Discussion: Bridges of the World July 2026 (page 14 of 18)

I’d adjust all the perspectives a bit. There’s still some material missing to do it properly.

In Photoshop, you can recover the material that gets cropped out. It doesn’t always work, but it gives good results.

Overall, I agree with you, with just a few minor details. The discussion is still open, and this is just my point of view 😉 This new composition is solid—the sky is gorgeous and gives the scene a cinematic feel—but doesn’t that spectacular sky steal the spotlight from the castle? Isn’t the castle supposed to be the main focus? (Unless it’s a bridge competition, of course.) Also, during editing, the castle lost a bit of its ochre color, and I find the whole thing a tad too dark. I imagine if you’d worked with a raw file, you’d have gotten finer nuances...

Thanks, Kate, for sharing your thoughts! 😊 I really love this exercise and these exchanges—they give a different perspective and help us improve. Yes, with Photoshop, anything’s possible now 😄—personally, I rarely use it. Lightroom has come a long way in recent years, and usually, it’s enough for me. Yes, the sky is stunning—I love skies like this and always tend to highlight them 😊. I think you’ve probably noticed—I love photos that are a little dark, and yeah… sometimes a bit too much 🙈 Absolutely, the file we get from VF has very little resolution… we can’t work miracles.

I’ve been following your exchanges with interest... even if I feel like I’m on another planet I (almost) never edit my photos (except for horizons that aren’t horizontal, which drive me crazy). I did try to get into it (with Lightroom) a few years ago, but honestly, it doesn’t interest me. I just try to pay attention when taking the shot (framing, settings)... maybe the result of many years shooting film That said, I still find your comments about Tylassin’s photo really interesting 😉.

Yes, Muriel, you’re absolutely right. Almost all pro photographers say the same thing: "90% of the photo happens in the field." You have to use all the camera’s capabilities to get the desired result right when you take the shot. The RAW file is what the negative was in film—you need to develop it to get a photo. If you shoot in JPEG, the camera automatically processes it, but you no longer have the native file.

Hi Isabelle,

Absolutely, the file we get from VF has very low resolution... we can't work miracles.

I was actually wondering how you managed to rework this photo, especially after Kate’s first comment. I was thinking, how did she get the file? A screenshot? I’ve done that myself with other photos, but I found that the result wasn’t what I wanted with a photo captured that way, and I didn’t say anything because I thought the photo’s author wouldn’t be happy that I’d taken the liberty of "working" on their photo. I did it once, and the woman who took the photo was really shocked—or hurt—that I’d touched her photo and "made a big deal out of it."

I use Photoshop Elements, which is more than enough for me for small corrections, because I prefer to stay as close as possible to the original photo without distorting my initial work too much when taking the shot. I gave up on Photoshop—it’s too expensive and too complicated for my degenerating brain—and along the way, I also stopped shooting in Raw (for the same reasons). I think I’m at least 20 years older than all of you, and my various health issues have really compromised my attention, concentration, and cognition in general, so I don’t want (or can’t) bother with too many edits anymore. Unfortunately, "in the field," I realize I’m making more and more setting and calculation mistakes, not to mention the times I forget to disable a previous setting—you can imagine the disaster! My eyesight isn’t what it used to be either. Etc. So I try to fix things in post-processing with Photoshop Elements, which is more than enough to adjust levels, contrast, depth of field, brightness, etc., as long as the end result is a photo I like. Like you, Isabelle, I’ve already told you—I much prefer dark photos, though not everyone agrees. But I find that you can express so much more in a dark photo, and it’s so much more aesthetic (artistic?). But that’s just my personal opinion and taste.

I’ve also noticed that my photos from recent years are often much less successful (beautiful?) than the ones I took 10, 15, or 20 years ago. Is it the equipment or the brain—or both—that’s changed?

From a computer, you just need to download the photo. Usually, I click on it, choose to open it in a new page, and then by clicking again, the download option appears.

On a smartphone, it’s not possible. At least not on mine.

The problem when you get older isn’t necessarily the photo or the device, but our eyes.

Between severe myopia, presbyopia, cataracts, and other delightful issues, we don’t see like we used to.

My brother just had cataract surgery at 61. He tells me he can see again!

Others have said the same thing after the operation.

From a computer, you just need to download the photo.\nUsually, I click on it, choose to open it in a new page, then click again, and the download option appears.\n\nI don’t have that option. When I click on the photo, all I get is the photo’s URL, which doesn’t help with downloading it. I’ve already tried...\nAnother thing about getting older is that tech keeps evolving all the time—it just feels more and more complicated. You’ve got to keep up constantly, and there comes a point where you just can’t keep up anymore... Eyesight can be fixed. Lost brain cells? Not so much. 🧓

Hi Jean Marie, To save an image, I right-click on it and choose "save image as"; the file doesn’t have much resolution and is only 200–300 KB. In Lightroom, I use super-resolution to increase the pixel count. Yes, unfortunately, nothing gets easier as we get older—the main thing is to still enjoy ourselves and go at our own pace.

