Zeeland Bridge

Another tramline shot going nowhere to nothing, out of the picture in this case. Technical excellence doesn't save it.

An effective composition of a minimal number of elements.

I see this as utilitarian architectural study rather than a work of art. As an architectural study the photograph does its stuff. I am ready to get a bridge just like it for my town. It is simple and yet dramatic. The practical and aesthetic qualities of the bridge are nicely accentuated by the photographer.

As a work of art, this image leaves much to be desired. The square format is absolutely wrong. A panoramic camera would have made both an aesthetically superior photograph and brought more out of the bridge. As presented, there is a lot of wasted space. Too much water that does nothing and a sky that would be nice if this were a sky picture but in this case only gets in the way.

Well, that is all water under the bridge. This is not a bad POW. It is has its charms if you forgive the defects.

I think it cries out to be shot horizontally, seems to be wasted space above and below. It's tough to make art out of something like this- to make something 'different'. I once walked under, around and above the seven bridges in Budapest for a couple of days, knowing I could 'smell' a photo, but could not see it, at least not for awhile. It too (the one I made) ended up being from underneath (as I see where Kieran tried this one from below too).

The technical execution is well done, I like the triangled creation of the bridge ( its DOF) in B/W, and the faraway lower element( seen throuh the bridge) which looks as a lighthous and other signs of life.

I join the previous comment about photographing it horizontally, and something does not work for me with the clouds,somehow they don't fit so well to the composition as a whole. Still nice technical achievment.

For what ever my two cents are worth, I like it but think horizontal would work better. A third less sky maybe ?

While I really like the overall image, I can't help but stumble on the sharpening artifact around the bridge and in the skyline beyond the bridge.

I'm just bowled over by this image. It's simply breathtaking. Your whole portfolio screams "talent." Thanks for sharing it with us mere mortals!

I must apologize to you for the condition of this image. As this was my first trip with a digital camera along, many of the noise reduction, processing techniques I am still figuring out. As I mostly shoot with an 8x10 and 4x5 viewcamera, any prints I would do of this scene would be silver in my darkroom. I spent about 10 minutes on this digital image in photoshop, and never thought it would be picked for anything to be discussed. If i saw this hanging somewhere, i would probably walk right by it! I appreciate your comments and again, please forgive its condition.

Thanks

I must apologize to you for the condition of this image. As this was my first trip with a digital camera along, many of the noise reduction,

processing techniques I am still figuring out. As I mostly shoot with an 8x10 and 4x5 viewcamera, any prints I would do of this scene

would be silver in my darkroom. I spent about 10 minutes on this digital image in photoshop, and never thought it would be picked for

anything to be discussed. If i saw this hanging somewhere, i would probably walk right by it! I appreciate your comments and again,

please forgive its condition.

Kieran's modesty is refreshing and the image is stronger than he admits to, with a style or approach that is consistent and appealing in its graphic simplicity, reminding me somewhat of the purposely minimalist composition type of approach of a Michael Kenna. The nice thing about the digital camera is the ability to have rapid feedback when considering the exposure and composition of an image, although for the type of work evident in Kieran's work this is perhaps less necessary and I hope he continues his large format film and darkroom printing work, which I also know as a pleasure and an art in itself. Seeing images like those in his portfolio beckons for a gallery type print viewing experience instead of a 72dpi monitor.

Something Michael Kenna's work has that's palpable and helps add to it often having a sense of lushness is tonal gradation. Kieran may be somewhat disappointed in this photo because of its lacking gradation, therefore feeling more cold and sterile, to me, than the work of Kenna.

I love the smoothness of the photograph.

The smoothness comment of Cintia is a good point and a quality of the image. Do you not think, Fred, that the smoothness (from cloud and water blurs, as well as the smoothness of the upper bridge architecture) possibly compensates for what is not seen in the greyscale tones? I think Michael K might have that reaction.

I find the smoothness of the water the most unappealing part of this photo. That's a very personal thing and a matter of my taste. That blurry, smooth look of long exposure water just puts me off for a variety of reasons, not least of which is how ubiquitous it has become, but also because it seems to overly romanticize this much more mutli-facted natural element.

