Railroad Bridge

Shot this one today,

Any thoughts on how to improve this?

Cody White said:

Shot this one today,

Any thoughts on how to improve this?

Railroad Bridge By Cody White​

Click to expand...

I love bridge pictures and this is unusual. The rails seem to be in use but the bridge has been allowed to rust. I thought they had to be painted every year! That could give a few guys a nice job.

The spots, BTw, are a little bit of a distraction.

Asher

P.S. You could easily fix the dust spots on your sensor. I guess you were using an f stop of about 16 or so to be able to see them. I hardly every use my lenses closed down. Doubtless I have the same dust bunnies on my sensors. I only clean once a year!

I think that the image would be improved by cropping the middle. Here you have two subjects: the tracks and the bridge and I find the bridge more interesting.

Asher Kelman said:

I love bridge pictures and this is unusual. The rails seem to be in use but the bridge has been allowed to rust. I thought they had to be painted every year! That could give a few guys a nice job.

The spots, BTw, are a little bit of a distraction.

Asher

P.S. You could easily fix the dust spots on your sensor. I guess you were using an f stop of about 16 or so to be able to see them. I hardly every use my lenses closed down. Doubtless I have the same dust bunnies on my sensors. I only clean once a year!

Click to expand...

I think I got 99% of the dust bunnies taken care of.
And I sent it to you.

Jerome Marot said:

I think that the image would be improved by cropping the middle. Here you have two subjects: the tracks and the bridge and I find the bridge more interesting.

Click to expand...

If you feel like playing with it, I have it here:
https://www.yousendit.com/download/T2dlaklsUnJRWUo4SjhUQw

Something like that?

Cody, I have been rightfully taken to task for over sharpened images. But that is me. This to me is

over sharpened. But that could be you!

I would crop the image right down the middle vertically. Why? I like contrasts.

Thanks for sharpening.

Fahim,
I didn't sharpen this at all.
-----

I tied for third place at my camera club meeting tonight with this photo.

In that case Cody, my apologies. I need to get me some lenses ( eyes or both )!!

Congratulations for this being a winner. It is.

Regards.

You could edit, crop the photo an infinite number of ways. Its pretty good as is. I think the only way to improve may be to re-shoot. I would like to see the symmetry dead on with a lower perspective. A T/S lens would be lovely right here. Then just wait for the perfect light and sky.

Is this a place where you can visit on a regular occasion? If it is, your lucky indeed.

Jerome Marot said:

I think that the image would be improved by cropping the middle. Here you have two subjects: the tracks and the bridge and I find the bridge more interesting.

Click to expand...

On second thoughts and after having slept over the picture: discard this suggestion. Your version is more interesting.

Yep, I would keep the extended track and to me it is what makes the photo more interesting.
Don

Hi, Cody,

I hate to lose the approach - I liked your original scope. The little cockeyed piece at the beginning of the diamond plate catwalk is a nice touch.

It is interesting that the guard rails are angle iron, not rail (sometimes slightly lighter weight) as is customary. It's a little - agricultural.

Where is this?

It would be nice to also see this in side elevation so we could see the lift span. (Yes, I grew up in Cleveland.)

Best regards,

Doug

Thank You all for the comments and suggestions.

Doug, this was taken in Portland, Oregon

Here is the bridge from Google maps.

Hi, Cody,

Cody White said:

Doug, this was taken in Portland, Oregon

Click to expand...

Thanks.

Here is the bridge from Google maps.

Click to expand...

I didn't even know Google Maps would do that! Shows how much attention I pay to these things. (I do it on Google Earth.)

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Hi Cody,

Cody White said:

Shot this one today,

Any thoughts on how to improve this?

Railroad Bridge By Cody White​

Click to expand...

I had a go at it and came up with this version.





And in BW:

Doug Kerr said:

Hi, Cody,


Thanks.


I didn't even know Google Maps would do that! Shows how much attention I pay to these things. (I do it on Google Earth.)

Thanks.

Best regards,

Doug

Click to expand...

I think by next year or the following we will be able to clearly see subject down to 17 inches across. I read somewhere about the government giving a grant to the developers of these satellites to get in even closer!!

If I had been there, I probably would have shot from the left track. I don't know if it would make a better or worse photo, but that's probably what I would have done. And probably a bit lower and a bit closer.

I like photographing bridges too.

I'd go for high contrast B&W, first thing I thought when I saw it was how much more powerful it would be in B&W.

