On the Road to Achiltibuie

One of the hardest lessons I've been able to apply is about knowing when to let an image go and not keep trying to make a success of it.

When I took this on my recent holiday in the north-west of Scotland, I was really excited. I was convinced I had a sure-fire keeper. When I got back home and looked at it, I was really disappointed. It just was not what I had imagined as I set it up and took it. What had I done wrong? Was it the subject matter? Was it the composition?

Asked my dearly beloved what her views were -
"The Bridge ruins it"
"But the bridge being part of the scene is the whole point. It's human-kind in its environment. That's what I do."
"It ruins it."
End of conversation.

I shot it in portrait. That seemed right at the time.

Anyway. Tucked it away in the 'Good idea that didn't work' folder.

Then yesterday, whilst pottering about, this emerged. I've cropped it to a 7x5. Lost a lot of the sky and the fearns blowing in the wind in the foreground, both of which were what much of the original idea was about.

But what I've got here is something that, I think, now focuses attention on the water, with which I'm very pleased, and shows enough of the sky and foliage in the foreground to tell the story I intended to tell. It also still has that bridge, which is me trying to say that humankind has worked out how to live and work even in this landscape, even though it might not be in the most aesthetically pleasing way.

Anyway, there have been a number of learning points come out of this and it's an image that's probably received more digital darkroom attention than my other work.

1. Don't keep floggin' a dead horse
2. But don't bury(delete) it right away. Keep it tucked away and you might see it in a different light one day.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4078/...e1d1d981_b.jpg
40D, 17-85mm f/4-5.6 IS USM Kit @ 41mm. ISO 100. 1/6@f16. Manual.

This works for me Donald and the crop works well. I use WireVixen as my first critic where I can and often shots that I think look ok are soon pulled apart. I is not always what I want to hear but it makes me think twice. I have started to periodically review images that did not appeal at first view. It is surprising how different things look after a period of time.

Steve

Donald

It's not the bridge that's the problem, it's the railings on the bridge. The bridge itself acts as a focal point that you reach at the rear of the shot. I do like the way the flowing water has been captured - nice light.

May I offer you two pieces of advice?

1. Avoid asking the DB in the first place.
2. If you do ask her, don't start a dispute when she delivers a damning critique!

Have a happy life...

Thank you for the comments, gents.

Rob - you're right. It's the railings. Why didn't I see that?

I don't think it works without any railings. But the fact that the railings on each side of the bridge both show creates a messy scene. So, I think this is still an appropriate 'artistic' representation. It's one of those that's not strictly true in the sense I have removed something substantive that was there. But I haven't lied, I don't think.

http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4098/...3da08f9d_b.jpg