Tom Rankin said:
I kind of like it without!
Can you tell me why you prefer it that way? Is it to give it a sense of scale? I guess I know which bridge it is, and how big it is already, maybe that's the difference?
Well, Tom, as a matter of fact I can tell you exactly why I prefer a photo like this one to include a human figure in the scene. It is the photojournalist in me.
One of my earliest mentors in the field was fond of saying, the difference between a photograph and picture is that the photo merely records the scene while a picture tells us a story. As a rule, I find that inanimate objects alone usually don't tell much of a story. Something needs to be "happening" in order for there to be much in the way of narrative. That's where the people come in.
The other old rule that was drummed into my pedestrian head a long time ago is that people generally like to read about and look at people. It's the old, "names and faces make news," dogma. So human figures in a photo tend to provide a natural point of focus or attraction for the viewer.
The business about providing sense of scale also is a valid reason for including people in pictures, although that probably is not the prime reason for wanting them in the shot of the bridge.
I can respect your followup comments about sense of mystery. But my preference usually is for pictures that illuminate rather than mystify.
And, of course I also read from your followup post that the photo does tell a story to you as a trail maintainer. I can buy that as far as it goes, but for myself, just crave something more.
Mine is not the only valid outlook on this stuff, by any means. But it sure works for me -- it helps me quickly select pictures that I really want to look at, especially more than once.
G.