Cem_Usakligil said:

Hi Cody,


I had a go at it and came up with this version.

Railroad Bridge By Cody White - edit by CU​

And in BW:

Railroad Bridge By Cody White - edit by CU​

Click to expand...

Cem,
Thank you.
I do like the b&w version of this
what did you do to the color one?

Bob Rogers said:

If I had been there, I probably would have shot from the left track. I don't know if it would make a better or worse photo, but that's probably what I would have done. And probably a bit lower and a bit closer.

I like photographing bridges too.

Click to expand...

Bob,
I did both left and right side of tracks and they didn't look as good.
Left Side
Right Side

Hi Cody,

I like bridges, too. Nice job!!

As for your shots from the left and right sides, I didn't envision that result from Bob's suggestion. What I did see was -- taking left as an example -- getting down All the way down to the track, with the track in the lower left hand side of the frame in the same way as your first image has it.

IS it a bridge you can return to?

Jean

Hi Cody,

I am a newbie here, so gotta be careful what I say...

Your image on my screen is relatively washed-out. We are talking CM here, as I downloaded your raw image and using a Rebel calibration, saw a far more colourful version of your photo. Initially, I didn't notice, I was just seeing what cutting and touching the clouds would do, it was only when I came to compare with your original that I realised how much difference there was. I use ProPhoto RGB until it comes to producing a final image when I dropped it into AdobeRGB.

Previous poster was right, you have loads of dust, but I don't worry much about dust as I use Lightroom and de-spotting is so easy.

I have done no fiddling with changing colours, only croppiing a bit of sky and tyring to tone down the dark cloud - not sure that it works. Anyway, I get this:

Denbigh,

I know nothing about Lightroom, however if I recall correctly your Rebel Calibration is for Lightroom color correction and has nothing to do with the monitor profile.

Video – Camera Profiles for Lightroom
By Matt Kloskowski // Lightroom Videos
This one has been causing quite a bit of buzz. When Adobe released Lightroom 2 (and the accompanying 4.5 update to Camera Raw) they released these camera profiles on the Adobe Labs website. In a nutshell, these profiles match the camera manufacturers color appearance of your photos. So if you’ve ever opened your photo in Nikon’s or Canon’s software and been happier with the way it looked there vs. Lightroom, then you’ll love these things

Click to expand...

Link for quote:
http://lightroomkillertips.com/2008/video-camera-profiles-for-lightroom/

I just profiled my monitor with ColorMunki. See link below.
ColorMunki Display
http://xritephoto.com/ph_product_overview.aspx?id=1513&catid=149&action=overview

So I suggest that you profile your monitor to get a accurate color and brightness

I profiled my display in a 0 lux room light them turned around and re-calibrated my monitor for room light at 34 lux, I also saved both profiles so I can switch them back and forth.

Hi Cody,

Sorry I trod on your toes. Clearly my comments were not received in the way I put them. I realised afterwards that the toning of your photo could well have been just the way you wanted it. It was you who asked for the critique and you can ignore responses without being snappy.

The calibration, as you say, is nothing to do with monitor profile, it is giving meaning to the otherwise meaningless figures output by the camera. If the source has no profile (RAW) then a calibration, indicating what the digital figures mean, has to be applied. You will, of course, be using such a calibration in your raw processing, I just mentioned that the colours I was seeing were appropriate to the Rebel calibration and not some other default. The Rebel calibration I was using was for sunny/cloudy and was done using the ColorChecker passport, but in France so the sun may be a little different.

Yes, I do profile my monitor and know it is accurate, but I don't quite see the relevance in this context. Did you compare my posted version derived directly from your raw file with your original posting to see what I was talking about - remember, I had overlooked the possibility that you had deliberately changed the colours. In that light you will realise the point I was making, simply a question of colour.

I think it is a great photo, BTW, the only thing I thought could possibly improve it (apart from the colour) was diminishing the rather heavy cloud background. I find it is only when I get home that I realise things like that, and it is no good my wife asking me why I didn't wait till the cloud passed !

In passing, the calibration I refer to in LR (or Camera Raw) is to give meaning to the digital numbers coming from the image source, just as one calibrates a scanner, not some arbitrary correction. I tried using some fairly complicated stuff to get it right when I started digital, but now, with the ColorChecker, it just means a couple of clicks and hey presto...!

I wish we had had such tricks available with colour film when one just had to accept the uncalibrated colour Fuji, Kodak and Agfa produced, each with their own interpretation of light.