Bridge on the Oldman River

[svantland]

I took this picture in the morning while the mist was still rising off of the river. I would appreciate advice about improving the composition. Any thoughts on what post-processing would improve this shot would also be greatly appreciated. Thank you for any help you can offer! Don't pull any punches, I can take it. :)

[tirediron]

Comments per req:

What I'm seeing here are two images separated by the railway trestle; one cool image in the foreground of the mist and the water, and a second, warmer image of the sun rising on the hills in the background. I think the foreground is the much stronger part of the image, so, thoughts on that:

I think the image needs less bank and more river; ideally shot from a position farther to camera right so that the eye could follow the curve of the river right through the image. It's not bad as-is, but I think it could be even better. Second, I'd like to see it shot from much lower. I think the ideal position would be in the river (Hey, it's September, it's not that cold!) and lastly, (and this is purely a matter of taste), I would suggest shooting this with a MUCH slower shutter speed, say, in the 3-4 second range to produce the soft, vaporous effect and enhance the mist.

I think you've got a great idea, but with a little room for improvment.

Just my $00.02 worth - your milage may vary.

~John

[tegan]

I would consider a somewhat drastic approach in postprocessing. Take the trestle out completely and then you have the river leading the eye into the photo toward the shapes created by the sun on the hills in the distance.

Tegan

[svantland]

Thank you for your thoughts John. I have tried slowing the shutter speed like you suggest, but often end up over exposing the image. The aperture can only close so much. Perhaps this will push me to pick up a Neutral Density filter. When looking at ND filters, I notice there are different strengths. What strength would you recommend I pick up for applications like this?

Regarding the background image, do you think the image would have been better from the other side of the river, and not including the trestle with the bank behind, leaving the trees as the backdrop for the pic? I have to confess that I am somewhat addicted to taking pictures of that bridge, and hadn't considered not including it, but when I read your comment, I realize that you have a valid point.

[tegan]

I have to confess that I am somewhat addicted to taking pictures of that bridge, and hadn't considered not including it, but when I read your comment, I realize that you have a valid point.

The problem with shooting that bridge is that it looks very flat from that camera angle. A shot with the bridge on more a diagonal would be more dynamic, interesting and 3 dimensional.

Tegan

[Marko]

I agree with other comments here but for me the biggest improvement the way it is now would be if you burnt in the sky, railway trestle and browny hill in the background (without touching the mist).

[wjeffries]

I thought I'd throw my 2 cents in too. I agree with tirediron about getting more of the river. I wanted to mention the ND filter that's on my wish list, the singh-ray vari-nd. If you haven't seen this one, it's variable like a circular polarizer but from 3 to 9 stops of ND. More expensive, but you're really getting several filters for the price of one.

[tegan]

I agree with other comments here but for me the biggest improvement the way it is now would be if you burnt in the sky, railway trestle and browny hill in the background (without touching the mist).

I don't think that burning in the sky would work very well. There is not much to work with. Create a graduated blue filter in photoshop and use it.

Tegan

[Marko]

I don't think that burning in the sky would work very well. There is not much to work with. Create a graduated blue filter in photoshop and use it.

Tegan

Different approaches.... If the sky was so blown out that there was nothing to work with I'd agree (that's not the case here though, in fact you can see the faint edge of the sky at the top of the image)....but I did a 20 second test on my own computer and it seems that there is enough 'meat' in the highlights to burn them in.

If this is a raw file, you'll likely be able to pull a lot of info back into the sky before you even open it.

Ultimately the approach you take is personal, and all approaches are valid so long as they get the job done. For me, I always try to save/enhance an image through conventional techniques like dodging and burning before resorting to other techniques...

[svantland]

Thank you for all the feedback. I have been playing with burning in the sky, bridge, and river banks. This is the first time I have played with that tool and it has an interesting effect. What is the difference between burning in and selectively adjusting the exposure in that area? I have posted the result for this manipulation, and I think that it does improve the image. I am working on a version without the bridge. For what it is worth, I am using PS Elements 6, not the full version of Photoshop.

[svantland]

I have reworked the same photo again, this time selectively adjusting the Levels for different portions of the picture. I am having trouble getting consistent results with the Burning and Dodging tools. These will take me quite a bit more practice. I also tried to remove the bridge, but the artifacts I was getting with the cloning tool were ruining the texture of the river bank and the sky. I think in the future I may have to try and retake this photo with a composition that better removes the bridge from sight.

[Marko]

Very nice redo svantland! I like this version much better!

You may also want to straighten the bridge a touch, but I like what you've done here. :highfive: