Covered Bridges in IR

pathfinder

I received my 300D converted to IR by maxmax.com. courtesy of Andy's recommendation shortly after returning from Yosemite. Maxmax did an excellent job, and returned the camera to me in less than seven days from the time I mailed it to them. Dan LLewellyn is the contact individual and he can be reached here - sales@maxmax.com He seems very straight forward and pleasant to deal with.

One of the primary reasons I wanted it, was to shoot covered bridges in the summer time.

I have an ongoing project to capture the bridges in Parke County in all four seasons. Winter and Fall are quite photogenic with lovely colors, but summer seems to often have hazy, humid skies and lots of trees and greenery surrounding the bridges. I thought that IR might make a nice alternative for some of the summer shots. Here are a few I captured last weekend.

McCallister Bridge built in 1914 - and still in use every day


Neet Bridge was built in 1904 and is no longer in service for vehicles


Crooks Bridge was built in 1856 and is beginning to lean to the left - see the mooring cable from the right side of the image behind the weight limit sign. The weight limit of 3 tons means that the bridge can barely carry one 3/4 ton pick up truck any longer. The bridge may not be in service much more. But I drove through it.


These were shot in RAW and converted in ACR by desaturating the ACR before bringing in to Photoshop for curves and levels. Some were shot at ISO 100 and some at ISO 400 - all with a 16-35 F2.8 L

I am very interested in criticism and suggestions re: composition and IR post processing.

Nir

You've got some beautiful photos of beautiful bridges in beautiful surroundings!!

I would try to darken them a bit. On my screen they seem a little overexposed and I am sometimes finding it difficult to distinguish between the sky and trees, difficult to see details in the bright areas. Were they overexposed in the shoot or perhaps in post processing?

pathfinder

Nir wrote:

You've got some beautiful photos of beautiful bridges in beautiful surroundings!!

I would try to darken them a bit. On my screen they seem a little overexposed and I am sometimes finding it difficult to distinguish between the sky and trees, difficult to see details in the bright areas. Were they overexposed in the shoot or perhaps in post processing?

Thank you for your comments, Nir. The highlights in the leaves in the Neet bridge shot are very bright. I went over them very carefully and cannot find any highlights that clock over 245, 245, 245 - I actually raised them up carefully in levels after RAW conversion s I preferred them to look white rather than grey in print. Are you referring to the Neet Bridge shot or another image?

The leaves in the McCallister Bridge shot are all less than 240,240,240 - the white of the McCallister Bridge is about 252,252,252 - almost pure white.


Here is an image of Crooks Bridge that is less bright - nothing greater thatn 245,245,245, but I must admit that I find it a little grey and have thought about increasing its contrast. Is this more what you prefer, Nir?

devbobo

Nice work Pathfinder.

Personally I really love the toning of the bridge and lettering (and perpective as well) in the second photo, but the leafy foilage (at front) is really blown out.

I would like to see a similar photo, but with the base of the bridge towards the bottom of the frame and showing more sky. IMO, sky is what really makes the difference between a great and a fantastic IR photo.

Congrats on the purchase, looking forward to seeing more.

Cheers,

David

Higgmeister

Hi Pathfinder,
I see that IR works well with covered bridges, nice shots. You have a nice contrast range going which is important for many IR shots. Unfortunately, with the clouds in the sky, the foliage and sky come together. Not a problem with me except the bridge cover is also bright. Maybe using channel mixer in PS would help maintain a contrast difference between the bridge and sky. That being said, I do like #2 the best because the bridge stands out more against it's surroundings. Less foreground would also accent the bridge better. I think you made the right decision by shooting these in IR, I like them.

Thanks for sharing them,
Chris

USAIR

Pathfinder
Love those bridges very cool
The trees in the background look real nice too
Makes me want to convert a 300d


Thanks
Fred

pathfinder

devbobo wrote:

Nice work Pathfinder.

Personally I really love the toning of the bridge and lettering (and perpective as well) in the second photo, but the leafy foilage (at front) is really blown out.

I would like to see a similar photo, but with the base of the bridge towards the bottom of the frame and showing more sky. IMO, sky is what really makes the difference between a great and a fantastic IR photo.

Congrats on the purchase, looking forward to seeing more.

Cheers,

David

I have redone the image of the Neet Bridge and the vegetation in front of it
- let me know if this is an improvement. The sky was not blue that day but grey; will a deep red or green filter make the sky darker in IR I wonder?



Here is why I shot Neet Bridge from the low angle and with the vegetation in front

Higgmeister

Hi Pathfinder,
I like this second photo better. The posts don't distract me at all, but the foliage in the first shot is distraction. I understand your reasoning only after your explanation, but I find the plants more distracting than the posts.

Thanks for sharing,
Chris

pathfinder

Higgmeister wrote:

I like this second photo better. The posts don't distract me at all, but the foliage in the first shot is distraction. I understand your reasoning only after your explanation, but I find the plants more distracting than the posts.

Thanks for sharing,
Chris

I can understand your reasoning. Thanks for commenting again.:):

devbobo

PF,

I hope you don't mind I had a bit of a play with your image. The second version was a little washed (for my liking).

So, what do you think of this ?


What I really love about how this turned out is the weathering on the front of the bridge. Let me know what you think and if you want to know what I did in post.

BTW, I have been meaning to mention, I saw a photo of you from Yosemite..and in that photo anyway, you're a dead ringer for my old man.

Cheers,

David

pathfinder

devbobo wrote:

PF,

I hope you don't mind I had a bit of a play with your image. The second version was a little washed (for my liking).

So, what do you think of this ?


What I really love about how this turned out is the weathering on the front of the bridge. Let me know what you think and if you want to know what I did in post.

BTW, I have been meaning to mention, I saw a photo of you from Yosemite..and in that photo anyway, you're a dead ringer for my old man.

Cheers,

David

I like the image as you processed it, looks good, but I know the bridge front is white and not grey, so I guess, I didn't try to make it that dark. Tell the thread what you did for processing tho, ok?

And I'll say hi to your mom

devbobo

pathfinder wrote:

Tell the thread what you did for processing tho, ok?

1. Duplicated the base layer
2. Set the layer to 'Multiply'
3. Set the layer opacity to about 60%
4. With Layers, I selected the 'Black' eye dropper, and then clicked around the sky until I was happy with the result.

Cheers,

david