# Is it possible to get good photos from a Superliner?



## v v (Jan 7, 2013)

This is a double question.

Is photography through train windows of good quality or are there points that it's possible to photograph with a window open or even from a platform? (you can tell have never ridden an Amtrak train as yet).

I use a good quality camera frequently (although I wouldn't say I am good at it). Is taking a high value camera worth the effort or am I asking for trouble? Is it best to just take a nice quality compact camera and not have to worry about security?

As always, thank you.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 7, 2013)

It is, try some of the suggestions here:

http://discuss.amtraktrains.com/index.php?/topic/39859-photography-through-windows/


----------



## crescent2 (Jan 7, 2013)

You will not be able to open a window or stand on an open platform. They are all closed while the train is moving. On some trains there are lounge cars (sightseer lounge) with large windows. I don't have that much personal experience, but from reading other posts, the windows may or may not be totally clean. Only you can decide if taking pictures through windows is worth the hassle of taking your best equipment or not. Hope that helps some-


----------



## IowaGirl (Jan 7, 2013)

I have some decent ones. I guess it depends on the time of day and how clean the windows are. My windows were "cleanish" - had some spots and film on them. Make sure you are not focusing on the window itself. Take many pictures. Sometimes it takes a bunch to get one good one.

I have a Nikon DSLR with a polarizing lens cover.

I did run these through Photoshop and sharpen a bit.

This was on the Zephyr - between Denver and Fraser.


----------



## phk (Jan 7, 2013)

Shooting through the regular windows works better than through the dome: less distortion and reflection. Pictures taken away from the sun work best. I use a Nikon DSLR and a 12-24 mm wide angle lens. The wide angle lens reduces the apparent movement of the train and allows sharper pictures. I have a 24x36 enlargement of the wonderful eastern Montana plains taken from the Empire builder.

It can be frustrating in areas with a lot of trees, as there's always a blurred tree in your viewfinder just as you snap the picture. I've often used the "rapid fire" mode of the Nikon to resolve this. 10 pictures per second, and maybe one will be clear of obstacles.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 7, 2013)

Those are great pictures, IowaGirl.


----------



## TimePeace (Jan 7, 2013)

Ryan said:


> Those are great pictures, IowaGirl.


Very good! Thanks for posting.

I guess they ought to answer the OP pretty well...


----------



## GG-1 (Jan 7, 2013)

v v said:


> I use a good quality camera frequently (although I wouldn't say I am good at it). Is taking a high value camera worth the effort or am I asking for trouble? Is it best to just take a nice quality compact camera and not have to worry about security?


Aloha
Only you can answer this question.

I tell people and have learned from pros that the only way one can take/make good photographs is to be comfortable with your equipment.I use a larger more expensive camera because doing so helps me keep the camera steady, and gives me more options to create an image I like. My signature links to my photo gallery.

I have also learned that buying better quality equipment is cheaper than low priced gear as usually lower priced gear does not break as easily.


----------



## TimePeace (Jan 7, 2013)

GG-1 I just looked at some of your pictures and decided my next western trip is definitely gonna be on the Zephyr (again). It's just that simple.


----------



## v v (Jan 7, 2013)

These posts do answer my questions very well, spent quite a time reading and looking and again thanks to everybody for your input.

Just have to decide on which camera to take.


----------



## NETrainfan (Jan 9, 2013)

Many of our train photos have been good- so it is worth it to take photos. We use a small digital camera.


----------



## shinkansen (Jan 9, 2013)

Two alternatives also would be using a lens shade pressed to the window which helps with the glare from interior lighting. Also, since the retro look is in, just use a smart phone with the filtering. This way any image degradation from a dirty window can contribute to the "filtered" look which is all the rave these days.


----------



## TimePeace (Jan 9, 2013)

shinkansen said:


> the "filtered" look which is all the rave these days.


And, in my opinion, a detriment to a good photo. I'd rather see the window dirt. It's more real. If I want old sepia tinted (with dust spots on them) pictures I'll look at ones from 100 years ago.


----------



## shinkansen (Jan 10, 2013)

Never said, I was a fan of iPhonetography. Frankly, I'd prefer no dirt at all and an untinted window.


----------



## leemell (Jan 10, 2013)

IowaGirl said:


> I have some decent ones. I guess it depends on the time of day and how clean the windows are. My windows were "cleanish" - had some spots and film on them. Make sure you are not focusing on the window itself. Take many pictures. Sometimes it takes a bunch to get one good one.
> 
> I have a Nikon DSLR with a polarizing lens cover.
> 
> ...


I love these shots, especially the freight startling the climb. You can just feel the locos putting the "pedal to the medal".


----------



## Ryan (Jan 10, 2013)

Holy freaking massive signature, man!!!!


