Confederation Bridge

[Manfred M]

I found myself at the end of the Confederation Bridge (11.9km / 8mi) that links Prince Edward Island with the rest of Canada. It was magic hour and the weather was still sub-optimal (thanks to the remnants of Tropical Storm Andrea), so I took a few shots before driving across.

[Mike Buckley]

Very nice, Manfred. I especially like the first one. Despite the lack of foreground detail to help provide perspective, the length of the bridge is conveyed very well.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Mike - what surprised me a bit is that I can make out the details of buildings and trees on the other side, in spite of the haze and mist from the water over 8 miles (12km) away. This is on the original image, not the downsampled shot I'm showing here.

[Donald]

Not on my own computer, so ..........

The second one doesn't give the same sense of sweep and distance as does the first one. However, I think the inclusion of some foreground and the fact that the truck is there to give us a sense of scale and contribute to 'the story', makes it a strong image for me.

[Manfred M]

Thanks Donald. The lighting in the one with the truck was much more interesting, but as you point out, the sweep; which is there, but not as visible; you can just make out the bridge as it heads to the island on the very left side. On the other image, large parts of the bridge were in shadow, so trying to get a workable image was more difficult.

The problem with travel photography is that the schedule and optimal photography rarely come together at the same time...

[tbob]

Add my vote for the first. Capturing the full arch of the bridge by letting it drop below the bridge deck and continuing on is a brilliant compositional element.

Your comment on travel photography rings true for me. More and more I find that I have to compartmentalize my mind into travel mode (going with the flow and appreciating my surroundings and the experience when traveling) and photographer mode where I spend long minutes to hours waiting for light or walking/changing position to get two or three images. My travel shots are more aide de memoire then art. Now if I could only get the converse to be true for my photographs.

[Shadowman]

The spatial differences (both height and width between supports) are what set both apart.

[Wavelength]

Awesome , really awesome images

[bnnrcn]

I like the first one The second image is nice too , but it shows a long bridge in a square crop and may be that's why my eyes can't get used to it.

[DanK]

I too prefer the first one. As Donald said, it shows more of the sweep of the bridge. The lines are created as much by the pylons as by the deck, and the big and irregular space between the first two in the bottom one detract, IMHO. I also don't think the foreground adds much. The first one, however, really is a gorgeous image.

[thegman]

+1 to Binnur's comments about second shot and square crop. Firts shot has excellent depth.

[Nicola]

Beautiful images, Manfred.
I prefer the 2nd, since in the first something in the foreground is missing. Maybe a wave crashing on the shoreline...
Nicola

[Davejl]

For me the second image is more intriguing. Better foreground, and where is that truck going?....because the bridge appears to lead into the water. Admittedly the continuation of the bridge can be made out when viewed large, but seen smaller it gives the impression that the bridge goes to nowhere.

[Rebel]

These both work for me, I do like the truck it adds interest.

Nice shots