Jim Gilley wrote: >To begin, I believe that shots taken today are essentially worthless. >Note my wording, worthless, meaning of no monetary value, as opposed >to useless. There are hundreds, if not thousands, of people out there >taking train pictures these days. The efforts of any single >individual are irrelevant -- if you don't get a shot of this train, >somebody else will.
This is so true! I love these people at the shows that sell modern photos from often-shot mainlines (Cajon, Tehachapi, Marias) like they are worth tons of money. Gee, can I buy some shots of Santa Fe warbonnets in New Mexico and Arizona? These are a dime a dozen people, get a clue. No offense to those who have shot that area - I would like to too someday. But to buy some of the poorer quality stuff (dark corners, unsharp, high sun, etc.)?.... I guess that is a different story. If anything today is of "value" (and I really don't mean monetarily, but for the simple fact to document something that is slightly different), it is material that shows trains not typically in particular areas. Example: UP units on the Modoc Line. Presuming UP rips up the Modoc, then this sort of thing will have a slightly greater "value" than typical SP shots. Of course, UP units on Tennessee Pass will also have value, but I will venture to say LESS value since everyone and their brother has been flocking to TP and I don't think the same could be said for the Modoc. Please note that I did not say that there is monetary value on these - the value would be if someone were putting together a historical book/article (or looking for the information to accurately model the timeperiod - only a tiny fraction of a percent of modelers try to model a specific prototype timeframe and location anyway so that isn't likely) on the Modoc Line, for example, and they wanted to cover it from creation to extinction. SP photos would obviously be more prevalent, so their "value" would be less than the UP ones. But I could jump on Mark Hemphill's bandwagon and say that all this is all foamer stuff anyway. I tend to agree. Who cares about paint schemes anyway? To get back to the point, I agree with Jim's last post. A question nags in my head though - why do we shoot trains at all? Even though everyone else is shooting the popular locations, why do we also do so? To get better quality shots, at least in my opinion. We are documenting particular areas (lines, operations, whetever) for our personal satisfaction (in as high a quality matter as possible), since we have an interest in them. At least that is why I do it. How about you? David Lehlbach --> SPORRS: Serious Photographers of Railroad Related Subjects X-Mozilla-Status: 0001 Content-Length: 2591