----------



## shinkansen (Jan 10, 2013)

Yeah, no matter how small I would make it, the image host would try to re-size it to 640, *shakes head. Frantically trying to fix it before anyone noticed! FAIL!


----------



## MrFSS (Jan 11, 2013)

shinkansen said:


> Yeah, no matter how small I would make it, the image host would try to re-size it to 640, *shakes head. Frantically trying to fix it before anyone noticed! FAIL!


Many on the forum should read this *thread*, again.


----------



## PPorro (Jan 20, 2013)

MrFSS said:


> 'shinkansen' said:
> 
> 
> > Yeah, no matter how small I would make it, the image host would try to re-size it to 640, *shakes head. Frantically trying to fix it before anyone noticed! FAIL!
> ...


Yeah it's kind of confusing. Says no linking to personal sites, but many people link to personal photo galleries? Isn't that a personal site? My photo gallery is on my personal site... now what? :help:

I think some of the subtle differences from a "big" camera and P&S pocket camera are lost in the names. A DSLR or even a Bridge camera (in between more like a rangefinder) have one big advantage of less shutter lag. You take a photo and milliseconds later the camera makes an exposure. The pocket cameras, point and shoot, you push the button, it thinks, focuses and then takes a photo. By then, what you were looking at, is gone. LOL

You don't have to spend allot to have a good camera for travel. Sure interchangeable lenses are better, but even an entry level T4i with a nice kit lens, will run around $1150 at B&H or Adorama. By the way, the places that offer substantially lower prices than these two, are usually scams and you want to avoid them.

But next step down from a DSLR could be a Canon G15 which is a bridge camera, built in lens, 28-140 zoom lens. I don't know Nikon, if you like them better they make good cameras too. Olympus has some nice super zoom and bridge cameras, Sony... but the G15 offers 10 frames per second shooting, 1080p video, 1.8-2-8 lens (fast enough for low light) and it's $499 complete. Not a pocket camera, larger sensor and you would have to have big pockets.

Turn off the lights in the cabin to reduce glare. Tinted windows should make no difference if you have auto white balance set. The rubber Sun shade is a good and useful idea. Also a circular polarizing filter can help, it's more than slapping it on, you will need to know how to set it to work best. It's not rocket science, but it's also not automatic.

Motion blur isn't necessarily a problem, it can add to the motion effect. Panning along with the motion is the best way to have your subject sharp and the background show that you are traveling. Things are moving outside the train, pan along with what you are shooting and you will have better photos.

High ISO means more noise in the shadows, but you lose speed. More depth of field, smaller aperture, means slower shutter speeds, but you need to stop the motion from blurring everything or having juggles. Change one and the others change.

Everything is related to everything else, distance, speed, ISO, focal length, distance to the subject... there's no one setting that does everything, you need to make decisions about what's most important for each shot.

Last tip. Electrons are free. Memory cards are cheap, have at least two. Use rechargeable batteries and have a spare set. Take at least three times what you think you need. The delete key is your friend when you get home. Toss the mistakes and fails, save the good ones. It's better to have too many shots, than to have missed the one you wanted. If you have any doubts, take two of everything.

Have Fun! Experiment.


----------



## AlanB (Jan 20, 2013)

PPorro said:


> MrFSS said:
> 
> 
> > 'shinkansen' said:
> ...


No, it says:



> Pictures should also not be used to link to personal websites as a way of promoting them.


What that means is that someone clicking on your picture should not find themselves entering a promotional site where you are trying to sell something or otherwise benefit from the fact that someone clicked on that photo. People were putting pictures in their signature in a way that linked back to a website promoting or selling stuff when you clicked on that picture.

If you're selling pictures at that site, that would be a no-no. If you were selling a book at that site and the person clicking on the photo was taken to a page advertising the book that would be a no-no. If you had setup a railfan website and were trying to drive traffic (hits) to your site, that would be a no-no. But a link that just takes one to Flicker, or a link to one of your photos on your site that happens to fit with the topic of conversation is more than fine. If there are no Ad's from which you make money on your site full of photos, even linking to the entire site would be permitted; provided that there wasn't something odd going on or on that page.


----------



## v v (Jan 20, 2013)

leemell said:


> 'IowaGirl' said:
> 
> 
> > I have some decent ones. I guess it depends on the time of day and how clean the windows are. My windows were "cleanish" - had some spots and film on them. Make sure you are not focusing on the window itself. Take many pictures. Sometimes it takes a bunch to get one good one.
> ...



I do like these photos, go back to them every day or so in particular the second (freight) one.


----------



## Ryan (Jan 20, 2013)

PPorro said:


> High ISO means more noise in the shadows, but you lose speed. More depth of field, smaller aperture, means slower shutter speeds, but you need to stop the motion from blurring everything or having juggles. Change one and the others change.


Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here (I haven't had my coffee yet!), but higher ISO gives you more speed, not less (in addition to more noise, although I'm comfortable shooting up to 3200 on a regular basis, and 6400 still gives reasonable results).


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 22, 2013)

IowaGirl said:


> I have a Nikon DSLR with a polarizing lens cover.


You're already forced to increase the f-stop to compensate for the tinted windows and then you're further increasing the f-stop to compensate for the polarizing filter? Everything an optical polarizing filter provides can be done at least as well in post without compromising the exposure. Filters are not designed or built to be lens protectors anyway. If you did anything harsh enough to seriously damage the filter it would probably damage the lens as well.



phk said:


> Shooting through the regular windows works better than through the dome: less distortion and reflection.


Actual domes with thick curved class do have lots of distortion. However, Amtrak does not really have true domes in the traditional sense. I think the number one problem these days isn't the curve of the windows so much as the heavy tint, dirt accumulation, and plexiglass replacements.



phk said:


> Pictures taken away from the sun work best. I use a Nikon DSLR and a 12-24 mm wide angle lens. The wide angle lens reduces the apparent movement of the train and allows sharper pictures.


If you want really sharp wide angle pictures with no hint of blur I'd suggest choosing a quality prime with a huge aperture and pairing it with a full frame sensor. If the cost is too high I'd suggest going used with both.



phk said:


> It can be frustrating in areas with a lot of trees, as there's always a blurred tree in your viewfinder just as you snap the picture. I've often used the "rapid fire" mode of the Nikon to resolve this. 10 pictures per second, and maybe one will be clear of obstacles.


On a real dome car you can see what's coming and prepare your shot well in advance. However, on a regular Amtrak car you have zero advance notice of anything coming down the track unless you've seen it all before and memorized where everything of importance is located. That makes finding and executing quality photo opportunities much harder than it would be with a true dome car.


----------



## GG-1 (Jan 22, 2013)

Devil's Advocate said:


> IowaGirl said:
> 
> 
> > I have a Nikon DSLR with a polarizing lens cover.
> ...


This is not always true. Some times the the reflection off water and other surfaces prevent getting an image. Additionally, Many Pro's use Optical Glass filters for lens protection if there is no need to adjust the incoming light. And while many things can be done in post, the better the beginning image the better the final result.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Jan 22, 2013)

GG-1 said:


> Devil's Advocate said:
> 
> 
> > IowaGirl said:
> ...


Why would a professional use a polarizing filter with a digital sensor while taking a moving shot through tinted glass? Nothing about that adds up.


----------



## PPorro (Jan 29, 2013)

OK I didn't quote read it right and good news, I don't spam anything anyway.  My personal sites are relatively free of marketing links except the Amazon search box. So I can host my own photos without breaking the rules. Translation appreciated.

I wrote:_ High ISO means more noise in the shadows, but you lose speed. More depth of field, smaller aperture, means slower shutter speeds, but you need to stop the motion from blurring everything or having juggles. Change one and the others change._
Ryan Asked:_ Maybe I'm misunderstanding what you're trying to say here (I haven't had my coffee yet!), but higher ISO gives you more speed, not less (in addition to more noise, although I'm comfortable shooting up to 3200 on a regular basis, and 6400 still gives reasonable results)._Yes + Yes. What I mean is, yes you aren't understanding and yes higher ISO gives you more speed.

What I was getting at is, if you change one variable, you change one or two others to balance back to a proper exposure.

More speed = less depth of field.

Slower speed = more depth, but you start to get motion blur

Raise the ISO to increase speed, and keep a smaller aperture and (here's the part that you quoted)

You will get more noise in the shadow area. Your blacks won't be as black and your noise will be higher in all areas.

It's a delicate balance. You can't just say, well less light, hey hit the ISO up a couple notches, and everything is solved.

I generally shoot at ISO 100 all the time, because I want the best image possible. Sometimes that's not possible so I'm forced to shoot at ISO 200. It's a personal choice, because I like more and richer color, less noise. Yes the modern cameras can shoot at ISO 3200, my personal opinion is, it looks terrible.

Anyone who wants, with manual settings for ISO, start at 100 (you can use P or TV or even AV, whatever you want, just so the one thing that you control and change is ISO) Then shoot the same scene, at 200, 400, 800, 1600, 3200 and 6400. Now open them and go through one at a time on the computer. First thing you will notice is that about 400 you can see the definition and color go down and noise and grain go up.

There you go, that's all I was pointing out. Personal preference. It's not always the best possible answer because in low light, of course I've just handcuffed myself. 

Learn to pan with the motion!

Yes as someone pointed out you lose a stop with a polarizing filter. Maybe more, depending. Also as many have observed windows are dirty, scratched and plastic is not very optically friendly. One of those deals where, the other option is riding on the roof? So we're stuck with some distortion and flaws. The rubber lens shade is a good idea. Useful for many other reasons as well. Reminds me to buy one. Tinted windows aren't really an issue with auto white balance.

