Amtrak and Photoshop

Shop deals on ebay
shop deals on amazon
Advertise with us
Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum

Help Support Amtrak Unlimited Discussion Forum:

This site may earn a commission from merchant affiliate links, including eBay, Amazon, and others.
Status
Not open for further replies.
wayman

wayman

Engineer
Joined
Sep 6, 2007
Messages
2,312
Location
Northampton MA
All this talk about Amtrak photography reminded me of a question I've long had. If you look closely at photographs of trains in the system timetable and other Amtrak publications, you'll see that almost every P42 has its number "erased". I think there are good examples of this on pages 78 and 90 of the current system timetable (I may have the page numbers wrong; I'm remembering from leafing through one on Sunday). Actually, you don't have to look all that closely, since the P42 numbers on the side are HUGE, and thus very conspicuously absent.

Why would Amtrak Photoshop out the numbers?

Do they think, for some artistic or advertising reason, that "a generic train" makes a better ad than "a specific train", or that "any visible print that isn't our name or logo is bad"? (I can sort of see this, but I just don't get it. How would Photoshopping out the numbers actually improve Amtrak's bottom line revenue?)

Or is this some attempt to keep foamers from saying "hey, that's the Coast Starlight with numbers 87 and 4, I think I have a photo of that, yes, it was October 6, 2007, the one that was so late into Emeryville!" in a loud enough voice to dissuade potential new travelers? (Preposterous! But this is Amtrak, so that must be the reason :lol: )
 
Last edited by a moderator:
wayman said:
All this talk about Amtrak photography reminded me of a question I've long had. If you look closely at photographs of trains in the system timetable and other Amtrak publications, you'll see that almost every P42 has its number "erased". I think there are good examples of this on pages 78 and 90 of the current system timetable (I may have the page numbers wrong; I'm remembering from leafing through one on Sunday). Actually, you don't have to look all that closely, since the P42 numbers on the side are HUGE, and thus very conspicuously absent.
Why would Amtrak Photoshop out the numbers?

Do they think, for some artistic or advertising reason, that "a generic train" makes a better add than "a specific train", or that "any visible print that isn't our name or logo is bad"? (I can sort of see this, but I just don't get it. How would Photoshopping out the numbers actually improve Amtrak's bottom line revenue?)

Or is this some attempt to keep foamers from saying "hey, that's the Coast Starlight with numbers 87 and 4, I think I have a photo of that, yes, it was October 6, 2007, the one that was so late into Emeryville!" in a loud enough voice to dissuade potential new travelers? (Preposterous! But this is Amtrak, so that must be the reason :lol: )
Click to expand...
Must be a new thing, as they didn't always remove the numbers. Here are several from the 80's. But, they didn't computer generate their TTs then, either.

NOTE: #314 made in on a cover twice!

photoshop.jpg
 
Last edited by a moderator:
I was about to post the same thing as I picked up an Amtrak timetable and Vacation guide last week. It's been going on for a couple of years, and I think it's dumb that they want to photoshop out the numbers. The Vacation Guide is real bad - barely leaving the Superliner stripes on the coaches! Just inside, on the table of contents page, the train is described in great detail. I'm sure they have some sort of official answer with regards to "safety" or anti railfanning or something dumb like that.
 
The hand-signed photo of the EB in Glacier Nat. Park that I got in NYP for Train Day is also photoshopped.

A weird one- Amtrak America, page 23 the AEM7 looks strange without all the numbers.
 
It's one of those peculiarities. It annoys all of us who are purists and want to see the picture just like it was when it came off the flash drive. However, for a lot of, well, idiots out there they actually would be highly confused by the engine number not being 53 on 53. I personally (and I'm sure others have the same experience) have been on the platform when a train (say 98) will be pulling in with the AMTK 178 and people will say "Oh that's not our train, that's train 178." It takes a little coaxing from the on board crew for them to realize that it's not their train.

