Penobscot Narrows Bridge and Observatory, Maine

[SquarePeg38]

This was a cool stop on our way to Acadia. The observation tower is the equivalent of 44 stories high. Views from up there were just ok, not too great at mid afternoon due to the harsh light. Would love to get up there in fall with all of the foliage at peak.

I've never really attempted any architecture photos before. Definitely harder than I thought! Would love some tips on how these could have been better.

Penobscot River Observation Tower 1 by SharonCat..., on Flickr

Penobscot River Observation Tower 2 by SharonCat..., on Flickr

View of Bucksport, Me from the tower. Really really hard to get a shot with no glare/reflection from the glass. Is there a trick for that? I ended up putting my lens hood right up against the glass but even then it was really washed out. Had to add a polarizing filter in post among other things...

Bucksport, ME by SharonCat..., on Flickr

 

[jcdeboever]

I really like these. I have no advise on architecture other than to comment that I would like to buy a PC tilt shift lens someday. You have a great eye and the images are wonderful to look at.

 

[limr31]

I find that those kinds of graphical, architectural shots that highlight angles and lines lend themselves to black and white.

I took pictures of that same bridge (also went to the top and came to the same conclusions as you did about the views and the photo prospects from the top. ) I finished off a roll of B&W and then loaded color. The B&W shots were definitely better, even with the same lighting and very similar compositions. I don't have access to the color ones now, but here's a B&W one (not to hijack, but just to illustrate! )


Bridge by limrodrigues, on Flickr

 

[SquarePeg38]

I really like these. I have no advise on architecture other than to comment that I would like to buy a PC tilt shift lens someday. You have a great eye and the images are wonderful to look at.

Thanks for the comments. You are too kind!

I find that those kinds of graphical, architectural shots that highlight angles and lines lend themselves to black and white.

I took pictures of that same bridge (also went to the top and came to the same conclusions as you did about the views and the photo prospects from the top. ) I finished off a roll of B&W and then loaded color. The B&W shots were definitely better, even with the same lighting and very similar compositions. I don't have access to the color ones now, but here's a B&W one (not to hijack, but just to illustrate! )

I rarely think of b&w, probably because I'm typically shooting flowers or landscapes. Thanks for the feedback and for sharing your photo. No worries about a hijack. I love the angle of your shot and the way you positioned the sun. I'll have to see if anything that I took that afternoon lends itself to b&w.

 

[SquarePeg38]

@limr Wanted to follow up on your suggestiion. I used a preset b&w conversion filter since I really have no idea how to judge the tones for b&w. I definitely like the b&w better on these. Thanks again.

Penobscot River Observation Tower 3 by SharonCat..., on Flickr

Penobscot River Observation Tower 4 by SharonCat..., on Flickr

 

[jcdeboever]

More contrast. You want a good mix of blacks and whites. I usually increase clarity, and go to the tone curve and make it look like a fancy S, like on a violin cutout in the body. If there is blue and yellow in the original image, adjusting these can really make it pop but you do not have that here. I agree with limr on the B & W, I never looked at things that way and her advise gives me another bullet for my gun. These are not dialed in obviously but make my point.The contrast adds dimension and volume to the image.Oh my, #2 really jumps.... @limr is awesome, you two should get together and get rich.

 

[SquarePeg38]

Thanks @jcdeboever Looks much better.

 

[Tim Tucker]

There's another difference here that's worth pointing out, (though obvious).

If you look at the main difference between limr's photo and your's you see that the contrast in limr's is between the graphic shapes and the background whereas in your's the contrast is entirely contained in the texture of the concrete. Though you will have light reflecting off the water to the underside of the bridge your images still look over tone-mapped. If I show an example just to highlight the differences, you see in your's on the left the contrast is in the texture and there is very little contrast outlining the main graphic shapes and they don't stand out. But if I change this so the main contrast is between the graphic shapes and not the texture you begin to see the image as a series of bold shapes.

You can do this in colour as well by also using differences in colour to create contrast rather than equalising the differences. You don't loose the texture or detail but still create stronge shapes:

 

[SquarePeg38]

There's another difference here that's worth pointing out, (though obvious).

If you look at the main difference between limr's photo and your's you see that the contrast in limr's is between the graphic shapes and the background whereas in your's the contrast is entirely contained in the texture of the concrete. Though you will have light reflecting off the water to the underside of the bridge your images still look over tone-mapped. If I show an example just to highlight the differences, you see in your's on the left the contrast is in the texture and there is very little contrast outlining the main graphic shapes and they don't stand out. But if I change this so the main contrast is between the graphic shapes and not the texture you begin to see the image as a series of bold shapes.

That's helpful info and definitely not anything that was obvious to me. I lifted the shadows in ACR and I used a "detail" Topaz adjust filter which I guess is what you're referring to. I'm interested in learning more about this so I might start from scratch on these and try again with less cooking this time. Thanks for the feedback and suggestions. I appreciate your taking the time to share your knowledge.

 

[unpopular]

On your way back be sure to check out Fort Knox!

 

[SquarePeg38]

On your way back be sure to check out Fort Knox!

We did spend a few minutes at the fort but it was getting late and we had been travelling all day so it was a short visit. We left Boston at 8am that morning and reached Bar Harbor after 5pm because we stopped in Wells at the Maine Diner for breakfast, Freeport for the LL Bean outlet, Camden for lunch and the bridge/observatory for sight seeing.

 

[snowbear118 49]

Did you catch "Eartha" the giant globe at DeLorme (just south of LL Bean)

When we were coming back from Bar Harbor, we stopped in Bucksport for the night. It was late and storming so we just went to the first hotel we saw (I think it was the big white on on the right). We got a room in the "basement". The next morning, through the drawn curtains I saw the shadows of legs go by - we were right on the water. Shame we had to leave that morning.

 

[unpopular]

On your way back be sure to check out Fort Knox!

We did spend a few minutes at the fort but it was getting late and we had been travelling all day so it was a short visit. We left Boston at 8am that morning and reached Bar Harbor after 5pm because we stopped in Wells at the Maine Diner for breakfast, Freeport for the LL Bean outlet, Camden for lunch and the bridge/observatory for sight seeing.

Another good place to go is Moody's in Waldoboro. But go for the atmosphere, not the food :/

 

[runnah]

That's my stomping grounds,

 

[fmw]

A Texas rancher came upon a Maine farmer tilling his field.

"Is this your spread?" asked the Texan
"Yep. It goes back by the creek over there and is bounded by the road you're standing on" was the reply
"Why in Texas I have spread that is so big I can't drive my car across it in a single day"
The farmer replied "Yep. I had car like that once upon a time."