I'm biking to downtown St. Louis to take some photo's of the Beautiful Saarinen Designed Gateway Arch. Being new to the area, what are some vantage points other than from directly below? I plan to bring the SWC and M6 + 35 'cron. Will I need a 90 from a different "secret" vantage point?

Car not coming, so pic's from Illinois won't happen.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 31, 2002

Answers

Chris:

1. Try a shot from the elevated platform at Keiner Plaza, which is just west of the old courthouse, which will then be framed inside the arch.

2. Try from the park just east of the old courthouse.

3. Walk the path to the south of the arch to get a 3/4 view, rather than head-on; there's a pool of water for the foreground.

4. Climb the steps at either end of the archgrounds for a higher- altitude shot.

5. Shoot it head-on from the sidewalk across Lenore K. Sullivan Blvd, in order to include the steps. You need the SWC for that one!

6. Walk north of the Eads bridge on the Levee and shoot it through one of the bridge arches.

7. Climb to the top of a parking garage in downtown St. Louis--maybe the one across from the stadium--and work the arch into a composition. You might need the 90 for that one.

8. Photograph it during magic hour, near sunset.

Have fun!

-- Bob Fleischman (RFXMAIL@prodigy.net), March 31, 2002.

Thanks Bob,

I thought about addressing this directly to you, but making it public might inspire other within the area or in their own area to get out and take some pic's.

I knew you'd get to it, though.

Beautiful day here.

Happy Easter All

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 31, 2002.

Chris,

Bob has some good ideas. Especially the one about shooting it at sunset. The arch actually changes color as the sun gets lower on the horizon! I've photographed it alot. One time in October I noticed a woman shooting with a Leica from almost below the arch as I was doing. I asked if she was using a 21 (I was using a F5 with 20-35, sorry!) and she replied that she was. We chatted for a couple of minutes about wide angles and then went back to shooting.

The parks around the arch are really nice....but you might want to hold your trip until the trees get leaves. The SWC is a perfect camera for arch photography. If you have a lens wider than the 35, I would certainly take it. You probably wont use the 90 much, unless it is for detail or you are shooting from very far away.

Good luck!

-- Todd Phillips (toddvphillips@webtv.net), March 31, 2002.

I haven't been there, so I can't make any really useful suggestions, but here's a crazy thought for you - see if there are hot-air balloon trips for hire that come close to the arch. That would certainly give you an unusual perspective.

-- Ralph Barker (rbarker@pacbell.net), March 31, 2002.

Chris Get a copy of the book 'St.Louis & The Arch' by Joel Meyerowitz (ISBN 0-8212-1120-X). He's been there, seen it, and done it. They are a fabulous set of photographs that should give you some great ideas for locations.

-- Steve Barnett (barnet@globalnet.co.uk), March 31, 2002.

What a Beautiful Day in St. Louis!

There were a bunch of people in the park by the arch.

The SWC was not wide enough; wish I had a 16mm, maybe the 12mm from Voit.

I took a couple of shots under the arch from flat on my back!

The best vantage point was south of the reflecting pool.

We'll see, I still have a few to take in the SWC camera.

Thanks, Nice ride.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), March 31, 2002.

See Joel Meyerowitz' book "St. Louis and the Arch". A small masterpiece of seeing. The fact that he used an 8x10 camera makes no difference.

-- Mark Sampson (MSampson45@aol.com), April 01, 2002.

Am I the only one to find Bob's list slightly depressing? No insult to him, but I have visions of hundreds of photographers all deligently trying out these suggestions and all bringing home identical pictures. This aspect of photography I do find a bit depressing sometimes. Similarly the Kodak "great shot" spots. A more fun approach is simply for Chris to go there and discover it all for himself - keeps a sense of adventure and maybe even originality, but Chris did ask I know -- perhaps it is Chris' question that I find disheartening.

-- Robin Smith (smith_robin@hotmail.com), April 01, 2002.

I just finished reading P. Greenspun's account of touring Isreal; not only does he reference tour books with photo's... "There is a photograph of nearly every site so you can decide whether or not it is worth the trip photographically." And within the tour of Jerusalem even suggests various vantage points: "The photographic highlights of a trip to Jerusalem must include:"

It was the same idea I had wrt the "Gateway Arch" and "Special Places".

Is this Sad?

I figure if a person like Phil, Andy, Jay, Mike wrote a post like I you all would've accepted it. So the real problem are with the people who chose to criticize rather than answer the question posed, not me on my high horse: Any Ideas?

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), April 02, 2002.

Please don't be disheartened by me and my lack of adventure. One of many: On my way to Angkor I didn't fly like most people, I took a river boat up the Mekong River/Tonle Sap Lake; even the guide books warned not to do so.

There are always infinitely more things/events going on in the world to be disheartened about, need I list a few must remembers.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), April 02, 2002.

For a different vantage point, I did take some from "flat on my back". I would've taken a couple standing on my head, but I can't stand on my head.

I took a coulpe of people taking shots of people in front of the Arch shots; one guy was also on his back in order to get a photo of his kids and a vertical of the Arch; always liked this type of street photo.

-- chris chen (chrischen@msn.com), April 02, 2002.