The more entertaining peculiarity is when people will be waiting for 98 in Jessup and Auto Train comes around the corner. People start hugging and kissing goodbye, just to get blown away by Auto Train hauling at 50 MPH. :lol:
 
They might also like to flip the photos left to right as a mirror image, and if there is any print on the engines, it would look reversed. I've seen this on some timetable or travel planner.
 
MrFSS - the 5-15-75 TT cover was actually a painting by Gil Reid. The others look like photos though. Interesting how they included numbers even when they didn't have to edit anything! :D
 
Last edited by a moderator:
Hay, there is a different locomotive on my train than shown in the brochure! I demand a refund, or least a voucher.
 
Tony said:
Hay, there is a different locomotive on my train than shown in the brochure! I demand a refund, or least a voucher.
Click to expand...
I guess the absolute worst-case scenario that could develop from leaving the number on a P42 photograph in the timetable is that someone could say (and be overheard) "Oh, a photo of #8, how sad--isn't that the one that was in that horrible Pere Marquette wreck near Chicago?" :(

And a real pity--since #8 is one of the few that they could easily reverse the photo left/right and not have to worry about the number looking backwards :)
 
battalion51 said:
However, for a lot of, well, idiots out there they actually would be highly confused by the engine number not being 53 on 53. I personally (and I'm sure others have the same experience) have been on the platform when a train (say 98) will be pulling in with the AMTK 178 and people will say "Oh that's not our train, that's train 178." It takes a little coaxing from the on board crew for them to realize that it's not their train.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's fair to call people idiots for that. On every city bus system I've encountered, if there's a highly visible number on the front of the bus, it's the route number, not the vehicle number. Why would someone familiar with city buses and not experienced in riding Amtrak expect Amtrak to be different in this way?
 
They probably photoshop the numbers because.... well, because they can. It probably doesn't take them more than 10 minutes to do so. Maybe they think it gives it a more streamlined look? Who knows.
 
Am I missing something here? Or is just too late in the day for me to be posting? :p But how would erasing engine numbers in a photo help keep people on the platform from confusing the real thing? The numbers are still there in real life aren't they? Like I said, I better go to bed. <_<
 
nr272 said:
They probably photoshop the numbers because.... well, because they can. It probably doesn't take them more than 10 minutes to do so. Maybe they think it gives it a more streamlined look? Who knows.
Click to expand...
If it takes them ten minutes, then they really don't know what they're doing.

Is it possible that they remove the engine numbers so that you cannot tell which engine it is?

Although, to be honest, it makes a lot of sense to do it so that they could reverse the picture with impunity.
 
Joel N. Weber II said:
battalion51 said:
However, for a lot of, well, idiots out there they actually would be highly confused by the engine number not being 53 on 53. I personally (and I'm sure others have the same experience) have been on the platform when a train (say 98) will be pulling in with the AMTK 178 and people will say "Oh that's not our train, that's train 178." It takes a little coaxing from the on board crew for them to realize that it's not their train.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's fair to call people idiots for that. On every city bus system I've encountered, if there's a highly visible number on the front of the bus, it's the route number, not the vehicle number. Why would someone familiar with city buses and not experienced in riding Amtrak expect Amtrak to be different in this way?
Click to expand...
I just had a thought that maybe Amtrak should do the same thing, if it really is confusing to passengers on platforms. In all the radio traffic I've listened to at railroadradio.net, conductors, dispatchers, MOW foreman, and everyone else who deals with Amtrak trains always refer to Amtrak trains by the train number, anyway. (Normally, trains are referred to by engine number, but it might actually work better to have the engines display the train number on their front because that's how they're known.)
 
When I was on the SWC last March, the dispatcher in the Winslow sub (I believe that is the correct sub name) kept referring to our train as 'Amtrak 162.' I was a bit confused about this as it was always referred to as Amtrak 3 from Chicago. When I reviewed my pictures later on, I realized our lead locomotive was 162, so once in a while they will call it by the locomotive number.

