Hi Jack, I enjoyed reading your comments as they articulate much of my own thoughts. I doubt I could express them as succinctly as you have here. Thank you for expressing your views!
Hi Jack, I enjoyed reading your comments as they articulate much of my own thoughts. I doubt I could express them as succinctly as you have here. Thank you for expressing your views!
Hi Ady, I am pleased that you found the image worth exploring and commenting in such detail on. For a photographer there is no greater honor than that which is bestowed when a photograph receives this much attention. Thank you for your comments.
These comments, Larry, probably come closest to the thoughts in my mind as I viewed the composition in my viewfinder, although I certainly didn't consider at that time, all of the intertwining elements that you have presented.
All of the ideas that are presented here as to what the subject is are valid because they belong to each of the Viewers. Certainly my thoughts on what constitutes The Subject have been altered by the views posted here and I am starting to think that it may not be a bad idea to be a bit less directive at times in identifying the subject and let the viewer enjoy the image for what they resonate with.
Well Frank, you certainly made an impression with this one
This is what I have been missing
FWIW My thoughts were pretty similar to Shane's; "Interesting discussion...first let me say that what caught my eye in this image was the intricate detail on the gates of the loch and then I wanted to see more of where it met the water at the bottom." - although others have said similar.
Before I had read Shane's words; I had put my fascination with these down to my being used to (much smaller) wooden lock gates, so steel is a novelty - and that I have an engineering background and wondered how the worked.
I like this in colour, I'm not sure it would work (with this composition), in B&W - that's just me asking to be proved wrong!
For me it is one of those shots where the rule book goes out the window, it just works, on so many levels - doesn't matter whether you like to see people at work (the photographers), huge structures, texture/detail; the way the sun is highlighting the rivets and rust texture, or a landscape - it is all here, there is so much to take in.
Cheers,
Last edited by Dave Humphries; 17th December 2013 at 09:19 PM. Reason: added missing word
I always appreciate you thoughtful comments Dave. For the Engineer in you, here is some background that you might appreciate.
These swinging gates are from 47 to 82 feet high, depending on position, are 7 feet thick, and can weigh as much as 662 tons. The gates are moved by hydraulic struts and as they are hollow and buoyant (much like the hull of a ship), each gate leaf can be moved with just two 25 horsepower motors.
The new locks, being built to the right of these and opening next year on the 100th anniversary of the original opening of the Panama Canal, will be able to handle any size ship that is currently on the high seas. The current locks are limited to the Panamax specification of 106' beam, 950' length, and a 39.5' draft. The ship I was on was 6" narrower so we fit nicely? The new locks will accommodate a 161' beam, 1,200' length and a 50' draft.
Instead of folding leafs (or miter gates if you will), the new locks will have a single 3,100 ton rolling gate at each of the 16 positions that will operate much like a pocket door, closing off the lock from one side. The new gates are about 33' wide and almost 190' long. Like the original gates, the height varies due to the large differences in tides between the Atlantic (~1') and Pacific (~20') sides of the canal.
In the image above, you can see 4 of these new gates waiting to be installed in the far distance on the right.