The smoothness seems to me to be a property of the entire image, of which the water is but one compositional element. The upper part of the bridge itself exudes that, as well as the harmoniously smooth yet repetitive continuity of the whole architecture (...happily, I cannot see the disruptive graffiti mentioned by the photographer) and the smoothness of the blurred clouds, all of which add to the effect mentioned, and to which some artistic credit should I believe be given.

I think one should take the smoothness of the image as a whole and not just the question of the smoothness of the blurred water, whether one likes that particular detail or not. That is why, Fred, I suggest that an analogue of a gradual greytone variation in an image may well be such smoothness exhibited in what can be an otherwise stark subject matter under other conditions.

Just as our first impressions of some newly encountered persons can evolve differently with time, this photo is an example of one that can grow on some viewers (not all), even if dismissed early on. I am not fully pleased by this image, but it is the quality of what happens with the passage of time in viewing it and some photos that I find very interesting. It is something I value highly in my own work when it is sensed in that way by others.

Absolutely stunning. I love the contrast, the softness and the shapes. I'm suprised how some just see a bridge. I see a terrific abstract work of art. Great portfolio, too. I think the most important thing an artist has to have to be successful is a unique and identifiable style, and you certainly have that. Congrats!

I can't quite get past the technical problems here. There is far too much sharpening and too much contrast for my taste. As Jim Adams has noted, the sharpening is obvious if one looks at it large. The high contrast does contribute to a strong graphic impact, but at some cost overall, as well as loss of detail in the shadows.

The image was exposed at over eight minutes? Surely the sky would have moved more than it appears to have done in eight minutes!

The composition is rather striking, I have to admit.

--Lannie

I see this picture as a work of art. I see it as a model to be shown in an executive meeting to justify investment to build the bridge. It's a great artwork that must have its origin in a photo that was treated in Photoshop. I am no expert in landscape photos. I agree with Shishin about the wasted space in the image. The sky and the water should be slightly reduced to emphasize the impressive architecture of the bridge. I am no expert in Photoshop. I agree with Willemse, who knows the bridge and the environment that surrounds it. The sea is calmer than the true sea. The sky does not seem real, too. It's a rain cloud? There seems no to be raining. I think the true sky is bluer. That's the Photoshop!!! Daguerre was happy without Photoshop???
I use Photoshop to correct the sharpness and make the conversion to B & W, only. I like the photo below that conveys the reality. I can smell the sea. I can hear the sound of the sea crashing on the pillars of the bridge. I can hear the roar of the engines of the vehicles that are on the bridge. I can hear also the engine noise of the boat maintenance of the bridge.

Like a few people have mentioned, I too would make this a horizontal image. The primary lines in the image are from the bridge that goes mainly horizontally; the vertical format goes against that. As the way it is, there is too much empty sky and empty water. I also agree that the amount of post-processing is a bit much. Otherwise, I like this image a lot. The high contrast in monochrome is great.

It is interesting how some recent and former comments point to an objective of photography as an exercise in realism or of a more visceral appreciation of the bridge or sea (smelling the water) or sky (sometimes clouds don't move very much and can reproduce more sharply). What counts in my mind is that photography is a tool to reproduce subject matter accurately if so wished but also, importantly, as a tool for art, and art goes beyond physical realism (impressionist, expressionist, Dadaist, surrealist, abstract) and that is a definite plus, and exemplified to some degree in this photo.

Arthur, I agree with you to the extent that a photo is not the same thing as its subject or the thing it refers to. And artists can take much license in moving away from the "reality" of what they picture. That being said, I don't think many of the sorts of comments you refer to are asking for realism and I don't think the very same critics would reject Impressionism or the other schools of art you mention. I think what these people are expressing is a lack of emotional connection as much as if not more than a lack of reality. Often, especially in photography since there is such a direct connection between the photo and the thing photographed (it was there, light reflected directly off of it in order for the camera to produce the photo), people look to their feelings about the thing photographed when no other particular feelings are conveyed in the photo. I very much appreciate ManRay and Duchamp, who often surprise me by conveying feelings with subject matter that I would NOT have expected to get. So, in fact, they create an intentional chasm between that "real world" and their "created worlds" and they do so by stimulating my emotions in an unexpected way. But, that's only one means of creating art and, even to get to that unexpectedness, I must have a sense of the expected to play off . . . and that is the tie with reality. I must know what I normally use a urinal for (the "reality," if you will, of the urinal) in order to realize how differently I am experiencing Duchamp's urinal and even Weston's toilet (Escusado).

