Jump to content
 

Dave F's photos - ongoing - more added each day


Recommended Posts

On 16/09/2014 at 04:17, DaveF said:

 

post-5613-0-38495400-1410804925_thumb.jpg

Lairg Goods shed Aug 73 C1333

 

Somewhat late to the picnic, but I'm was hoping someone might care to comment as to why the bottom of the goods shed windows appear to have been boarded over.

  • Like 5
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Good evening, David. I like the ECML in Northumberland photo’s, starting at Acklington, going past Buston Barns to Chathill. All are of interest, and what a delightful example of a ‘train in the landscape’ photo’, J13914, at Acklington, with a class 56 on a down coal train, in June, 1993, is. 
 

With warmest regards,

 

 Rob.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Good evening, David. I like the Cramlington photo’s all of which are of interest. In the last photo’, with 158762, on a Newcastle to Alnmouth service, in July, 1992, it appears the marker light on the secondman’s side has failed. It’s certainly not lit up as it should be.

 

With warmest regards,

 

 Rob.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
1 hour ago, pH said:

 

 

Looking west from the bufferstops, 30 years earlier (5 August 1961). A lot more infrastructure then.

11230821146_a512377fb7_o.jpg.c438caac6974c5c99856d0fe57019f76.jpg

That curved scissors with interlaced timbers would be "fun" to model.

  • Like 2
  • Agree 3
  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Good evening, David. I like the photo’s of the ECML from Sunderland Bridge to Tyne Yard. All are of interest, and that’s a lovely portrait shot of 47217, ‘Kingfisher’, running light engine, on the 17th July, 1990.

 

With warmest regards,

 

 Rob.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

C14561 is a great picture at Tyne yard, a good reference for weathering a BR blue loco. I wonder what happened to the poor tippler that looks abandoned trackside behind the loco, looks like an engineers wagon with slots cut in the sides?

 

Thanks for posting.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

18 minutes ago, Clagsniffer said:

C14561 is a great picture at Tyne yard, a good reference for weathering a BR blue loco. I wonder what happened to the poor tippler that looks abandoned trackside behind the loco, looks like an engineers wagon with slots cut in the sides?

 

Thanks for posting.

The holes were cut in the sides to prevent overloading of the wagon when it was carrying a denser material than it was designed for (e.g. Spoil)

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

The wagon with the 'letterboxes' is a 16t Minfit, which, when loaded to the gunwhales would hold about 30t of spoil. This is rather more than the bearings would support, hence the slots. When the same wagons were used in the early 1970s as fitted heads on stone trains from the Peak District and the Mendips, they had '3/4' painted on the side panels, to remind the loaders not to overload them.

  • Agree 1
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 2
Link to post
Share on other sites

A quick techy question, David.

 

Just out of interest, what density of dpi do you scan your negatives at? I'm currently rescanning all of my 35mm negatives from the early-1970s onwards (until I went digital in 2000). My old scanner had a fairly limited range but my Epson V600 gives me far more options and much improved scans. I did scan a few negatives at 600dpi - but that gave me a file size of anything from 1.2 - 2.0Mb per image, the higher end of which I wasn't overly keen on (fine for good quality images that you want to blow up but a bit of a waste for poorer quality shots, taken with lower film speeds).

 

The majority of your images are beautifully sharp, with good colour depth, so I'm just curious as to what density you generally use.

 

Thanks for any advice.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
16 hours ago, 35A said:

A quick techy question, David.

 

Just out of interest, what density of dpi do you scan your negatives at? I'm currently rescanning all of my 35mm negatives from the early-1970s onwards (until I went digital in 2000). My old scanner had a fairly limited range but my Epson V600 gives me far more options and much improved scans. I did scan a few negatives at 600dpi - but that gave me a file size of anything from 1.2 - 2.0Mb per image, the higher end of which I wasn't overly keen on (fine for good quality images that you want to blow up but a bit of a waste for poorer quality shots, taken with lower film speeds).

 

The majority of your images are beautifully sharp, with good colour depth, so I'm just curious as to what density you generally use.

 

Thanks for any advice.

 

 

The settings I used varied over the years and also depended on the film and quality of the slides/negatives.

 

Most were scanned with a Minolta slide scanner, which was good for its time (bought in 2003).  It will now only work with VueScan software as Windows no longer recognises the original Minolta software, but I haven't used it for several years.

 

More recently I've used my Epson scanner for odd negatives and slides, which works well enough.