Anyway, thanks for your help!

Hi Jean Marie, To save an image, I right-click on it and choose "save image as"; the file doesn’t have much resolution and is only 200-300 KB. In Lightroom, I use super-resolution to increase the number of pixels. Yes, unfortunately, as we get older, nothing improves—what matters is still enjoying ourselves and going at our own pace.

Thanks for your explanation. I tried it with one of Noelle’s photos. This time, it worked even better than your method. Save as, and then when I click to open it, the photo automatically opens in Photoshop at 1400 x 787 resolution. Full-screen display. Perfect image. And I can work on it perfectly. Thanks for your tips. Now I’ll be able to "borrow" your photos and others... 😈🤹‍♂️🤹‍♂️

Hi Noëlle, I had a lot of fun playing with your two photos of the Ponte Vecchio, front and back. Especially by darkening them a bit, just the way I like it. Just to see what I would’ve done if I’d taken those photos myself.

I get why, a year or two ago, I found one of my photos online with someone claiming it was theirs...

Your photos are really beautiful. It was just for fun, to see what you can do by "borrowing" a photo like that. Now I understand why some people here in travel journals slap a huge signature watermark on their photos to protect them... a little, at least. But it ruins the photo, and on top of that, you can remove that signature in all sorts of ways...

Tancarville Bridge

On the other hand, no dancing on Pemberton Bridge! (see photo 3 in the contest)

A bridge can also connect two wings of a building (the Viceroy’s Palace in India under the British Raj, in Shimla)

I’d kind of forgotten about this bridge, but Facebook just reminded me—it’s the anniversary! Exactly one year ago in Saxon Switzerland, north of Dresden. 😊

Good evening,

la Suisse Saxonne au nord de Dresde

I’d say it’s actually southeast of Dresden, following the Elbe River upstream (see the link to Google Maps below).

https://www.google.com/maps/@50.978766,13.956555,10.53z?entry=ttu&g_ep=EgoyMDI2MDcxNS4wIKXMDSoASAFQAw%3D%3D

I regret not visiting during my trip to Dresden in June 2017, as I chose to go all the way to the Polish border in Görlitz instead—a city that inspired Wes Anderson for his film *The Grand Budapest Hotel*. I think Saxon Switzerland might have also been part of his inspiration, right? Anyway, thanks for the photo—it took me back to my travel memories! 😉

Yeah, you're right about the geography. Sorry 😅

It *is* a really pretty place, but packed with tourists in July.

Several films have been shot in Görlitz. I stopped there for lunch just before crossing into Poland.

Last day in Germany before heading to Denmark—visited an inhabited bridge (not a mill) today in Wismar.

A big thank you for your wonderful bridge suggestions! 😊 For those who are running late, there are still a few days left! 😉

The three Queensferry bridges north of Edinburgh

A bridge can also connect two wings of a building (the Viceroy's Palace in India under the British Raj, in Shimla)



Hi Jean Marie,

That’s a gorgeous photo, but it doesn’t look like a bridge—more like the interior of a beautiful wooden residence 😊 I really love the two light spots in the photo: the one below that highlights the painting and the one above that really brings out the bridge. To nitpick a little, I would’ve liked to see the person climbing the stairs instead of standing still in the lower part of the image.

I don’t know if you’re familiar with Ansel Adams’ 11-zone system, but you must be getting pretty close to mastering it 👍 Well done! I get what you mean about loving dark photos—I do too, just not as much 😄

Hi Isabelle,

but it doesn’t look like a bridge—more like the interior of a beautiful wooden residence

Well, the photo is dark, so it’s hard to see, but click on it to enlarge it and look closely at the upper left part. You can clearly see the other part of the wall, which shows that this gallery is surrounded by empty space on both the right and left, and it connects two independent parts of the château. So, in my view, it *is* a bridge between those two sections since its role is to link them.

To nitpick a little, I would’ve liked to see the character climbing the stairs instead of being in a static position at the bottom of the image.

You know, you can’t ask too much of museum (or château) guards. They usually just wait for the day to pass as best they can...

I don’t know if you’re familiar with Ansel Adams’ 11 zones, but you must be getting pretty close! 👍 Bravo!

You know, I’ve told you before—I have no formal photography training. I’m completely self-taught. I regret it, but I’m not ashamed of it. I rely solely on my eye, my intuition, and my personal taste.

I get it when you say you like dark photos—I do too, just not as much 😊

I *could* have made this photo less dark, but I wanted it this way to better capture the eerie atmosphere of the château, the austere people who lived or stayed there, and that "tomb-like" vibe I imagined. Otherwise, there’s a trend I’ve noticed on Youpic among photographers specializing in monochrome—they *all* make their photos *very* dark, much darker than mine (😵), and I don’t particularly like it, but they’re among the most "awarded" by the curators (pro photographers on the site). One day, I asked one of them if the extreme darkness was intentional. (Big mistake! Felt like I was telling him he didn’t know how to handle light.) He gave me a curt reply, very politely pointing out that I knew nothing about black-and-white photography... 😵