Bridge at Night

I like the shot Ned. It is interesting and original. One can't help but do the forensics on a shot like this - What lens? - How long was the shutter open? Just what did you use for a WB? Was there something that could have been added (or subtracted) from the composition? The list gets longer the more you look at it.

I'm crawling around inside the location and for me the camera might need to explore closer into the structure of the bridge. I see dozens of possible perspectives that might make an interesting image. The idea of shooting it at night reminds me that everything has a different look about it at different times of the day/night... Thanks for sharing what I consider to be an inspiring photo and accompanying thread. I look forward to seeing more of your one hoss town.

Charles, its the forensics that help the next shot, or could do. I'm grateful for any comments.

The lens was a 35 mm prime Nikon f1.8 - which is really a 50mm in 35 mm film terms.
The shot was f9 for 20 seconds and the recoded white light was around tungsten at 3200k. Later post processed to 2800k. to remove some of the red/yellow cast associated with sodium street lighting. There are other versions with almost all the colour cast removed, although they are similar in composition.

I invested in a prime for landscape work and basic half figure portraits along with any inside dark light shots. In landscapes to encourage using my feet to compose rather than rely on zoom. Also my 18-50mm sigma f2.8 has chromatic fringing at certain lengths and conditions along with the converging parallels with wide angle shooting.

I had in mind some of the city scenes we must have all seen in night view, you know with buildings and street lights, traffic trails etc. There are many in most forums. Thing is I had never actually tried to shoot one! and we don't have a NY skyline or harbour views, nor is the bridge as photogenic as the Golden Gate. Thats not to say these are essential for good shots.

The title Wainwright Bridge was really wrong, its a bigger image. However the constructive critique here made me realise I should have thought things through a little better. Too much about the technical and not what the viewer may perceive. As you rightly state there are possibilities in the site (as with most sites) for a different approach, angles, point of view, abstract etc. etc.

You'll get used to me I promise, not saying you'll like it but.........anon

It is important to me to ask myself though.....what the intention of any image is, and how will I use it.

A very disciplined, focused approach. Which was also my mantra back when I was shooting film. With digital I have gone over to the dark side. More likely to run off a series of variations on the subject. Sort 'em out later in post.

sloppy Kelly

Kelly, you are a god in my eyes. Anybody that has experience of film and taken half decent shots is enlightened. I once took a formal training course in b/w film. From shooting to processing through to print. It made me realise the skill, devotion and art involved by our fore fathers and pioneers in photography.
I quickly joined the mass digital revolution and I quote Harry Callaghan (via clint Eastwood) ....." mans gotta know his limitations"......I'm still awe struck by film photography and its exponents.
Regards
Ned

Indeed, shooting with film, and the darkroom that followed, was profoundly different from today's "workflow". But now I'm blown away by what can be achieved with digital editors. This is like discovering photography all over again. I haven't shot film in over a decade.

Kelly