Last is a bit of photo philosophy for digital. It's better to get a shot than miss it. Your expense is not in shooting or processing, it's in the equipment. Blast away if you think it's a good shot. Take three and make sure. The film (memory) costs nothing once you own it and can be recycled. Batteries can be recharged.The Delete button is your friend.

But if you get home and don't have the shot you thought you did, then it's very expensive to go back and try to shoot it again?




UP708 ISO 200 overcast day

1/320th @ f/8 135mm

Sorry I don't have any good through a crummy window shots.


----------



## chakk (Jan 30, 2013)

I have even gotten some surprisingly good photos with my iPhone camera from the CZ of the Colorado River in Ruby Canyon CO/UT. Definitely worth trying -- you can always delete what you don't like.


----------



## IowaGirl (Feb 5, 2013)

Why would a professional use a polarizing filter with a digital sensor while taking a moving shot through tinted glass? Nothing about that adds up.
What do you mean by that? I have the polarizing filter because it was easy to get where I live. It keeps my lens protected from dirt and cow/horse **** because those are most of the pictures I take - up close are personal. I am by no means a pro - and my camera is by no means a professional camera. Just a gal on the prairie who is trying to learn a little about photography.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 5, 2013)

IowaGirl said:


> Why would a professional use a polarizing filter with a digital sensor while taking a moving shot through tinted glass? Nothing about that adds up.What do you mean by that? I have the polarizing filter because it was easy to get where I live. It keeps my lens protected from dirt and cow/horse **** because those are most of the pictures I take - up close are personal. I am by no means a pro - and my camera is by no means a professional camera. Just a gal on the prairie who is trying to learn a little about photography.


Polarizing filters served a very useful purpose in the era of conventional film and they used to be attached to my lens whenever the foreground was reflecting strong sunlight. Here in the era of digital sensors with raw file formats the benefits of polarizing filters are negligible while the weaknesses are still as pronounced as ever. In strong daylight the secondary effects of a polarizing filter can be easily compensated. In some cases you may want to slow down the exposure on purpose. However, when you're taking photos of moving landscapes through a tinted plexiglass window the polarizing filter is probably hurting the quality of the image far more than it's helping. There is unlikely to be much in the way of dirt, cow patties, or horse manure flying into your lens while you're on the train, so it's probably best to take it off and leave it off unless you're intentionally underexposing your images for artistic effect. That's my view anyway.


----------



## IowaGirl (Feb 6, 2013)

I am pretty sure there won't be any poo flinging my way on the train -  But you never know!

I have it on my lens because I primarily use it on the farm. In the dirt, in the poo, in the arena. I just leave it on. Like I said earlier - I am not a pro and make no claims at all in that area. I posted my pictures to say - this is what it looks like when I grabbed my camera out of the bag and took a photo. I don't shoot in RAW. I have even been know to put my camera in a plastic bag and cut a hole in it to poke the very end of the lens out and use it like that --- but not on the train..

Your comment, to me, seemed really snarky and accusatory and I just wondered why you needed to say that. Of course I could just be reading these comments wrong.


----------



## GG-1 (Feb 6, 2013)

Aloha

Pro's use filters on their lens because they want the captures image to as good as they can get, Yes there is much that can be done in post. If no filtering is requires they leave an optical glass "filter" to protect the lens.

While I am not a "Professional", I have worked closely with many Hollywood Pro's during my 50+ years in the Entertainment industry. Feel free to to explore my digital photo gallery http://gg-1.smugmug.com/

IowaGirl, do not let anyone make you think the way you shoot pictures is wrong. What make you feel good is YOUR right way.


----------



## IowaGirl (Feb 6, 2013)

Thanks GG-1! I did enjoy viewing your pics also.


----------



## Devil's Advocate (Feb 6, 2013)

IowaGirl said:


> I just leave it on.


Did you notice you had to adjust the exposure times after putting it on? If so did that factor into your decision? Or do you simply leave everything on automatic and it never occurred to you that the system was forced to compensate for this change?



IowaGirl said:


> Like I said earlier - I am not a pro and make no claims at all in that area.


I never intended to claim or imply you were a professional. At one point I was responding to GG-1's claim that professionals use polarizing filters in similar circumstances, which I took to mean when shooting moving landscapes with a digital sensor through a tinted plexiglass window. You apparently assumed I was talking about you, but that was not my intention.



IowaGirl said:


> Your comment, to me, seemed really snarky and accusatory and I just wondered why you needed to say that. Of course I could just be reading these comments wrong.


I asked why anyone would use a polarizing filter to photograph a moving landscape through a tinted plexiglass window because it made absolutely no sense to me whatsoever, at least on a technical level.


----------

