J n X Photography wrote:
I just came into the modeling/photog scene in July of this year...can somebody explain to me the thing/fetish/deal with the train tracks?

I hope this isn't a dumb question...thanks!

No problem!


The train barreling down a track is symbolic of a certain heterosexual sexual act.  This symbolism is doubled if the track/train is entering a tunnel.   Additionally, train tracks feature prominently in Damsel in Distress /Perils of Pauline type scenarios, train tracks themselve are obviously inherently dangerous if one isn't aware of a hurdling train.   Since Americans seem to have a strong cultural imbalance towards sexuality (drawn to it but are fearful and guilty), the sexy model on a train track is a perfect representation of this imbalance.  Fetish photography since it is examining sexual feelings and acts, is a genre more prone to explore this kind of theme as opposed to (let's say) bridal photography.  Though, quite frankly the idea of the image of a groom tied to a train track is perahps a richly appropriate symbol as well.

KM von Seidl wrote:

No problem!


The train barreling down a track is symbolic of a certain heterosexual sexual act.  This symbolism is doubled if the track/train is entering a tunnel.   Additionally, train tracks feature prominently in Damsel in Distress /Perils of Pauline type scenarios, train tracks themselve are obviously inherently dangerous if one isn't aware of a hurdling train.   Since Americans seem to have a strong cultural imbalance towards sexuality (drawn to it but are fearful and guilty), the sexy model on a train track is a perfect representation of this imbalance.  Fetish photography since it is examining sexual feelings and acts, is a genre more prone to explore this kind of theme as opposed to (let's say) bridal photography.  Though, quite frankly the idea of the image of a groom tied to a train track is perahps a richly appropriate symbol as well.

So it doesn't have anything to do with that internet model that was murdered a year back or so?

J n X Photography wrote:

So it doesn't have anything to do with that internet model that was murdered a year back or so?

Was she run over by a train?

J n X Photography wrote:
I just came into the modeling/photog scene in July of this year...can somebody explain to me the thing/fetish/deal with the train tracks?

I hope this isn't a dumb question...thanks!

KM von Seidl wrote:
No problem!
The train barreling down a track is symbolic of a certain heterosexual sexual act.  This symbolism is doubled if the track/train is entering a tunnel.   Additionally, train tracks feature prominently in Damsel in Distress /Perils of Pauline type scenarios, train tracks themselve are obviously inherently dangerous if one isn't aware of a hurdling train.   Since Americans seem to have a strong cultural imbalance towards sexuality (drawn to it but are fearful and guilty), the sexy model on a train track is a perfect representation of this imbalance.  Fetish photography since it is examining sexual feelings and acts, is a genre more prone to explore this kind of theme as opposed to (let's say) bridal photography.  Though, quite frankly the idea of the image of a groom tied to a train track is perahps a richly appropriate symbol as well.

I think if it in ways similar to the tilt of the flight deck of an aircraft carrier.  It can be an amazing visual if you have the fortune to ............

never mind.

J n X Photography wrote:
So it doesn't have anything to do with that internet model that was murdered a year back or so?

KM von Seidl wrote:
Was she run over by a train?

Ouch,   ......  sorry,  deep dark pesonal problem since my uncle was.... never mind.

thats got to hurt.

But no.  It has nothing to do with that and No   she wasnt run over by the train.

Or perhaps she was.  Who Knows?? 

whatadeal.

Justin wrote:
I didn't think I needed a reason, other than I thought it looked kinda neat. I like flat backdrops, too.

fab image!

once again, the ol' "Hey, how come people shoot these cliched shots of " threads, and then someone posts an image (there will be more) to demonstrate that some have more creativity that others can imagine.

Justin wrote:
Curt, that is an exceedingly nice thing to say. Thank you very much.

i'd have to agree, that is a gorgeous image.

KM von Seidl wrote:

No problem!


The train barreling down a track is symbolic of a certain heterosexual sexual act.  This symbolism is doubled if the track/train is entering a tunnel.   Additionally, train tracks feature prominently in Damsel in Distress /Perils of Pauline type scenarios, train tracks themselve are obviously inherently dangerous if one isn't aware of a hurdling train.   Since Americans seem to have a strong cultural imbalance towards sexuality (drawn to it but are fearful and guilty), the sexy model on a train track is a perfect representation of this imbalance.  Fetish photography since it is examining sexual feelings and acts, is a genre more prone to explore this kind of theme as opposed to (let's say) bridal photography.  Though, quite frankly the idea of the image of a groom tied to a train track is perahps a richly appropriate symbol as well.

Holy crap, I didn't know that!

Urban Eclipse Studio wrote:
...but something along those lines.

Excellent!

Curt Burgess wrote:

fab image!

once again, the ol' "Hey, how come people shoot these cliched shots of " threads, and then someone posts an image (there will be more) to demonstrate that some have more creativity that others can imagine.

I second that! There are so many whining brats on here that say stop doing cliche images...I guess they have nothing better to do other than complain.

And then someone comes on here with a great image like that...which makes you think...because you can't see her facial expression...what's the purpose behind it? It she going to kill herself? What is she thinking? Is she with anyone else and she's the only one in the picture?

So...all you brats that complain about cliches..this should shut you up for...at least a minute or two.

Good job- great shot.

Justin wrote:
I didn't think I needed a reason, other than I thought it looked kinda neat. I like flat backdrops, too.

