Photo Critique: Bridge Over the Tuolumne

I took this image 8 years back when returning from a trip to Yosemite. I parked the car on the roadside and walked to the bridge to check it out. It looked appealing so I decided to shoot it to make the salt print shown below. I was the only person there when setting up and for some time thereafter but it took me forever to get the final composition and in the meantime tourists were lining up behind me to walk over the bridge. They were considerate but I felt pressured nevertheless knowing I was preventing them from doing their thing. The main technical challenge at the time was getting both sides of the bridge even with the road centered and the plaque at the top readable and for some reason that took forever. When I finally tripped the shutter all the tourists had departed. The sun was in the west (right) and the trees at the far end provided for the shadow there.

Toyo 810MII, Acros, 240mm Schneider Symmar-S, f45 @1/8 second. Untoned salt print.

https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/...9dacdd75_o.jpg

There are a few things with that bridge that just are not straight. It would have been an interesting mess to work with!

As photo document, I can see why the plaque was included and is important to the image. It also sets up a nice repeated pattern along the length of the bridge. The plaque also interfers, or at least influences, ones eye traveling down to the end of the bridge...my eye returns to the plaque.

Cropping down to be rid of the plaque (or leave just a touch of it), and a little on the right to maintain the proportion, one would have a more classic bridge photograph, but perhaps missing a little of the bridge's character.

Also this image demonstrates one of the disadvantages of on-line critiques. Image size and the photographer's intended viewing distance weighs in heavy. I have a feeling I would react differently to this image seeing at full size...the impact would be different (also if I could read the plaque!) While many of my prints are small enough to be viewed at 1:1 on our computer screens, the significant impact of the surface qualities of the print would be lost on the screen.

It looks like the right hand side cold have been trimmed a couple of mm bringing it even with the first post on the left. But that would leave part of the first truss cropped out. An in-camera swing would probably have shifted the image too far. The inscription on the plaque is plainly visible on the print but because of the color and the fact that it has been exposed to the elements for a hundred years you need a loupe to reveal what it says: 1911 at the top followed by a listing of the county Board of Supervisors and then the contractor: Pacific Construction Co. The camera's position was nearly directly under the plaque.

I not sure that I hadn't toned this print as there are no brown tones on it. I didn't notate that it was toned on the backside as I now do but for a while there I didn't indicate whether a print was toned or not. Looks like I used a gold toner.

It seems that you wanted to center the bridge in the photo but that missed its mark. Also, the beams aren't horizontal and some of the vertical ones aren't plumb. As a new LF photographer, I'm not jealous how hard it is trying to get the standards just right. Noon would have been a better time to shoot as the low sun projects an annoying shadow over the roadbed distracting my eyes. I'm not a printer. But I'm curious. Is there a way of correcting for angles so things are level and plumb when you print?

Nice shot. I love bridges, especially covered bridges. They're magical.

I've struggled with this type of image myself. We shoot large format partially to be able to correct perspective and have some freedom in framing. With this subject, I'd have given up because there are so many lines (visual) that just won't cooperate regardless of the angle. The result is often that the shot becomes more documentary in nature. If that was the goal, that's great but as a visual piece, it's hard to reconcile. I wonder if you would have had a different shot moving forward 30' or backwards the same amount.