC at 0600 today,two posts further down.

http://www.rmweb.co.uk/community/index.php?/topic/110673-44871-is-she-fit-or-not-for-28apr/

I looked at UKSteam and I didn't see that Tour listed, anyway. Where would I have found that ? It's suppose to go through Bristol Filton to St. Philip's Marsh, also a suburb of Bristol, today. A mystery to me.

Princess Elizabeth is still being overhauled but should be in service soon http://www.6201.co.uk/Report160316.htm
 
Last edited:
ah the classic 45degree shot. Nicely composed and all that but it looks way over saturated to me, and unless my eyes are playing up it looks like its levitating on the rails rather than firmly sat on them. But that could be coz im old and my eyes are shot to pieces. It does look static but cant quite see why that should be. All the traction I shoot I tend to keep at 1/640 or 1/800 for anything less than a pendolino (yawwwwwn) which I ramp up to 1/1200 if light allows. If im honest I think it needed a heavy ND grad to pull the sky in as its completely blown around the funnel and nearby clouds losing a lot of detail to bring the 'steam' to life. If youre interested this might give you an idea as to what I mean about the steam (even if it wasn't as thunderous with the Royal Scot).
http://www.landfox.co.uk/britannia
 
JohnC6 said:
No, Ian...- it wasn't static. The shutter speed was 1/1600 sec f7. I'm wary of 'low' shutter speeds as a couple of times the loco number on the boiler hasn't been as sharp as I'd like but I don't think that if 1/800 sec. gets a tack sharp photo having a higher shutter speed isn't going to make it look any different. so I'm not sure what could be done about it,as a slow shutter would give a blur.Any suggestions would be appreciated.

There was smoke, not a lot though, I have to say..I noticed that as it rounded the bend a half mile down the track so I was aware of it but the small amount there was has been visually,in the photo, lost against the white cloud. I don't think the locos need to do a lot of work along this stretch. Nearer home we have hills but it's not often they come through them..Stroud Valley.

Here's a photo posted by SwissToni recently and that also looks static - no blur on the con rods either...apart from the smoke it looks pretty much the same so if it's the apparent lack of smoke I can't disagree. .
https://www.talkphotography.co.uk/threads/flying-scotsman.620358/

Re. the buffer beam,I've looked at the my non-edited photos and the red is at that intensity..looks newly-painted to me. I found these photos..it's the same depth http://www.iconsofsteam.com/locos/royal-scot/

I should be seeing it again tomorrow in Bristol and I'll take particular note of the depth of that red . I've just taken it into edit (Develop in LR4) and toned the 'reds' down in saturation in the HSL/Color/B&W edit box and it seems to take the life out of it. There's a touch of vibrance, I don't use the 'saturation' tool..over the whole image and I reduced that to zero and it made barely any difference so it hasn't been that edit. My editing is always light touch, just the basics. I'll compare tomorrow's photos with these re. that buffer beam so if you could keep an eye out. I won't get back home from seeing it until 8.00pm so if it's a reasonable shot I'll probably post it Thursday morning, see how I feel.
Click to expand...

Hi John, didn't think she was static, but if the weather is mild and the regulator closed, it really makes life hell for the photographer. Hence finding a good bank/gradient to get it working, makes a huge difference. Problem with steam specials, someone else will also have had the same idea. Such as 60163 'Tornado' heading up Gamston Bank in 2009.

http://www.mainlinephotography.co.uk/gamston-bank

Whilst I might ramp up the speed for moving diesel and electrics locomotives, for steam this is rarely necessary and probably never take it beyond 1/800th and in many situations much less than that. As long as the smokebox numberplate is sharp, most other things fall into line. A good DoF will capture the rest. Its a bit like the human eyes; as long as they are tack sharp and well focused other things are largely forgivable. Otherwise its not a keeper.

But you probably know all of that ;)

Night shots lose a lot of the crowds which helps:-

http://www.mainlinephotography.co.uk/tornado-awaiting-time-at-sheffield

This one was 70013 'Oliver Cromwell', coasting to a water stop about two miles ahead, with the disinterested look from the fireman, only a little smoke and minor steam emanating from the underside, together with completely flat late afternoon sky, meant this one has sat only on the HDD until now, as it was not worth submitting for publication etc.

http://www.mainlinephotography.co.uk/photo27291386.html

Of course capturing the shot is often more important in a certain location than perhaps the technicalities, and I do not claim to be perfect by any means.

http://www.mainlinephotography.co.uk/heading-into-doncaster

Was the occasion of new build 60163 'Tornado's' first revenue earning run, (well for shareholders only), and the angle I wanted was not just the engine, but the 'Peglars' brick chimney in the background, Alan Peglar obviously purchased 1923 Doncaster built LNER A3, 60103 'Flying Scotsman' from BR back in the early 1960s.

