I Have Seen some Churches!

Prominent Steeples in Zurich, Switzerland
Copyright Andy Richards 2024 - All Rights Reserved

MAYBE TOO many. 😊 It is not hard to see why churches figure so fully into sightseeing around the world. They tend to be the foremost specimina of the historical development of art and architecture, being possibly rivaled only by some of the impressive palaces around the world. I have seen some pretty cool churches, from simple to ornate, and have only sometimes felt that my photography of them did them justice. The shots in this blog are by no means all of my images. I have shot 100's of churches over the world. And I will continue to add to that collection as time goes on. These are just a few of them That "curated" just for this post. This is the first in a series of posts where I showcase some of the very different "churches" I have had the pleasure of visiting all over the world.

St. Colman's Cathedral - Cobh, Ireland
Copyright Andy Richards 2019 - All Rights Reserved

ONE OF my favorites around the world, and perhaps the most imposing steeple I have observed, is St. Colman's Cathedral in Cobh, Ireland. The tall, gothic steeple reaches around 300 feet into the sky. It is the tallest church in the Republic of Ireland.

St. Patrick's Cathedral - Dublin, Ireland
Copyright Andy Richards 2019 - All Rights Reserved

THAT IS - to my way of thinking - the major positive of seeing all these churches around the world. They tend to make wonderful photographic subjects, if you can find an interesting viewpoint. They stay put, and so with few exceptions, you can try to time your shooting to the rigth conditions. Lighting (both natural and artificial) often lends drama and depth to them.

St. Paul's Cathedral - London, England
Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved

CHURCHES AND similar religious architecture, as is true of religion in general, have always been front and center in every civilization. No matter the religious leaning, it is nearly impossible to visit any primary city (as well as most smaller towns) without a steeple or spire (or more) being prominently seen from nearly everywhere in the vicinity, reaching - as it were - to the heavens.

Westminster Abbey - Westminster; London, England
Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved

CHURCHES REPRESENT every developing phase of architecture, beginning with the ancient pyramids and continuing through the Middle Ages (with such Medieval "period" architecture as Gothic, Byzantine, and Romanesque), the Renaissance ("neo-Gothic," Baroque), the Neo-Classic and modern periods. At the same time, particularly during the Medieval and Renaissance periods, there were also many examples of Moorish architecture, largely brought by the Muslims from Africa, Asia and the Middle East, and in the eastern Asian part of the worlds, influence from Asian architecture (particular Japan, China and Korea).

Chandeliers and stained glass windows lend color to the otherwise very gothic appearing La Segrada Familia in Barcelona, Spain
Copyright Andy Richards 2015 - All Rights Reserved

WITH THE notable exception of Asian (Japan, Korea, China) shrines, bright colors are not a primary feature of most churches. It does, however, serve its ornamental purpose in the form of paintings, tapestries, and stained glass windows.

Understated but nonetheless colorful chandelier and stained glass windows highllight the monotone organ pipes and organic interior of Trondheim, Norway's Nidaros Cathedral
Copyright Andy Richards 2025 - All Rights Reserved

IN MY own travel experience, architecture seems to inform history, and the architecture of Northern and Central Europe, Eastern Europe, Asia, Africa , North America and South America are all quite different. And churches generally are the first buildings erected in any historical civilization. Thus "European" churches tend to come more from gothic traditions and origins, as modified by subsequent periods, like neo classic.

One of the oldest churches in the world; The Chruch of the Holy Apostles sits in the center of the Roman Agora in Athens, Greece
Copyright Andy Richards - 2015 - All Rights Reserved

OFTEN MUTED organic materials are used inside and out. Earthy colors are common. While very old churches were often constructed with wooden timbers, newer churches into the middle ages and the renaissance replaced them with more durable materials such as stone. Stone masonry was - of course - very important part of the building trades. And these materials were inherently more resistant to nature disaster like wind and fire.

