In reply to one of your comments above, Very often, when on a trip, I'll take these photos of details. Interesting compositions of interesting objects. And then I'll come home and post all my photos for my friends to see. And at some point, maybe not until long after, I'll realize that I never showed the place. So now I make an effort to get some wide shots when I go somewhere. But I wouldn't have to do this. The key is knowing your audience. If you're not going to take those kinds of pictures, don't show your pictures to the kinds of people who are expecting to see them.
And you are calling me out on failong basic photography practice, least in news and travel journalism: offer wide angle images to give greater context to the particulars. If this was a job, I'd do that. I should do more to treat my street walkabouts like a job. Nothing difficult about that.
You should take whatever photos you want to, at any given time. Just consider how you present them, and to whom. If you intend to give a travelogue of a location, by all means take those photos. But if for some reason, you end up with only detail shots, don't publish them like a travelogue.
My recipe for the pickles is as follows: When approaching Denver, turn left and keep driving. No pickles is worth $25. I'm keeping the jar unopened as a "moral of the story" for my grandchildren, if I live that long.
I will anyway. I say on my website that I “let others do the postcards”. I think I feel your pain. For what that’s worth. Ultimately, we photograph for ourselves, don’t forget that. 😊
I want to add one more thing, as your comment stirred something in me. "Not your obvious angles..." I appreciate the observation. I do. I didn't set out to be "unobvious," but those angles are what interested me about the structure. The structure itself? Not so much. That doesn't make me a better, or even a "good" photographer, but it's who I am and how I do things. For better AND worse, I have no interest in replicating the image of something that's been replicated a million times over elsewhere. I take photos of places/structures/people "as is" as a mnemonic device, but they don't serve any aesthetic purpose for me. I need things slightly "slant," as the good Belle would put it.
I need to elaborate on this elsewhere in greater depth, so I can better understand it for myself, but I have to say here that it depresses the hell out of me at times. People don't know what they are looking at, or what I photograph doesn't "represent" the subject, or the images represent an unglamorous side of the subject. Nothing to hang over your mantle piece. It's a beautiful bridge, but the beauty is made up of the pieces that are most interesting to me. So at times I feel I'm shooting and sharing just for myself, which is not easy to sustain. I've taken hundreds of photos of Seattle alleyways, but maybe 6 of the Space Needle and 3 of Mount Rainier -- two obvious symbols of the city. I have a suspicion of why this depresses me at times, better served in another conversation, but I need to say it. Your comment stirred something and I wanted to get it out of my system. I need to structure my thoughts around this, as I know I'm not alone in this feeling and I'd like to hear how others may cope. (I hope this makes sense.)
I thought I had included the bridge's name and background in the footnotes. My bad. It's the Millennium Bridge in Denver, noted for being the world's first cable-stayed bridge using a post-tensioned structural construction, according to the various guides. Meaning basically that the bridge itself is held in place by the cables. I didn't seek it out but wandered into it and was taken by the clean steel lines and angles. Good call on the Calatrava, actually. In reviewing the images in past few days, months after taking them, I had to double check that one of the images wasn't part of the airport structure due to the similarity. It wasn't. I didn't shoot at the airport.
In reply to one of your comments above, Very often, when on a trip, I'll take these photos of details. Interesting compositions of interesting objects. And then I'll come home and post all my photos for my friends to see. And at some point, maybe not until long after, I'll realize that I never showed the place. So now I make an effort to get some wide shots when I go somewhere. But I wouldn't have to do this. The key is knowing your audience. If you're not going to take those kinds of pictures, don't show your pictures to the kinds of people who are expecting to see them.
And you are calling me out on failong basic photography practice, least in news and travel journalism: offer wide angle images to give greater context to the particulars. If this was a job, I'd do that. I should do more to treat my street walkabouts like a job. Nothing difficult about that.
You should take whatever photos you want to, at any given time. Just consider how you present them, and to whom. If you intend to give a travelogue of a location, by all means take those photos. But if for some reason, you end up with only detail shots, don't publish them like a travelogue.
Sage advice. Agreed. Thx.
You are spot on. I get it. Every so often I need to off gas. It shouldn't be an issue, and normally it isn't. Thx.
Cool shots.
(A bridge is always great subject material, imo!)
Gorgeous photos. Always unsurprised.
Did you get the recipe for those pickles??
My recipe for the pickles is as follows: When approaching Denver, turn left and keep driving. No pickles is worth $25. I'm keeping the jar unopened as a "moral of the story" for my grandchildren, if I live that long.
What!!! While likely very wise, not sure I could resist..
Great set Mark. Really striking
I enjoyed everything about this post! Now I’m craving pickles 🥒😚
Cool bridge photos, Mark. But a cooler experience for you, it seems.
I can offer you a great deal on a jar of pickles, unopened, if you'd like to have a vicarious experience of my Denver stay. Shipping charge only. lmk!
Good looking bridge. It looks Calatrava?? Excellent details and not your obvious angles. Nice!
I will anyway. I say on my website that I “let others do the postcards”. I think I feel your pain. For what that’s worth. Ultimately, we photograph for ourselves, don’t forget that. 😊
I want to add one more thing, as your comment stirred something in me. "Not your obvious angles..." I appreciate the observation. I do. I didn't set out to be "unobvious," but those angles are what interested me about the structure. The structure itself? Not so much. That doesn't make me a better, or even a "good" photographer, but it's who I am and how I do things. For better AND worse, I have no interest in replicating the image of something that's been replicated a million times over elsewhere. I take photos of places/structures/people "as is" as a mnemonic device, but they don't serve any aesthetic purpose for me. I need things slightly "slant," as the good Belle would put it.
I need to elaborate on this elsewhere in greater depth, so I can better understand it for myself, but I have to say here that it depresses the hell out of me at times. People don't know what they are looking at, or what I photograph doesn't "represent" the subject, or the images represent an unglamorous side of the subject. Nothing to hang over your mantle piece. It's a beautiful bridge, but the beauty is made up of the pieces that are most interesting to me. So at times I feel I'm shooting and sharing just for myself, which is not easy to sustain. I've taken hundreds of photos of Seattle alleyways, but maybe 6 of the Space Needle and 3 of Mount Rainier -- two obvious symbols of the city. I have a suspicion of why this depresses me at times, better served in another conversation, but I need to say it. Your comment stirred something and I wanted to get it out of my system. I need to structure my thoughts around this, as I know I'm not alone in this feeling and I'd like to hear how others may cope. (I hope this makes sense.)
No need to respond. Just a venting of the fumes.
I thought I had included the bridge's name and background in the footnotes. My bad. It's the Millennium Bridge in Denver, noted for being the world's first cable-stayed bridge using a post-tensioned structural construction, according to the various guides. Meaning basically that the bridge itself is held in place by the cables. I didn't seek it out but wandered into it and was taken by the clean steel lines and angles. Good call on the Calatrava, actually. In reviewing the images in past few days, months after taking them, I had to double check that one of the images wasn't part of the airport structure due to the similarity. It wasn't. I didn't shoot at the airport.