<<< o >>>en-route to strange places 19 comments + add yours
chromasia.com

I'm not too sure what to say about this one so will leave it up to you. I like it, don't get me wrong, but after driving 350 miles yesterday, having a crap night's sleep, and being at work today, I just can't string two words together.

capture date
camera
lens
focal length
aperture
shutter speed
shooting mode
exposure bias
metering mode
ISO
flash
image quality
RAW converter
cropped?
11.27am on 30/11/04
Canon 20D
EF 17-40 f/4L USM
17mm (27mm equiv.)
f/4.0
1/20
aperture priority
+0.0
evaluative
100
no
RAW
DPP
minor
 
3x2
comment by darrell at 09:50 PM (GMT) on 30 November, 2004

Love it. Can see the train but my mind cannot quite work our what i'm seeing. Nice

comment by twb at 09:53 PM (GMT) on 30 November, 2004

I agree with darrell. Great visual but also perplexing. Is it a reflection?

comment by darrell at 10:00 PM (GMT) on 30 November, 2004

Got it. Its a static train reflecting a moving one. Right?

comment by djn1 at 10:02 PM (GMT) on 30 November, 2004

>> Got it. Its a static train reflecting a moving one. Right?

Wrong ;-)

comment by Thinh at 10:17 PM (GMT) on 30 November, 2004

Cool photo! Been analyzing it for the last 5 minutes and this is what I've come up with:

Your on the train, and the photo is a window reflection of the interior of the train. As well, the window has also revealed the subject on the other side of the glass, which in this case is some sort of wall.

Close?

comment by Eric at 10:19 PM (GMT) on 30 November, 2004

Its a train and you captured the seats through the windows. Right? Great shot... the question is did you know what your were going to get before you shot it?

comment by peterv at 10:50 PM (GMT) on 30 November, 2004

It's a wall outside with your train moving past it- that's a number on the wall 899 or something. ???

Any way it's a return to Chromasia! Great shot!

comment by djn1 at 11:00 PM (GMT) on 30 November, 2004

Lol: Thinh got it mostly right, it's a reflection of the inside of the (moving) train offset against a motion-blurred wall.

Eric: yes, I mostly got what I expected. The way I work these shots is to compose the reflected elements of then just watch through the viewfinder until a suitable background goes past. With a 1/20 shutter speed (or thereabouts) you get a reasonable loss of detail in the background that tends to offset the reflection quite well.

comment by nordilux at 11:37 PM (GMT) on 30 November, 2004

another very cool shot, dave. keep hitting 'em out of the ball park! :-)

comment by xavier at 12:44 AM (GMT) on 1 December, 2004

What is the DPP raw converter? What is it good for?

comment by miklos at 12:50 AM (GMT) on 1 December, 2004

I like this.

comment by bob at 12:50 AM (GMT) on 1 December, 2004

Very cool. Glad you explained it as I was scratching my head.

comment by Carlos at 02:36 AM (GMT) on 1 December, 2004

Ha ha ha. The fist thing that came into my head was: is that a transparent train? jeez!

comment by Sarah at 04:18 AM (GMT) on 1 December, 2004

I have a weird fascination with public transportation, and this is one of the best shots I've seen. Really cool.

comment by Chris at 05:22 AM (GMT) on 1 December, 2004

I cant believe this shot. So cool.

comment by Collins at 06:41 AM (GMT) on 1 December, 2004

Great shot! I have a question: why did you shoot in aperture priority vs shutter priority? The only reason I ask is because in the comments, you mention the shutter speed as a factor for acheiving this type of shot.

comment by djn1 at 12:14 PM (GMT) on 1 December, 2004

Collins: the light was varying; i.e. at maximum aperture it was somewhere between 1/5 and 1/50, so rather than under-expose I used aperture priority. Proving the shutter speed is reasonably low – under 1/100 or thereabouts – you get a reasonable amount of blur in the background.

comment by riff at 06:19 PM (GMT) on 1 December, 2004

I'd say you managed a snap while the aliens were making their esecape.. but, great capture! :)

comment by djn1 at 09:46 PM (GMT) on 1 December, 2004

Thanks all.

riff: yes, that's what I thought too ;-)