The Front side of Notre Dame Cathedral in Paris, France - photographed in 2019 shortly after the fire. The back side was all scaffolding and charred timber remnants. Hopefully my upcoming trip to Paris in 2026 will afford the opportunity to photograph the newly completed building.
Copyright Andy Richards 2019 - All Rights Reserved

TWO OF Europe's keystone churches, St. Paul's Cathedral in London and Notre Dame in Paris were substantially destroyed by fire: the older, much smaller, original St. Paul's by the 17th century great fire of London, and Notre Dame (which sustained major damage to its wood framed upper story and roof) in the more recent, 2019 fire.

The distinctly gothic "St. Vitus Cathedral" in Prague, Czech Republic, built in the 14th Century
Copyright Andy Richards 

EUROPEAN CHURCHES  seem to me to be more grandiose. Large and imposing, they almost always reflect the trends of art and architecture of the times, often designed by some of the great, European artists. I believe symbolism is a huge part of the design of all churches. Grandiose shows, in my view, the power of the god for which the church was built. Many of the European churches are also packed with small instances of what might be called "micro" symbolism.

St. Mark's Cathedral - Venice, Italy
Copyright Andy Richards 2019 - All Rights Reserved

IN OTHER parts of the world, churches symbolize a much simpler approach and view of the religion, though perhaps also highly influenced by practicality (like the availability of building materials). Thus, we see a huge proliferation of simple, white-steepled ("New England" styled) churches in the small communities around the United States, and in some parts of Northern Europe. Photographically, I am often drawn to these simpler structures by their straightforward lines and shapes. As they are often white, I look for context that will frame and give the photo some variety and interest.

What remains of the original St. Paul's Church, London, England
Copyright Andy Richards 2021 - All Rights Reserved

NOWHERE HAVE I ever experienced symbolism more starkly, however than in Asia (in my case, primarily Japan, but I know Korea, China, and I am certain other countries in that part of the world showcase similar architecture).shrines' most salient characteristics are the characteristic shapes, and bright colors (particularly red, vermillion, green and golds).  And they are next.

My Review of the Tamron 20-40 f2.8 Di III VXD and 28-200 f2.8 - f5.6 Di III VXD - for Sony FF

Recommended

Nassau, Bahamas - Holland America Ship from our cruise ship deck
Tamron 28-200 f2.8 - 5.6 ( 135mm @ f8) - Handles contrasty morning light well in my opinion
Copyright Andy Richards 2025 - All Rights Reserved

A COUPLE years back, following my first ever catastrophic injury to a piece of photographic gear (not a terrible track record, given my 50 years of "carry"), I decided to take a chance on one of the major third-party lens makers. Back in "the day" (for me, defined as the late 1970's to about 2020), there were the brand-name lenses, mainly from Nikon, Canon, Minolta, Olympus, all of which were of high quality design, manufacture and optical quality. There were - of course - also a couple of what most of us hobby shooters considered "boutique" lenses manufactured by Leica and Zeiss. I owned one Zeiss lens for my APS-C sony camera for a while. It was probably my all-time favorite for its image quality and look. But I have never owned an equivalent since switching to "full frame."

Nassau, Bahamas
Tamron 28 - 200 2.8 - 5.6 (200mm @ f 5.6 - "wide open"
Copyright Andy Richards 2025 - All Rights Reserved

WHEN I refer to "major" third pary manufactures, for years there were three: Sigma,Tamron, Tokina. There were others, but they really didn't match up in either build or optical quality.

Today, I consider them to manufacture - for the most part - lenses that are the image quality equal of any of the current "big three" Sony, Canon and Nikon

AT ONE time, Sigma, Tokina and Tamron all suffered from similar issues. Build quality was noticeably lower quality. Of greater importance, image quality was inconsistent and often just really not very good. I had a handful of third party lenses over the years; mostly consumer grade lenses, including Tamron and Tokina and even Tokina's "pro" AT-X models. But they didn't stand up well to the brand name (Nikon in my case) "consumer lenses for quality. All except for one. Late in my 35mm days, I had gotten into some birding, and purchased Tokina's pro (AT-X) copy of the venerable 300mm f2.8 AF fixed lens. It seemed to me to be essentially the equivalent of the Nikon copy. Same all metal build. Same heft. Exellent AF response. Very sharp image quality. And less than 1/2 the cost of the Nikkor (understanding that someday, it would also sell or trade for substantially less than the Nikkor). But great lens. Today, it can be had for around $400 on eBay.