 

I've almost always used scanners on auto settings and then tidied things up later on.  Initially I used paint Shop Pro, then Photoshops CS3. more recently Photoshop Elements 10 and now Elements 2021, depending on whether I am using a PC or laptop.

 

Slides I started scanning at 1000 dpi, often a lot more depending on the film quality.  If I was starting again now I'd always scan at a higher resolution, but when I started monitorsand TVs were quite low resolution and printing was very expensive.  Also PCs were much slower back in 2003 and I had about 90,000 slides of mine and my parents to scan.  As they get published in magazines and boks they must be good enough.

 

B/W negs usually got scanned at around 2,000 dpi, as they were done very much later when PC's were better (and hard drives were cheaper).

 

When I correct colours etc I also always sharpen the image, it makes a big difference.  there is not set figure, it is just either Unsharp mask or Smart sharpen until it looks right.   Once you get used to it you can often use the same settings most of the time, but it will depend on the original film and your scanner.

 

Above all keep several back up copies of your scans - hard drives are cheap now and you can always use the cloud, if you find a good firm.

 

Hope this is some use.

 

David

 

 

 

Edited by DaveF
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 9
Link to post
Share on other sites

5 hours ago, DaveF said:

 

 

The settings I used varied over the years and also depended on the film and quality of the slides/negatives.

 

Most were scanned with a Minolta slide scanner, which was good for its time (bought in 2003).  It will now only work with VueScan software as Windows no longer recognises the original Minolts software, but I haven't used it for several years.

 

More recently I've used my Epson scanner for odd negatives and slides, which works well enough.

 

I've almost always used scanners on auto settings and then tidied things up later on.  Initially I used paint Shop Pro, then Photoshops CS3. more recently Photoshop Elements 10 and now Elements 2021, depending on whether I am using a PC or laptop.

 

Slides I started scanning at 1000 dpi, often a lot more depending on the film quality.  If I was starting again now I'd always scan at a higher resolution, but when I started monitorsand TVs were quite low resolution and printing was very expensive.  Also PCs were much slower back in 2003 and I had about 90,000 slides of mine and my parents to scan.  As they get published in magazines and boks they must be good enough.

 

B/W negs usually got scanned at around 2,000 dpi, as they were done very much later when PC's were better (and hard drives were cheaper).

 

When I correct colours etc I also always sharpen the image, it makes a big difference.  there is not set figure, it is just either Unsharp mask or Smart sharpen until it looks right.   Once you get used to it you can often use the same settings most of the time, but it will depend on the original film and your scanner.

 

Above all keep several back up copies of your scans - hard drives are cheap now and you can always use the cloud, if you find a good firm.

 

Hope this is some use.

 

David

 

Many thanks for that detailed reply. It's very helpful.

 

I scanned all of my 35mm negatives just after the turn of the century, once I had started archiving all of my digital stuff. The 1980s ones, where I was using a better camera and faster film speed were very acceptable but some of the 1970s ones are not great.

 

These days I tend to use a mixture of Windows and Picasa software to edit my pictures - I do have Photoshop but I've tended not to use it (mainly just never having had the time to sit down and learn its intricacies properly!).

 

Having changed my scanner a couple of years ago, I've been using some of our recent 'holiday' to rescan my 1970s negatives, taking advantage of the additional functionality that the Epson provides.

 

As you say, a bit of judicious sharpening can make a world of difference to an average image.

 

I've got a standalone 1Tb hard drive, so storage is not a major problem. I still periodically burn to CD-DVD, for security, and I always carry a memory stick with my back-up on (although my images have now blown that - I'm going to have to invest in a new one, imminently!).

 

Again, thanks for the help. I may have a play with scanning at a very high density, just out of curiosity, to see what file size it gives me.

 

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold
3 hours ago, 35A said:

 

Many thanks for that detailed reply. It's very helpful.

 

I scanned all of my 35mm negatives just after the turn of the century, once I had started archiving all of my digital stuff. The 1980s ones, where I was using a better camera and faster film speed were very acceptable but some of the 1970s ones are not great.

 

These days I tend to use a mixture of Windows and Picasa software to edit my pictures - I do have Photoshop but I've tended not to use it (mainly just never having had the time to sit down and learn its intricacies properly!).

 

Having changed my scanner a couple of years ago, I've been using some of our recent 'holiday' to rescan my 1970s negatives, taking advantage of the additional functionality that the Epson provides.