Justin,

I will freely admit I am not a fan of train track shots - nor the rose petals strewn over the naked model... But this shot of your is awesome!  I think what makes this work - at least for me - is the fact that the model really is not the main focus.  She's not nude, semi-nude or seductively posing while looking directly into the camera lens.  This shot has a huge feel to it.  Great depth.  Nice work!

-Rowen

Jay Bowman wrote:
Just once, just once, I want someone to stick to their guns and say "Uh, no, sorry but yours is shit, too, pal."

Well, I think Ched is on vacation. So, no dice.

Jay Bowman wrote:
This honestly isn't directed at anyone in particular, just an occurace which I find amusing:

Threads like these always come up.  You'll have people coming out of the woodworks saying "Yeah!!  Yeah!!  :::insert oft-used composition here:::  is el lame-o to the max-o, y'know!!  I hate all pictures like that!!"

Then there will be the obligatory response along the lines of "Hark!  Dost thou referest to yon photo in mine portfolio?  I shall post it for thee here, post-haste, henceforth, forthwith!" and so on & so forth.


it's a schema that is utilized by people who lack creativity.

Just once, just once, I want someone to stick to their guns and say "Uh, no, sorry but yours is shit, too, pal."

A certain entertainment value to that! Of course one can always notice which images did not get the lauditory remarks and also who took their images off.

Jay Bowman wrote:
As an aside, I'm of the opinion that a well done photo is just that.  How many times you've seen the composition or context before means nothing.  Not overdone ideas, just badly executed ideas...

Wish I would have said that. I think it reflects a peculiar type of self-centeredness. A person isn't very creative, they have noticed that when they try and imitate other "types" of images that they can't quite carry it off, and then assume that anyone trying it is cliched. In any pursuit, one needs to give themselves latitude to try things out, fail, and then reflect on it. A real challange to a photographer is to take a cliched genre and try to produce something distinctive. 

The next person who complains about railroad track images should have their nose rubbed in Justin's rail image to drive the point home. It's an incredible image.

Daniela V wrote:
Well, I think Ched is on vacation. So, no dice.

Ah, well... Here's hoping...

Curt Burgess wrote:
A real challange to a photographer is to take a cliched genre and try to produce something distinctive.

Very true.  I have half a mind to do a series using "cliched" themes for just that reason.  Push myself to make something work a second look from the themes people consider overused...

J n X Photography wrote:
...can somebody explain to me the thing/fetish/deal with the train tracks?

In a way its similar to the model embracing the pole in your avatar...

Jay Bowman wrote:
This honestly isn't directed at anyone in particular, just an occurace which I find amusing:

Threads like these always come up.  You'll have people coming out of the woodworks saying "Yeah!!  Yeah!!  :::insert oft-used composition here:::  is el lame-o to the max-o, y'know!!  I hate all pictures like that!!"

Then there will be the obligatory response along the lines of "Hark!  Dost thou referest to yon photo in mine portfolio?  I shall post it for thee here, post-haste, henceforth, forthwith!" and so on & so forth. 

At that point, suddenly everyone caves and says "Oh, but yours is sooo good."




Just once, just once, I want someone to stick to their guns and say "Uh, no, sorry but yours is shit, too, pal."




As an aside, I'm of the opinion that a well done photo is just that.  How many times you've seen the composition or context before means nothing.  Not overdone ideas, just badly executed ideas...

I must admit, Jay, you nailed me with this comment.  I immediately wanted to post my tracks image, but opted to not.........well I have in a way. Maybe I should start just shooting girls in kudzo:-)

KM von Seidl wrote:

No problem!


The train barreling down a track is symbolic of a certain heterosexual sexual act.  This symbolism is doubled if the track/train is entering a tunnel.   Additionally, train tracks feature prominently in Damsel in Distress /Perils of Pauline type scenarios, train tracks themselve are obviously inherently dangerous if one isn't aware of a hurdling train.   Since Americans seem to have a strong cultural imbalance towards sexuality (drawn to it but are fearful and guilty), the sexy model on a train track is a perfect representation of this imbalance.  Fetish photography since it is examining sexual feelings and acts, is a genre more prone to explore this kind of theme as opposed to (let's say) bridal photography.  Though, quite frankly the idea of the image of a groom tied to a train track is perahps a richly appropriate symbol as well.

Could simply symbolize a journey.

Solomage wrote:

In a way its similar to the model embracing the pole in your avatar...

it's a mast from a catamaran!  the guide wires are PS'ed out though!!!  (everyone says its a pole!)

CaneegaPhotography wrote:

Could simply symbolize a journey.

Not to be picky, but..what does HETRO have to do with it? THERE ARE HOLES for hetros and homos..

As far as the tracks being a sexual image, thats a new spin on me. I always thought of the journey factor..SEX? Hmmm..OK I can wrap my head around it.  As far as photgraphy goes, I would think the way the shot is set up would determine it's over comp and meaning.

Just me... not arguing....

stephanie hilbrand wrote:
anything that can add depth to an image is good, especially when the focus should be on the model.... you just have to know how to shoot it i guess...

While I quite agree with the sentiment that anything that add depth to an image is good (most of the time), and this is a good photo,  that is NOT the case in this image.  If the focus is intended to be on the model, it is not attained here.  Basic photo/image/art composition theory will tell you that this is a case of single-point perspective with a vanishing point at the horizon, which, in this case, divides the image almost exactly in half...not usdually a good idea.  Unfortunately, the really strong image of the tracks actully draws the viewer's eye away from the model and down the tracks.  The focus is def. not on the model in this image.