I was first taken by all the gulls flying around the dark bridge highlighting the whites of the gulls. It was also nice to have the foreground grass that at that moment leaned by the wind in unison with the curve of the bridge. The lower edge of the background mountain blues, darker than the water, I think is a nice balance.
Specific Feedback Requested
Any critique welcomed. Particularly, I’m disatisfied with the top of the mountains and wonder if others get the same feel. I attempted to get the top of the mountains but any deviation in my angle would either get rid of the rock in the left foreground and the lower grass or lose the background bridge’s definition with the water between it and the mountains. Any suggestions or are the mountains’ cut off OK?
Technical Details
Is this a composite: No
Canon T3i, f/9, 1/250 sec., ISO 100, 75 mm
I always try to look at the image before reading the poster’s comments; it helps me keep bias out of my thoughts. The first thought that hit me was “I wonder how this would look with the ridge line in the image?” (My second was, "Why did they build a curve into the bridge?)
I think the birds and bridge are a great foreground. The grass is a nice touch, but not essential; I suspect I would trade it for the ridgeline. All three, if in focus, would be even better. For me, the rock is distracting and the image would be better without it. It would also be a nice touch to have golden-hour lighting in the scene.
1 Like
The ridge line would be nice. That was one of my questions. The reason the port ends is that it goes to a ship, which was too busy I thought for the photo. Alpine glow would be nice except that in the middle of the summer in AK, there’s almost entire light. But, yes, in winter there’s a great glow and losts for some time if not clouded out.
1 Like