I won't speak for the other critics here, but my lack of continued interest in this photo stems from its idealization, and idealized scenarios such as this often lack an emotional draw for me. If the photo were to provide me either with feelings reminiscent of being in front of an expanse of water and sky with an architecturally sleek bridge or if the photo provided me with something surprising, I would be moved. But I'm afraid it does neither for me. It simply presents a pretty and pristine view of something.

As far as feelings tying into the realities of subject matter, I think you may not want those ties to the original subject matter, which is your choice, but I'm not sure why you would expect others not to. Artists are moved by their subjects and many have conveyed in their writings that they ARE indeed trying to transmit feelings provided by those subjects. The Impressionists were extremely tied to their landscapes and to what they saw and found in them. They simply showed it a different way. But, when I look at Monet's water and sky, I most definitely am connected to water and sky, just in a new and, at that time, fresh way. I do say to myself, when standing in front of Monet's landscapes, wow, this IS how they feel in reality.

So, I think art's connection to reality is very nuanced, both in deep and subtle ways. And, for myself, I would never want to divorce art depictions from the realities they depict. I create portraits. I am always aware of the significant aspects of those portraits that are tied to who the person is and that try to genuinely convey something "real" about the person while also adding to or subtracting from that through the magic of making a photo. I experience landscapes and urban scenes the same way, so this is not something unique about portraiture or photos with human subjects. It's often the CONNECTION to the realities of the landscape or the inner city street that allow for artistic TRANSCENDENCE also to take place.

Fred, thanks for your approach in this regard. Interesting reading.

If photographers want an image to communicate feelings or transcendence, then they need only mention that. A great deal of the critiques don't touch those important aspects but seem to dwell more on technical details and/or the proximity to reality, which is not the way I for one look at art in photography. But that is my choice and no doubt that of some others. I guess the bottom line is "to each his own"?

Arthur, I am not suggesting that realism is necessarily what we should strive for, simply that the technical problems here seem to result from over-processing. Sharpness and/or contrast have been achieved here at the cost of digital artifacts and a quite obvious bright "halo" around all borders of high contrast.

Other than these, I do like the overall graphic impact, although one side of me (the side that can appreciate realism) would also like to see the detail better.

I am not sure how much these digital artifacts from post-processing would display in a printed version--or at what size print. At some point the techniques involved can be so heavy-handed as to detract from any kind of appreciation, in my opinion.

I am reminded of Jim Adams' comment above:

Fortunately, these kinds of problems are remediable.

--Lannie

Hi Landrum. I understand your concern and this comment made earlier by another and which you cite is no doubt well taken. However, as Kieran said, he is starting out with digital photography and just getting into Photoshop work, and he has admitted also that it is not a perfect image from the digital technology viewpoint. Maybe when he gets into it, should he decide to actively use digital medium rather than film photography, he will find ways of minimizing such artefacts.

The presence of artefacts or other technical imperfections doesn't bother me as I am interested in the image as such, how he has treated (and originally) his subject matter and I can accept it as we see it at the normal Photo.Net size and resolution limitations and even with the artefacts that may be consequent of his early use of Photoshop.

I haven't seen Kieran's film generated black and white print output, which is his major interest from considering his portfolio and experience, but he seems to be a quite dedicated traditional darkroom photographer as well, working with large format camera negatives in the 4 x 5 inch to 8 x 10 inch negative range. While digital technology may be new to him, his prints likely surpass what is possible with most amateur digital photographic equipment and practice. He also seems to favour contrasty black and white representation. Black and white is by definition an abstract medium, we don't perceive directly what is around us in those chromatic terms. Choice of tonality is also personal (think in an analogous sense of all those overly modified color Photoshop images we see). I often print my dark red or IR pass filtered infrared film negatives with considerable contrast, as I think it suits that IR black and white medium

If he were using film, his images would have very few if any artefacts I think, and his large format negative prints a type of detail and tonality that is very hard to emulate at present with digital processes, inks and papers. As he admits, he is new to digital photography and spent 10 minutes on the image. In such case, I prefer to consider more his perception of his subject matter and how he has brought that to his image. He modestly says that if he saw this photo at an exhibition he would walk by it! I think he is being too harsh on what he has achieved, don't you?