This Nassau Restaurant (which we later had lunch at) was well over 2 blocks back from the already wide Cruise Port (I bought the T-shirt 😁)
Tamron 28 - 200 f5.6 - f5.6 (200mm @ f5.6) from the cruise ship top deck
Copyright Andy Richards 2025 - All Rights Reserved

MY ONLY other experience with third party lenses in those days was an eye-opener. I was shooting the Nikon APS-C SLR style cameras at the time ("full-frame" had not come out yet), and finding it difficult to adapt to the 1.4-5x "crop factor. I needed something wider. A pro I knew at the time suggested I look at the Sigma 14mm. I did. I was impressed. Very high build quality. Very good image quality and sharpness. Again, half the price. That one, too, went away when I moved to "full frame" bodies. But the eye-opener for me what just how far the three companies (Tamron, Tokina, and Sigma) had come from their mediocrity. Today, I consider them to manufacture - for the most part - lenses that are the image quality equal of any of the current "big three" Sony, Canon and Nikon. Mechanical build quality varies and is generally somewhat "lower" but certainly not unacceptable. There is a lot of plastic being used today. I think if I were a photo-journalist bouncing around the rough parts of the world, I would be concerned about that. But as a hobbyist, who generally takes good care of his gear, I am not in the least concerned. The polycarbonate resin plastic used in today's lens construvtion is much higher quality and more durable than yesterday's materials, and has the added advantage of being lighter to carry sometimes. It is also widely thought that these manufacturers often source certain components from each other (and that Sony actually owns a percentage of Tamron).

Nassau, Bahamas Cruise Port
This shot - again made from the cruise ship top deck - illustrates the detail, color, and contrast caught by the Tamron 28 - 200mm f2.8 - 5.6 (60mm @ f5.6)
Copyright Andy Richards 2025 - All Rights Reserved

BACK IN 2023, I visited the Great Smoky Mountain National Park with my buddy, Rich from Michigan. At that time I was shooting with a Sony A7rii body and carrying a Sony 24-104 f4 zoom as my primary carry and travel lens. We were on a trail that had been described as medium difficult. It was not. It was near-technical. We were both in our later 60's. We had hiked in to a beautiful waterfal that included some steep downhill portions. We had hiked back out. We were on the "homestretch." But exhausted. Neither my balance, nor stamina were what they once were and I didn't see the stone or root, as we walked downhill on the path. You can guess the rest. Several stitches just above my eyebrow (staples these days). No worries, I heal well and you cannot even see a trace of it today. The 24-105, on the other hand, didn't fare as well. There would be no stitches or staples from the repair shop. Fortunately, the camera wasn't damaged. Also fortunately, I had been paying inland marine insurance on the more expensive items for years. Once home, I looked up the current replacement cost and contacted the insurance company and a check was soon in the mail. 😂

For the $$ I received in settlement for one Sony lens, I was able to purchase two lenses

ABOUT THE TAMRON LENSES

• Di III. The GSMNP experience changed my thinking. Down at the waterfall, I found myself wishing for something wider than 24mm. Back home, I started researching on - line, and learned that there were many folks out there shooting - and extolling the virtues of - third party lenses. While I had always given Sigma a "leg up" as leader of the three, it seems that things have changed. Tamron and Tokina are pretty popular today. I think the three lens makers are on a pretty equal footing, today. As I noted before, I convinced myself that they were as good, optically, as the name brand. For the $$ I received in settlement for one Sony lens, I was able to purchase two lenses: both Tamron: the 28 - 75mm f2.8 (to replace the broken lens and approximate the focal range) and 17 - 28mm f2.8, giving me that slightly more wide angle I was looking for). Both are Tamron Di III RXD VXD lenses. Di III is Tamron's designation for a lens designed to fit a "full frame" mirrorless camera body. "VXD" (voice-coil extreme torque drive) is their newest, fastest AF drive. RXD (rapid eXra-silent stepping drive) is just slightly older and "less advanced." I have two of each and I cannot actually detect a difference. None of my 4 copies have vibration-reduction technology, which Tamron refers to as "Vibration Compensation" (VC). But since my Sony body has in-body stabilization (IBIS), I don't really consider that a factor. In fact, I generally have it switched off on my Sony lenses.
  
