Sugar Creek Covered Bridge: This is Sugar Creek Covered Bridge near Glenarm, Il just south of Springfield, IL. Three pictures, handheld (I forgot my tripod). I wish the trees had...

Rufe Loc: Missouri

This is Sugar Creek Covered Bridge near Glenarm, Il just south of Springfield, IL. Three pictures, handheld (I forgot my tripod). I wish the trees had leaves, but maybe I get back there someday when the leaves are out. I hear there are only two covered bridges in Il.

Sugar Creek Bridge.

conkerwood

Well firstly I am going to disagree about the leaves. One of the real strengths of this pic is the depth that we are able to see. Trees in full leaf would have obscured the underside of the bridge and cut out that wonderful sky and the details in the distance. We don't have covered bridges in Australia to my knowledge but I wish we did as they are fantastic HDR subjects and you have done an excellent job with this one. So many would have taken the shot looking straight through the bridge but you chose a much more interesting POV, well done. The sky... very natural and you have avoided any halos around the the bridge top. You have brought out some nice details in the shadows inside the bridge and in the shaded area on the bottom right but you have kept a balance by allowing the area under the ramp on the other side to remain quite dark, its often tempting to bring out detail just because HDR allows us to do so but sometimes, for balance, you need dark areas. Most of the highlights have worked quite well but there are blown areas where there is direct sunlight on the brickwork. I don't know whether your shortest exposure shot has retained any more detail that this but if it has it might be worthwhile layering that back into this finished shot and using it to bring back the blown areas. But if that's not an option then it doesn't detract too much from the shot because we do expect to see intense light sometimes on blue sky days, so it doesn't seem out of place. The only other suggestion I have relates to several areas of distortion. If you look at the back of the bridge and the brick support there is a curvature which bulges to the left. If you look at the front right of the bridge covering and the right hand brick support there is a hint of a bulge in the opposite direction. This sort of lens distortion is usually a very quick fix in PP depending on what software you use. You also have some perspective distortion combined with a lean to the left which shows up in the brick support verticals. Again a pretty quick fix with the skew tool (or equivalent if you use PP software other than PS). In the end though a really good and quite fascinating shot. And I notice it was handheld so again, well done. I really enjoyed the pic, I look forward to seeing more of your stuff.

Peter

Bamboo Loc: South Carolina

I agree completely with conkerwood. :thumbup:

Jay Pat Loc: Round Rock, Texas, USA

Very pleasing image to look at!!!!
Only thing I find odd is the whole bridge is not covered....
Pat

Stevieboy Loc: West Palm Beach, Florida

Excellent job on this one. Not overdone......This is a "wall hanger."

Bigdee Loc: Southern California

very nice picture

wowbmw Loc: Grant, Colorado

Like it!

SoHillGuy Loc: Washington

I hope you took more than one photo of this elegant old covered bridge. It looks to be in good shape, and it almost makes one think that it is a modern day structure. I believe it has lighting added to it, from the sight of electrical conduit at the far side. In the back ground your photo has included a light standard, and an apparently moving vehicle, which adds some life to it.

Where does this bridge lead to, is it private property, or just an access to other living areas? Looks like it goes somewhere special.

Rufe Loc: Missouri

conkerwood wrote:

Well firstly I am going to disagree about the leaves. One of the real strengths of this pic is the depth that we are able to see. Trees in full leaf would have obscured the underside of the bridge and cut out that wonderful sky and the details in the distance. We don't have covered bridges in Australia to my knowledge but I wish we did as they are fantastic HDR subjects and you have done an excellent job with this one. So many would have taken the shot looking straight through the bridge but you chose a much more interesting POV, well done. The sky... very natural and you have avoided any halos around the the bridge top. You have brought out some nice details in the shadows inside the bridge and in the shaded area on the bottom right but you have kept a balance by allowing the area under the ramp on the other side to remain quite dark, its often tempting to bring out detail just because HDR allows us to do so but sometimes, for balance, you need dark areas. Most of the highlights have worked quite well but there are blown areas where there is direct sunlight on the brickwork. I don't know whether your shortest exposure shot has retained any more detail that this but if it has it might be worthwhile layering that back into this finished shot and using it to bring back the blown areas. But if that's not an option then it doesn't detract too much from the shot because we do expect to see intense light sometimes on blue sky days, so it doesn't seem out of place. The only other suggestion I have relates to several areas of distortion. If you look at the back of the bridge and the brick support there is a curvature which bulges to the left. If you look at the front right of the bridge covering and the right hand brick support there is a hint of a bulge in the opposite direction. This sort of lens distortion is usually a very quick fix in PP depending on what software you use. You also have some perspective distortion combined with a lean to the left which shows up in the brick support verticals. Again a pretty quick fix with the skew tool (or equivalent if you use PP software other than PS). In the end though a really good and quite fascinating shot. And I notice it was handheld so again, well done. I really enjoyed the pic, I look forward to seeing more of your stuff.

Peter

Well firstly I am going to disagree about the le... (show quote)

Wow, that's detailed C&C. Thanks for the informaton. I use CS5 for PP and will have to look at the distortion. Shooting without a tripod limits me to the number of pictures I can take in one busrt without moving the camera. With the tripod I think I could have taken care of the blownout areas. Thanks again for your comments, it helps me learn to improve.

Rufe Loc: Missouri

Jay Pat wrote:

Very pleasing image to look at!!!!
Only thing I find odd is the whole bridge is not covered....
Pat

I questioned that myself when looking at the bridge. They rehabed the bridge a few years ago and thought that it may have been raised to keep it out of the water. That would have lead to a longer entrance and exit of the bridge.

Rufe Loc: Missouri

Stevieboy wrote:

Excellent job on this one. Not overdone......This is a "wall hanger."

Thanks.

Rufe Loc: Missouri

Bigdee wrote:

very nice picture

Thanks, Bigdee

Rufe Loc: Missouri

wowbmw wrote:

Like it!

Thanks, wowbmw

Rufe Loc: Missouri

SoHillGuy wrote:

I hope you took more than one photo of this elegan... (show quote)

The car you see in the background is as close as you can drive to the bridge. It's now a walking bridge and is located in a park area. It's just off of covered bridge road, near Glenarm and Chatham, Il. You're right it does have lights now attached to the inside of the bridge.

Daryl New Loc: Wellington,New Zealand

Excuse ignorance,but,why do they cover bridges?