 

As you say, a bit of judicious sharpening can make a world of difference to an average image.

 

I've got a standalone 1Tb hard drive, so storage is not a major problem. I still periodically burn to CD-DVD, for security, and I always carry a memory stick with my back-up on (although my images have now blown that - I'm going to have to invest in a new one, imminently!).

 

Again, thanks for the help. I may have a play with scanning at a very high density, just out of curiosity, to see what file size it gives me.

 

 

 

I should perhaps add that all my images on RMWeb are resized to either (approximately) 1500 or 1700 pixels across.

 

The file size is normally around 300-400Kb.

 

David

Edited by DaveF
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium
6 hours ago, DaveF said:

Some photos from what is now Rocks by Rail at Cottesmore this morning.

 

1839917799_CottesmoreAvonsideCEGB2DoraHunsletCoalProducts6HudswellClarke31PeckettElizabethAug83J8040.jpg.fffc9cf1b5da6459903516c389184cdf.jpg

Cottesmore Avonside CEGB 2 Dora Hunslet Coal Products 6 Hudswell Clarke 31 Peckett Elizabeth Aug 83 J8040.jpg

 

 

379438776_CottesmoreAvonsideexCEGB2DoraAug81J7548.jpg.11578973c6503d81ddeed8ae50a04d5c.jpg

Cottesmore Avonside ex CEGB 2 Dora Aug 81 J7548.jpg

 

 

630992905_CottesmoreBarclay2SalmonAug81J7539.jpg.086ddc5703eb5b0d26557b9517f28c0d.jpg

Cottesmore Barclay 2 Salmon Aug 81 J7539.jpg

 

 

2098383719_CottesmoreHawthornLeslieexChathamDockyardSingaporeAug81J7547.jpg.83a5c43cb7f26ed0212fa2aa0907f236.jpg

Cottesmore Hawthorn Leslie ex Chatham Dockyard Singapore Aug 81 J7547.jpg

 

 

973929551_CottesmoreHunsletcoalproducts6HudswellClarke31PeckettElizabethPeckettexHarwothcollieryAug81J7545.jpg.eb4dd1ff8126ea1e19ff03470b6c7bc8.jpg

Cottesmore Hunslet Coal Products 6 Hudswell Clarke 31 Peckett Elizabeth Peckett ex Harwoth colliery Aug 81 J7545.jpg

 

 

1547843803_CottesmoreYorksireEngineCo0-6-0dsAug83J8043.jpg.9dba9e2369186be89362b24b287ad0e8.jpg

Cottesmore Yorksire Engine Co 0-6-0 ds Aug 83 J8043.jpg

 

 

David

 

Hi David,

 

Nice to see the old Rutland Railway museum as it was in the early days.

 

We should have celebrated our 40th anniversary last year, but certain events (for the most oart) outside Rutland put paid to that.

 

The place is looking a little tidier now.

 

Some of the locos that you took photos of are still here, others have moved on.

 

You will have to come and see us some day.

 

 

 

 

 

Best Regards

 

Ian

  • Like 3
  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
  • Friendly/supportive 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Premium

Just a comment on image sizes. For publication the image needs to be at least 300 dpi at the published size. At the top end this means about 40Mb for a full page bleed photo. This will usually means scanning at a fairly high resolution. To publish a 35 mm slide across the page (say 17.5 cm wide) will mean scanning at 1500 dpi.

The same is true of black and white of course but the file sizes are smaller.

Things like Unsharp Mask help but they are not a substitute for adequate resolution.

Jonathan

  • Thanks 1
  • Informative/Useful 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

  • RMweb Gold

Good evening, David. I like the Rocks by Rail at Cottesmore photo’s which are all of interest. In the last photo’, of Yorksire Engine Company, 0-6-0 diesel shunter, in August, 1983, you have a scene which would make a most interesting area, on a model railway, full of interest.

The Carlisle photo’s are all full of interest from days long gone, and the last photo’, with 144015, on a Leeds to Carlisle service, on the 31st May, 1995, reminds me of a story, by a friend, who used to travel over the line in the early to mid 1990’s. The trains would often be  a 142 or 144 and a 156. “Always travel in the 156,” he would exclaim. “The Pacer is just too uncomfortable.” I always travelled in the 156. Memories.

 

With warmest regards,

 

 Rob.

  • Thanks 1
Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
 Share

×
×
  • Create New...