  

  

  Street Art - Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic
  I am mostly shooting dayllight "street" type images on this kind of travel, so many of these will be made with an f2.8 aperture
  Tamron 20 - 40mm f2.8 (40mm @ f.28)
  Copyright Andy Richards 2026 - All Rights Reserved

  
  I STILL carry one Sony lens which I consider my "landscape long lens" (The Sony G 100 - 400 f4.5 - 5.6 GM OSS - perhaps a topic for a future review).
  
  

  

  The Plaza - Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic
  Tamron 20 - 40mm f2.8 (28mm @ f8)
  Copyright Andy Richards 2026

  
  
• Front Filter: One of the "X" factors that steered me toward Tamron (versus Tokina or Sigma, or one of the many other third-party lenses offered today - that just keep getting better), was something I see as genius from their engineers. While I rarely use filters, I do use them from time to time for certain specific uses. My primary use cases are a polarizer to reduce glare, and a handful of Neutral Density filters for shooting water (and occasionally other moving subjects). I hate fiddling with all the different filters, filter-holders, etc., that are necessitated by each different front element thread size on the lenses I carry. Fumbling in the field. Organizing them for efficient access. And, the added cost of purchasing good quality copies of all those different sizes. I have long worked for efficiency and light weight in the field. "Less is more." 😁 And this is where Tamron's "genius" comes in. I now own 4 different Tamron lenses for my Sony A7cr: The 17-28mm, the 28-75mm, and the newest 20-40mm (all f2.8); and a 28-200mm f2.8 - 5.6 variable. And all 4 of them have the exact same front thread size! That means one set of filters for all 4 of the lenses. I have a small filter pouch and I have just 5 total filters in it (my long lens has a larger front thread and I still have a PZ for it). Tamron has essentially "standardized" most of its lens front elements. At least for its most popular lenses. What a great idea! For my "serious" landscape and scenic photography, I have been very happy with the 17-28 / 28-75 combo, along with my long lens. In this post, I review my thoughts and experience with my current "travel" combination, the 28-200mm variable and the 20 - 40mm f2.8
  
  
• Versatility: I have been using the variable 28-200 almost exclusively for non-dedicated travel since 2023. It is a very versatile lens and I do like it. It is still a little large for my preferences, and on a number of ocassions, I have found myself wishing for a wider angle. Looking at a lot of my travel stuff (especially when cruising), I find most of my needs for walking around on shore are satisfied with shorter focal length lenses. So I began searching the Tamron lineup for a compatible, shorter lens. I arrived in the end on the 20-40 f2.8, and in 2026, I have begun to carry that lens as my primary travel lens. I like the constant 2.8 aperture. I really like that has the same front element as all 3 other Tamron lenses. I have found the 20 enough wider than the 28 that I have been happy with it. And with its 60 megapixels, I have found that I can crop pretty deeply if I need a closer field of view in my final result. It has become the primary "carry" lens (though I still keep the 28-200 close by, as I often use it to shoot from the ship on to land based subjects).
  
  

  

  Puerto Plata's "Pink Street" entrance holds some challenges for the photographer, including lots of "busy" elements in the immediate foreground and throngs of tourists. The 20 - 40mm lens allowed me to step very close to the entrance (almost underneath it) and still include the parts of the image I wanted to. The people were another thing altogether and I made use of the two new Photoshop Remove tool functions (Distractions and People) to "prune" the foreground.
  Tamron 20 - 40mm (20mm @ f8)
  Copyright Andy Richards 2026 - All Rights Reserved

  
  
• Image Quality: I think image quality always has to be the starting point for any lens. In my view (I don't generally engage in so-called "pixel - peeping") the images I have been making during my 2024 - 2026 photography have been every bit the equivalent of any prior lens I have owned in terms of sharpness, color and contrast. Being slightly lighter and smaller than the Sony counterparts (or as close as possible), but comparatively equal, that is a high vote for the Tamron copies. If I were giving stars, they would get the proverbial 5-star rating.
  
