Mississippi River Bridge Shots. Thoughts/Comments?

[Geaux]

Went out and braved the wind along the River tonight in New Orleans for these. I have a few others, but these are the first I've downloaded and played with.

Overall, I'm satisfied with these shots, it's a shot I've wanted for a while, but haven't gotten around to it. The neighborhood is REALLY suspect around here, so it was only a half hour shoot or so lol.

1.

2. This one I shot b/c I wanted to show the height relation of the water to the levee. We've been warned multiple times in the past weeks about the massive flooding that could occur had the spillways been opened to relieve the river before us. You can usually walk down the levee and onto flat land before even getting to the River, definitely not now.

 

[MWG]

both shots are tits, but i prefer the 1st

lol @ the suspect area, whenever im able to shoot in the places i want, THOSE are the the best areas to shoot imo

what kind of camera do you have again?

 

[Geaux]

d90, both shots were with my Sigma 10-20.

Thanks!

 

[Stradawhovious]

If I ever do make it to Nawlins for my honeymoon, you will have to tell me where this place is.

#1 is a framer.

 

[Rancor]

You Win! I don't know what you win, but with pictures like that, YOU WIN!

 

[Geaux]

If I ever do make it to Nawlins for my honeymoon, you will have to tell me where this place is.

#1 is a framer.

Thanks man, the spot is not really a secret lol. You can't miss the large bridges from anywhere along the river by the French Quarter (where you're staying). All it takes is a little guts, a car to cross the bridge, and a camera lol.

Thanks for the other comments guys, appreciate it!

 

[Geaux]

Anyone else?

 

[bazooka]

#1 doesn't do much for me, at least at this size. #2 at first didn't either, but then I saw that you framed the skyline under the bridge and I think that's a unique (at least to me) way to do it. However, I would like to see the city take up more space, I would also like to see where the bridge meets the land on the left side instead of cutting it off. So I'd back up (if possible) and shoot a longer focal length to compress the bridge against the skyline so it will fill more of the natural frame the bridge created and also recompose a bit to get the far left side of the bridge. I have no idea if this is physically possible given the location, but I think it would be ideal.

 

[Corvphotography]

What were your settings? i love both of them.

 

[bennielou]

Killer shots and perspectives. I love them.

 

[Geaux]

#1 doesn't do much for me, at least at this size. #2 at first didn't either, but then I saw that you framed the skyline under the bridge and I think that's a unique (at least to me) way to do it. However, I would like to see the city take up more space, I would also like to see where the bridge meets the land on the left side instead of cutting it off. So I'd back up (if possible) and shoot a longer focal length to compress the bridge against the skyline so it will fill more of the natural frame the bridge created and also recompose a bit to get the far left side of the bridge. I have no idea if this is physically possible given the location, but I think it would be ideal.

The lense used was my ultra wide to encompass the whole bridge, the city was being small was the downfall of this. If I used a longer focal length to get the city, I would have lost majority of the bridge in the shot. I also tried to shoot the bridge's end like you suggested at first, but to do so, the other bridge came into the frame too much and ruined the look of the image. I appreciate the suggestions, but I feel they are physically impossible

What were your settings? i love both of them.

First shot was 76 second exposure, 100 iso, f/8 @ 10mm
Second shot was 52 seconds, 100 iso, f/8 @ 11mm

@bennielou and others, thanks for looking and tossing your thoughts out!

 

[DogGoneGood]

Wow, both of these photo's are awesome, I especially love the first one.

 

[EmbassyProBooks]

The perspective of the first image makes for a dynamic image. You can't help but let your eyes get moved through the frame. However, if you wanted to show how high the water is, you nailed it with the second image.

 

[bazooka]

#1 doesn't do much for me, at least at this size. #2 at first didn't either, but then I saw that you framed the skyline under the bridge and I think that's a unique (at least to me) way to do it. However, I would like to see the city take up more space, I would also like to see where the bridge meets the land on the left side instead of cutting it off. So I'd back up (if possible) and shoot a longer focal length to compress the bridge against the skyline so it will fill more of the natural frame the bridge created and also recompose a bit to get the far left side of the bridge. I have no idea if this is physically possible given the location, but I think it would be ideal.

The lense used was my ultra wide to encompass the whole bridge, the city was being small was the downfall of this. If I used a longer focal length to get the city, I would have lost majority of the bridge in the shot. I also tried to shoot the bridge's end like you suggested at first, but to do so, the other bridge came into the frame too much and ruined the look of the image. I appreciate the suggestions, but I feel they are physically impossible

I figured that was probably the case. It sucks when the landscape doesn't present itself in a more cooperative manner! It is a nice shot and I bet it'd make a nice large print.

 

[Geaux]

The perspective of the first image makes for a dynamic image. You can't help but let your eyes get moved through the frame. However, if you wanted to show how high the water is, you nailed it with the second image.

Thank you. The first shot was just a cliche New Orleans bridge shot that I wanted to take for a while now. The second shot was the one purposely done for water levels, while also framing the city in the bridge.