Another visit to a Roman bridge

[Tony M]

I paid another visit to "Cantos Bridge", also called Cangosto Bridge. I previously posted a photo of it in this post (the last photo).

This shot was taken with a wide-angle lens, bringing in more of the fast-flowing river and the rugged rocky walls with potholes formed by erosion. It's hard to recall exactly how the eye surveys a picture on first viewing, but in my imagination I see it being drawn from the left edge, along the wall towards the bridge, then back to the front bottom to follow the water to the bridge again. To adapt a phrase: all paths lead to the (Roman) bridge.

Comments and edits welcome.


1/13s at f/11, focal length 10mm (16mm FF equivalent), ISO 100, Canon EF-S 10-22mm lens

Tony

[Donald]

That is a very well done, dramatic image. I think it's a very strong composition, with power and mood to the fore.

[RustBeltRaw]

The range of textures is what I find most impressive. Color palette is perfect for the subject matter - the bridge looks very much like part of the natural landscape, which it might as well be considering how long it's been there. They just don't make 'em like they used to. Excellent shot!

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Tony,

It works as a shot of the river, but to get the bridge, you need to be at the camera height you had in the first shot, so you get that slither of visible grass leading to the edge. However, that's not really the subject here.

So, turning to this one:
I would query the white balance, to me the 'white water' froth looks a bit green tinged, but the sky is just tending to brown/magenta, so I suspect you have tried to apply an overall solution that isn't going to work and they'll need treating separately. If sampling on the water; be careful not to sample on a blown bit, or it'll give a false answer.

You have a good sky, but have a look under the bridge, it seems brighter and might be worth toning down a tad.

Apart from those two issues, for me this works well and has good exposure balance and composition.

Of course the water may have been that colour to the naked eye due to what's in it, if so, whether you 'correct' it is your decision.

Hope that helps,

[Tony M]

Thank you Donald, Lex and Dave for your encouraging comments.

Dave, I think that I would have lost the emphasis of the rocky wall on the left side of the river if I had shot from the angle of the original photo. I think I recall that the uneven terrain didn't allow it. However, I will take another look at it next time I'm there.

Your comment on the white balance was perceptive. You uncovered my first - and perhaps clumsy - attempt to play with the tone curve of just one of the RGB colours. In this case, I lowered the curve very slightly, towards the left end of the blue channel. I was looking for a particular effect on the rocky wall and neglected the effect it had on the water. In the photo below, I have undone the adjustment and instead locally increased the saturation slightly of the left wall of the river. (LR doesn't do local tone curve adjustments.) I also toned down the sky under the bridge; the graduated filter over the lens didn't cover that area, of course, and it needed PP.



Tony