  
• Build Quality: These might not earn such a high rating (maybe closer 4.5), but close. And that is, in my opinion, not really a "knock" on Tamron. As I noted earlier, Tamron has used a lot of plastic in its manufacture. The particular type of plastic is known as polycarbonate (a carbon fiber resin). Lighter and cheaper to manufacture than high-end metals (like magnesium alloys used in the brand name lenses), there is some suggestion on-line that the high-end metal design and contruction is manufactured to tighter tolerances. Whether polycarbonate wears more or less than metal remains to be seen. Durability is one of the things that separates a high-qualilty manufactured item from cheaper copies. It will ultimately be measured in terms of longevity, but also in terms of how well it stands up to thousands of repetitive movement. It might be argued that build quality is every bit the equivalent of its brand-name bretheren. What I can say is that my copies are tight, smooth, and well-damped in terms of their zoom and focus mechanisms.
  
  

  

  Puerto Plata's "Umbrella Street - Puerto Plata, Dominican Republic
  These streets have sprung up all over the world in the past few years (as I just recently blogged about here).
  Tamron 20 - 40mm (39mm @ f8)
  Copyright Andy Richards 2026 - All Rights Reserved

  
  
• Weather Sealing: Online references suggest that Sony pro lenses have a more robust internal sealing; some even saying it is designed to "resist downpours." I am not going to test this theory (purposely) on any lens. Tamron's own literature characterizes their build as "moisture-resistant." This has always been a bit of a thought-provoking topic for me. There are time, I know, when rain can enhance photography. Not very often, though, and I have - over the years - mostly avoided it. Other than an underwater housing, I don't think any camera/lens combination is designed to used "in the rain." That is, if it is actively raining. Particularly if it has any kind on intensity. As such, I will do what I can to keep my gear as dry as possible. I have a rain hood for the big lens (and have used it just once over the several years I have owned it). I also wear a completely waterproof raincoat when needed, and there is room under it to keep the camera as dry as possible. So waterproofing is not a huge factor in my own decision. Dust proofing is a little more important. Today, almost all better quality lenses have a fair amount of gasket type "proofing" around any potential openings, including the mount. These - especially the "pro" models do have decent weather proofing. Just not the perhaps more robust design of the main brands.
  
  
• Auto Focus: This is almost always going to be an important consideration, especially for those of us who are even slightly vision-impaired. I have owned lenses over the years that focus slowly, noisily, and often engage in frustrating "hunting." I have experience none of that in each of the 4 different lenses I own. The "VXD" designation on Tamron lenses designates the AF motor ("voice coil extreme drive"), and they advertize "blazing speed." "RXD" (supposedly slighly less advanced) stands for "Rapid extra-Silent Stepping Drive." My two "shorter" focal lengths have the VXD and the others have RXD. In use, I cannot tell the difference. They all focus quickly, accurately and quietly.  Indeed, I would judge them easily the equivalent of the focusing performance of my former Sony G 28-105, and my current Sony GSM 100 - 400 (though it is fair to note that they are not completely "apples to apples" comparison, as both Sonys have smaller max apertures). The way the front element behaves is also an important consideration. On some "lower end" lenses, the front element rotates during zoom/AF operation. These do not. I am happy with the AF performance of these lenses.
  
  
• Zoom Mechanism. One of the things that sets "consumer" and perceived "lower-end" zoom lenses (even some brand name models) apart is how the zoom works. In high-end lenses it is not at all uncommon for the zoom to be basically all internal. The "consumer" zooms essentially all have an outward moving lens barrel that exends and retracts as you zoom. There are some obvious design issues here, as the moving front zoom barrel is exposed to the elements each time you zoom it out. It is less expensive to design and manufacture, and generally lighter weight. It is a tradeoff I have lived with for years, and given the price differential, a compromise I will easily live with. All of my Tamron lenses feature the extending type zoom. The other area of importance is the issue of "zoom creep." At least in past years, third-party lenses (and particularly the now ancient "push-pull" style) were often loose, and the zoom would "creep" out, when being carried around. Annoying. These Tamron lenses are all well damped and do not suffer from "zoom creep" at all.
  