Sometimes other factors such as commercial considerations intervene, such as this one,

http://www.mainlinephotography.co.uk/electricsteam

that was for National Express and getting their logo sharp on the Cl.91 was a greater consideration, even though the electric which was passing at around 115mph, looks static. Could have added PS motion blur, but decided not too on this occasion. At least they liked it and is still on public display. Obviously the A4 in the background was static taking water.

Pictures for publication often need to be different to the gazzilions of ¾ shots submitted to editors and others, and modern traction is often much more difficult to capture a sense of movement and interest.

In museums it becomes even more difficult, but this one grabbed my attention a few years ago:-

http://www.mainlinephotography.co.uk/old-small-boy

.....after all it is the human interest that gives railways their reason d'être.
 
There are two basic ways of making a steam train look as though it's not stationary;

1. Pan at a very slow speed (1/60sec.for example) which will blur the wheels and rods.
The downside is that you have to be close to the loco which means you don't get the whole train in shot, probably just the engine and half of the first coach which just looks wrong, imo.

2. A trailing exhaust with possibly a low pov to add dramatic effect. Unfortunately the exhaust can't be guaranteed so look for a spot where the engine will be working.
The other problem with the exhaust that is evident in your shot is that DSLR's are not perfect and will not balance the exposure between highlights and shadows so generally the sky and the exhaust
are overexposed (blown) where as the lower half of the shot is perfectly exposed. There are two ways to combat this, photo editing software which is ok but if there is no detail to start with then it can't recover it.
The other answer is a NDgrad filter which balances the exposure so no more blown highlights, landscape photographers swear by them.
HERE'S an example of what I mean.
 
Last edited:
Ah..So you are a loco photographer,Ian. Lol. You know,it reminds of when I was in the States on a storm chase Tour and we got to a hotel and had a conference room allocated for the briefing. In it was a piano..like a moth to a flame for me… so, I sat down and played some of my repertoire..I play by ear and chord-based..Queen,Beatles..the 60/70's stuff and can give a good tune,got a round of applause..THEN..lol.. one of the other guest asked if he could have a play so of course I got off the chair..he was at concert pianist level and played all classical stuff. Someone said that would teach me get up and have play.Lol.

Here's a second edit taking that red down a bit,taking the light sky a bit too,as pointed out by black5. I have taken a nighttime shot,once and they do look good.

I'll keep that shutter speed at 1/800sec. then. Maybe go to f8 re. your 'good depth of field' comment. I use f7.1 for the aircraft at RAF Brize Norton and RAF Fairford.

After toning down the sky it did nothing whatsoever for the smoke,there just wasn't any to speak of really,the same as your Oliver Cromwell shot. I think the last photo with the elderly gent in front of Duchess of Hamilton is superb. For whatever reason having him standing there looking up at it kind of makes it.

2wdosba.jpg



This is 'Tangmere' You can rely on that loco for smoke..Lol

magoxh.jpg
 
black5 said:
ah the classic 45degree shot. Nicely composed and all that but it looks way over saturated to me, and unless my eyes are playing up it looks like its levitating on the rails rather than firmly sat on them. But that could be coz im old and my eyes are shot to pieces. It does look static but cant quite see why that should be. All the traction I shoot I tend to keep at 1/640 or 1/800 for anything less than a pendolino (yawwwwwn) which I ramp up to 1/1200 if light allows. If im honest I think it needed a heavy ND grad to pull the sky in as its completely blown around the funnel and nearby clouds losing a lot of detail to bring the 'steam' to life. If youre interested this might give you an idea as to what I mean about the steam (even if it wasn't as thunderous with the Royal Scot).
http://www.landfox.co.uk/britannia
Click to expand...

I took it back into 'Develop' and brought the sky down some more but ,as you see, it's made no difference to the smoke..there barely was any..The shots I've taken with a lot of smoke have been in the Stroud Valley where they have to work as they go through Stroud,Stonehouse and Sapperton Bank, especially.

Can't help you re. the levitation though. Possibly the effect of the sharpening,I also keep that top a minimum. I actually toned down the green grass .The 'contrast seems to add a perception of added saturation but I'm very careful with the editing,especially saturation. I suppose these photos we post can look a bit different on different screens. I'm on a 27" iMac.
 
Swiss Toni said:
There are two basic ways of making a steam train look as though it's not stationary;

1. Pan at a very slow speed (1/60sec.for example) which will blur the wheels and rods.
The downside is that you have to be close to the loco which means you don't get the whole train in shot, probably just the engine and half of the first coach which just looks wrong, imo.

