Scott Lothes: Bridges

Scott Lothes (website here; take a look at the image on his home page!!) has graciously offered to have me write about some of his shots. He sent me six and I have chosen these two for discussion. Neither is the best nor the worst (least good?) of the six, but both serve as exemplars of his style without additional complications. These are different shots of the same bridge, one Scott has been "working on" for some time.

My first observation is simply that his style here is different than I am accustomed to. I am used to looking at rail and non-rail landscapes that are somewhat dramatic, colorful (or broader tonality in B/W) and sharp.

These shots are interesting to me because they are just the opposite; the effects are subtle. Yes, they are silhouettes, but the light in them is neither colorful nor bright. The light is quite dull, both faded and subtle in shading. They approach B/W in feel, in emphasis on tonality, yet by retaining what appears to be natural color, they retain a presence in reality.

This is my bias; while I love good B/W work, my reaction to it has always involved an element of distancing from the subject, an abstraction. While viewing a B/W shot, I never feel as though I am standing trackside myself; rather, I absorb the image much as I would a painting. Thus, I view B/W work as a bridge, to some extent, between the realism inherent in photography and the abstraction in painting.

Back to these shots. I have mixed preferences here; I like some aspects of each shot. The first shot has more implied action, in the cloud bank moving in and in the lights on the distant shore under the bridge, a motion in time rather than space, towards nightfall or daybreak.

I also see the pattern of the wavelets in the water. I notice these wavelets in particular because I am a windsurfer (lapsed, I should say) and I have learned to see the wind coming/shifting through them. There is a zone, a triangle at the lower left, continued a bit somewhat higher, just in front of the left end of the bridge. [I'll make the probably obvious comment that we all bring our own experiences to bear when we look at an image.]

The shot has an interesting three-zone layout, sky at the top, then darker cloud with dark, then light water. At the same time, this is the major weakness of the shot, in my view. I find that the bridge and the train get just a bit lost in the darkness. My reaction would be less so were there not brighter areas elsewhere in the frame. Also, the bridge separate poorly from the darkness of the far short below the bridge, especially on the left side.

The second shot is simpler, a more pure silhouette, albeit one with more going on in the darker elements. The medium tone of the distant port, to the right of the bridge pier, is a nice second focal point. [Again, my experiential baggage, I love ports. Does your eye go to this area of the shot the way mine does?] The birds bring an element of life to the shot, always dynamic, that the first shot lacks.

However, it has less interesting color, sort of like a sepia in that there is one dominant hue, whereas the first shot has a bit of yellow/orange in the sky, a bit more reddish in the quieter water in the lower left corner, and some bluish in the clouds (the latter I think is actually not part of the actual hue, but my brain basically puts it there as a response to the entire image). The image is a bit hazy, in a way which seems to be part of the style but I personally don't find interesting. Again, I tend to like things to be more dramatic.

[It occurs to me that another dimension of this is that these images by Scott are not razor sharp; that does not bother me at all and I think that aspect intentionally contributes to the muted feel of the shots overall, but I know some will find it a distinct shortfall in image quality.]

The question of drama is a good point to end on. There are various levels of pizazz in images. These shots feature reduced tonal and color drama in favor of other elements. The amount of drama is one of many choices in our palette of style elements. Ultimately, I doubt I will become a fan of this style of shooting. But exposure to it, and seeing and contemplating what it does and what it conveys, helps in gaining a broader appreciation of photography.

By the way, take a look at Scott's website, which has a modest number of excellent shots, culled from a larger body of work as among his best. If your tastes run toward mine, you will find plenty of interest, with notable differences in styles. I would argue that many of those shots are "better" than the two here, but of course that reflects my preferences. I would love to write about the others down the road, and thanks to Scott's further permission, I will!