jerryc41 Loc: Catskill Mts of NY

You can try panning with a subject for a nice effect. Blurring can be good to show the speed.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

And once again, the speed of the train influences all you mention. The greater the train speed the more problems, the higher the shutter speed - if you want some of the foreground.

In this case... You are inside a moving object, not outside.

By the way it is vortex. It is an issue if you shoot from behind, not the front or sides unless there are climatic conditions that makes it noticeable (mist by example). The heat and exhaust generated by the car are yet other issues. I shot formula one trials in Bahrain and Laguna Secca (Not as a pro but with access in both cases). Basically you do not shoot from behind.

-------
Monopod inside the train... All the vibrations will be transmitted to the camera. Using handheld will alleviate some of that but only to a degree. Same issues as being in a boat.

-------
Rubber hood against the window, good idea, if semi soft. Vibrations issues* will be minimized with the hood not being rigid. The hood will help quite a bit to kill the surrounding lights. The rubber also allows for some skewed motion. Clean/wipe the area first.

-------
You might want to read this... A few examples of what to expect are there from CPL issue to creative photography AND what happens to the foreground compared to the 'rest'.

shotgun

Thnks for the heads up

bcrawf

Once on the moving train, you take a couple of photos as a test before you see anything you want to photograph (as a "keeper"). Evaluate those test shots for window reflection and for movement blur. As another mentioned, get right at the window to be able to eliminate reflection.

bpulv Loc: Buena Park, CA

There is no single answer to the shutter speed question. You must take all factors into account and set your camera accordingly. There are many more issues than speed alone. You should take into account that a slow moving tourist train will often be rocking side to side and you may not be riding on ribbon rails, so there will be small jolts as the wheels cross rail joints (click-clack sound). Also, some tourist train tracks are not well maintained. When I was in Nicaragua, I was on a tourist train where the tracks were out of gauge in many places because warped ties had not been replaced in years. The train never exceeded 15 MPH, but it was a very rough ride as the wheels wobbled side-to-side between the rails. The solution is to always use a high shutter speed. I use at least 1/800 second. Last year we went from Barcelona to Madrid on a train that reached a little over 300 KPH. That is faster than the majority of single engine non-turbo prop airplanes. A 1/4000 second shutter speed was necessary to freeze foreground motion, not because of a rough ride (it was the smoothest train ride I have ever been on), but because of the speed relative to the foreground.

Joe Blow

Apparently we have a failure to communicate.

It is called a "vertex". https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Vertex_(geometry)

The angle of the moving object has zero to do with the swirling gases behind a race car when shooting from a train.

Seriously dude, if you want to lecture people you might want to understand the physics/math behind it first. Since the camera is the reference point, it will always be the point where the angle is calculated from. That still applies even if the camera is moving. As a grand example, we measure the movement of stars from where we sit in space, even though our solar system is moving at millions of miles per hour.

An object photographed from a moving train, regardless of what kind of train, will, in spite of the train's speed, be dependent on the vertex for its sharpness. The smaller the vertex (or angle), the sharper the photo will be.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Vertex, you are correct on the geometry. I thought 'Vortex' because we are looking at a moving object. The faster the more air disturbance, 'vortex'.

So yes, there is mis-communication.

As to being a math person, I am not. Also this word is rarely used. I looked it up at the time and the the only thing I found were pharmaceutical companies so looked at it as a misspelling. My mistake.

This does not change much thought. The camera is a moving point along a line (strait or a curve) within the train so there is no 'point' relative to the outside. This is similar to taking a 'walking' panorama. You get parallax errors all over the place, these being less noticeable in the distance. The exposure calculation is not made to reduce what is basically a triangle base but to reduce the motion. Your approach is incorrect, sorry. You are dealing with a different issue. If you want to fix in an object in the far area you need a lower speed that will increase as the focus area is closer to the moving train. The closer, the more parallax errors too. This is visible as 'lines' that are not the regular motion blur. In this case you have several motion blurs:
- The train motion. (can be frozen* - Limits the linear train motion)
- The train vibration. (can be frozen* - Limits the vibration)
- The subject distance relative motion to the camera. (can be frozen* - Limits the relative motion)
- The angle of view is changing. (parallax - cannot be corrected at any speed)
- This is a small list of issues and is not all inclusive.
* Speed setting.
Let adobe motion filter correct that!!! (Good luck)

_________________________
In the case of a telescope, because you want to go there, the point of view does not move relative to Earth as a planet but moves in several directions at the same time and there is no telling how the stars are moving to normal humans, even scientists. Looking at 'vertex' is not only misleading but a false comparison, sorry. In one case you have your feet 'firmly on the ground (telescope) -Ah!' in the other your feet are firmly onto a very unstable platform. In the first case distances are so high the only motion visible is due to earth own motion around itself - You can use your 'vertex' calculation with large holes onto it....
- The motion around the sun is not taken into account (ex-centered cork screw)
- The semi motion of the sun within the galaxy spiral branch is not used either
- The galaxy spiral branch motion from the center is ignored
- The galaxy center motion moving to/from what is far from being described
- Who know what else is going on that should be added.
All the above is deemed 'negligible' due to the distance. Yeah, right. As to be looking at the 'original cloud'? Good luck with that.

_____________________________________
Take any images of this and good luck figure out what you are looking at. Your points of light you describe as stars are at best:
- A possible long gone star (time lapse)
- A different size/shape than what we estimate (blob comes to mind)
- A widely different distance than estimated. - This of course influence estimated size -.
- Fuzzy stuff to say the least.

So where does 'Vertex' may really work? In a lab where everything is controlled. Anywhere else is a gross approximation based on limited motion understanding and current knowledge. I do not pretend to know.

________________________________
Even our understanding of distance/speed is relative to size and scale. Ten kilometers for a bird may be 15 (rough terrain, mountain) for us and hundred of kilometers for a small earth bound critter (that cannot fly). But then again, a bird flying higher flies a longer distance than we assume since the earth surface is curved. Then is flying North or South? East to West or West to East? What does the direction has anything to do with it? Distance variation in one case, time in the other. Then, is there wind up there? What direction? Check the plane flight patterns, there are other reasons than a 'simple' air stream.

____________________
A simple 2 dimensional example we can all relate to.

Try to swim across a slow moving, wide river.
You have a choice on how to get to B from the are you are on, A.
In term of fixed distance (A to B) it is shorter.
To do this you (A to B) You exert yourself fighting the current and really swim much more than A to B. You have to add the river speed to your calculations.
If you REALLY want to reach B swimming only the fixed distance (A to B) You let the flow take you you land in point C way further downstream.
Funny thing? C to B is the approximately the same distance you had to swim when swimming up stream.
Personally, because I am a bad swimmer and dreadfully lazy I would select # 2.
After landing in C I can walk/run faster than I can swim and arrive to B long before the distance swimmer. I'll be rested when he arrives.
#3, 4, 5, .... Are not options. Forget boats, jumping, using a bridge, whatever...
You probably would be still calculating what to do when both the swimmer and I would be walking away to point D shrugging our shoulders, laughing at your science.

Oh, do not forget to take pictures.

rehess Loc: South Bend, Indiana, USA

Some of your advice is in conflict. When I've ridden a train, outdoors is brighter than in the train, so a rubber hood was totally unneeded. Panning requires practice and needs unobstructed window. In the fifty years I've been doing this, I just take pictures as normal.

Rongnongno Loc: FL

Which is the way it should be. Speed is only n issue to reduce motion. The rest is pure BS. Including the 'vortex'.

Joe Blow

Simply put, you are fixated on tourist trains and don't understand the geometry. Trust me, photography is more than pushing a button.