2. A trailing exhaust with possibly a low pov to add dramatic effect. Unfortunately the exhaust can't be guaranteed so look for a spot where the engine will be working.
The other problem with the exhaust that is evident in your shot is that DSLR's are not perfect and will not balance the exposure between highlights and shadows so generally the sky and the exhaust
are overexposed (blown) where as the lower half of the shot is perfectly exposed. There are two ways to combat this, photo editing software which is ok but if there is no detail to start with then it can't recover it.
The other answer is a NDgrad filter which balances the exposure so no more blown highlights, landscape photographers swear by them.
HERE'S an example of what I mean.
Click to expand...


Thanks,Stuart. Well, you mention the ND (Grad). filter. I have a .3 and a .6 Lee system and use them for land and seascapes as you say and I've wondered about using one,especially after my Bristol Temple Meads experience with Royal Scot again yesterday. It would be no problem with a stationary loco..if you aren't struggling to get a spot amongst all the other photographers but I thought it might be tricky with one doing 60mph as I'm sure the 'smoked' upper half of the grad would cover the train too as it got very close but I think I need to try.That's a very nice shot of yours at dusk. I'l set the grad to a position where it should stay above the train. What I do is start shooting and as it gets nearer pull back on the focal length but I think I need to set the grad in one position..one point close to me because the camera is a 1D1V and takes 10fps which means I can get the very best position as it passes. I shoot in bursts as it approaches then one 'long;' burst as it's about to pass me.
 
John I know you said you use a light touch on processing, but something looks really wrong here, everything seems unnaturally bright and vibrant and somehow like the image has been composited together - to me it looks like the loco doesn't even belong with those rails somehow. I get the feeling you are working with JPEG images rather than Raw?

I personally use 1/320 - 1/400 for moving loco shots, but to be fair I don't shoot stuff moving at full mainline running speed, and even then I can cock it up spectacularly!
 
Alan Clogwyn said:
John I know you said you use a light touch on processing, but something looks really wrong here, everything seems unnaturally bright and vibrant and somehow like the image has been composited together - to me it looks like the loco doesn't even belong with those rails somehow. I get the feeling you are working with JPEG images rather than Raw?

I personally use 1/320 - 1/400 for moving loco shots, but to be fair I don't shoot stuff moving at full mainline running speed, and even then I can cock it up spectacularly!
Click to expand...

Well, I'm at loss ,Alan. Re. me saying I use light touch editing, I meant with sharpening (clarity in LR4) and colour mainly and sometimes use the grad filter on a sky or particular clouds to enhance them so in the context of this photo it didn't account for the exposure adjustment I made. Oddly enough I hadn't looked on exposure adjustment in the same way. I used 'exposure' and 'shadows' to lighten the loco and wheels so maybe the problem is there. I only shoot in RAW. I had to lighten the engine as I had no grad fitted..as per post above..so the train was underexposed.I used my Lightroom4 grad tool on the sky to darken it.. Do you think I had to do too much to recover the underexposure ? I get the impression from the comments that it's more than just exposure enhancement.

In the 'Pictures' menu I use 'Faithful'.. Someone at RAF Brize Norton saw,on my LCD screen, that my sky was way too deep blue and the photo generally darkish and suggested I use Faithful.I was using 'Landscape' which adds saturation.

Looking very closely at the front bogies they seem to sit inside the rail rather than on it.As that doesn't involve editing I have no idea what is giving that effect. You can even see it in the original here. Very strange. black5 has mentioned that too. It looks a bit HDR to me as well but I don't have that editing system. I'm showing my ignorance here.I didn't know what you meant by a 'composite' photo. I've checked and see it means introducing other photos so no, not a composite. I don't know how to do that and I don't think I could with Lightroom4 if I could. I'm at a basic level re. editing which ,as you;ll know is what LR is about,just taking the basics from what I think is a complicated Photoshop system. A friend does layers and masking and all sorts with his Photoshop full version but that's beyond me. He showed me one day what he does.I just have LR4 and I bought Elements11 at his suggestion so I could just use the clone tool to remove any nasties as LR4 doesn't have one.Well, not a proper one like Elements.

I'll just have to wait for the next opportunity and see if things turn out better.I assume,hope it's not the camera. I used the 1D1V with the 24-105mm lens.

Here's the original.

2n8v9rl.jpg
 
Now THAT'S better! Touch of "Lighten shadows" is all that's needed.
 
Thanks,Paul. Good advice…i.e.. keep it simple. Just have to move on.

Hopefully,I'll get Tornado tomorrow..Bristol >Paddington near Bath. Useless on the outward journey as rain is forecast, as it is,it should be sun/showers.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top