A friend of mine who railfans in the Twin Cities area said that one BNSF dispatcher simply refers to the EB as the 'silver sausage' over the radio. :p

Dan
 
Joel N. Weber II said:
battalion51 said:
However, for a lot of, well, idiots out there they actually would be highly confused by the engine number not being 53 on 53. I personally (and I'm sure others have the same experience) have been on the platform when a train (say 98) will be pulling in with the AMTK 178 and people will say "Oh that's not our train, that's train 178." It takes a little coaxing from the on board crew for them to realize that it's not their train.
Click to expand...
I'm not sure it's fair to call people idiots for that. On every city bus system I've encountered, if there's a highly visible number on the front of the bus, it's the route number, not the vehicle number. Why would someone familiar with city buses and not experienced in riding Amtrak expect Amtrak to be different in this way?
Click to expand...
I 'gree. I think it would make more sense to have the train number on a digital or rolling display on the locomotive. The locomotive number could be on the top, on a placard in the cab, or somewhere else. Even on the long distance routes where you have the same train number going the same direction in three physically different locations at the same time, they don't call in using their loco number.
 
I believe airline controllers and pilots refer to planes by the tail number, never the flight number.
 
sechs said:
nr272 said:
They probably photoshop the numbers because.... well, because they can. It probably doesn't take them more than 10 minutes to do so. Maybe they think it gives it a more streamlined look? Who knows.
Click to expand...
If it takes them ten minutes, then they really don't know what they're doing.

Is it possible that they remove the engine numbers so that you cannot tell which engine it is?

Although, to be honest, it makes a lot of sense to do it so that they could reverse the picture with impunity.
Click to expand...
I mean, after all, who would want to ride a renilrepus?
 
MrFSS said:
I believe airline controllers and pilots refer to planes by the tail number, never the flight number.
Click to expand...
Airliners are referred to by their flight number (ie: United 794). Private aircraft are referred to by their tail number (ie: Cherokee November 8275 Zulu for N8275Z). Charters and life-flights can use either. Flight test aircraft have their own call signs and can use their own personal test pilot number (ie: Eclipse 101).
 
sechs said:
VentureForth said:
sechs said:
Although, to be honest, it makes a lot of sense to do it so that they could reverse the picture with impunity.
Click to expand...
I mean, after all, who would want to ride a renilrepus?
Click to expand...
Well, if you find a Superliner engine, let me know. I'd be more worried about the backwards Amtrak logo.

All easily fixed in Photoshop, of course....
Click to expand...
They've actually photoshopped the words "Superliner" off the coaches, which was what I was referring to...
 
VentureForth said:
sechs said:
VentureForth said:
sechs said:
Although, to be honest, it makes a lot of sense to do it so that they could reverse the picture with impunity.
Click to expand...
I mean, after all, who would want to ride a renilrepus?
Click to expand...
Well, if you find a Superliner engine, let me know. I'd be more worried about the backwards Amtrak logo.

All easily fixed in Photoshop, of course....
Click to expand...
They've actually photoshopped the words "Superliner" off the coaches, which was what I was referring to...
Click to expand...
Wow, I hadn't noticed that.

Of course, one can take this concept even further in that direction and not need Photoshop at all. For the classic Pride of the Yankees, the Lou Gehrig movie starring Gary Cooper, Cooper was the perfect Gehrig except for one thing: he couldn't bat left-handed! So the director gave Cooper a uniform with a backwards "4", and had him bat right-handed for closeup shots (of which there weren't many--they limited those intentionally), and then flipped the negative for those shots. All the long shots of Gehrig batting used a left-handed stunt double.

Probably for the best that Amtrak doesn't waste their money lettering special "for the calendar photograph" trains backwards! :lol:
 
The photo of the Coast Starlight in the current timetable is also photoshoped. From the looks of it, they accidentally put another transition sleeper in it. But it is undoutfully a photoshop.

cpamtfan-Peter
 
This is kind of like discussing cereal box fronts.

Does it matter if it's real milk or Elmer's glue? It's a composed image for marketing purposes.
 
Status
Not open for further replies.

Latest posts

Back
Top