  
• Physical Characteristics. Pound for pound, and inch for inch, the Tamron lenses are lighter and smaller. Given the similar performance, I see that as a win.
  
  
• Cost To Own: For all but a very small percentage of purchasers, this one of the (if not the) most important considerations. Third party lenses from Tamron, Tokina and Sigma are typically around 50% (sometimes even more) less expensive than "brand name" lenses. The reasons are mostly as set out above. Purchasing one of them is a tradeoff. In my case, it is a tradeoff I am readily willing to accept. As we often read on line: "YMMV." Depending on use, frequency of use, your photographic environment, and your personal attitude toward care and handling of your gear, the tradeoff may not be worth it. It is a judgement call.

One of the "X" factors that steered me toward [the] Tamron [lenses] . . .  was something I see as genius from their engineers . . .  all 4 of them have the exact same front thread size! That means one set of filters for all 4 of the lenses

MY VERDICT on these two Tamron lenses is that they get my highest rating - i.e., "recommended." I would readily purchase them again and recommend them to friends and fellow shooters. The combination of price, image quality, versatility and convenience makes this an easy recommendation. As far as image quality is concerned, for my purposes, they go head-to-head with "equivalent" Sony lenses.

Recommended

Gateway Arch National Park - What Do I Know?

Gateway Arch - Gateway Arch National Park - St. Louis, Missouri
Copyright Andy Richards 2026 - All Rights Reserved

LAST YEAR, I posted a series of blogs on National Parks. The ones I have visited. There are 63 officially designated "National Parks in the U.S." They range in size from over 13 million acres, to just under 100 acres. So lots of variability.

Market Street - St. Louis, Missouri
As we approached the arch area, I saw this traffic light. I hoped for - and was rewarded with - a red light, stopping long enough for me to get the light centered in the arch with the Old Courthouse in the background - image below
Copyright Andy Richards 2026 - All Rights Reserved

GATEWAY ARCH National Park is the smallest National Park in the U.S., at just over 92 acres. Its grounds are on the west side of the Mississipi River near where St. Louis, Missouri's oldest buildings once stood; and very near the start of the Louis and Clark Expedition. Originally built as a monument to the Lewis and Clark Expedition, the Gateway Arch (namesake to the Park) is the tallest structure in the western hemisphere.

Gateway Arch and Old Courthouse - St. Louis, Missouri
Copyright Andy Richards 2026 - All Rights Reserved

THE PARK is one of the newest (4th newest at this writing) of the parks, officially "promoted" as a National Park from its former "national monument" status only in 2018. The new designation was not without controversy, as all other officially designated parks preserve and protect some natural area, resource or phenomena. Construction of the arch, considered the "gateway to the American West" began in 1963 and was completed roughly 2 years later; designated as a national monument.

Market Street - St. Louis, Missouri
Copyright Andy Richards 2026 - All Rights Reserved

LIKE MANY monuments around the world, the arch can be seen from all around St. Louis. In my shot from Market Street with the famous Old Courthouse framed in the arch, I wanted to show the context of the city street, leading down to the Missiippi. The sheer size of the arch creates the illusion of spanning the city street and driving through the arch. In reality, it does not span the street.

Another view of The Arch and The Old Courthouse from Market Street - St. Louis, Missouri
Copyright Andy Richards 2026 - All Rights Reserved

WHEN RESEARCHING the monument, I learned a couple things that hadn't ever entered my mind. It is illegal to fly an airplane through the arch. The FAA warned pilots shortly after completion in 1965 that such fly-throughs would result in not only a heavy fine, but immediate revocation of their license. At least 10 pilots done so over the years. It is said that the U.S. Secret Service forbids a sitting POTUS from going up in the arch because it is such a limited access space.

Gateway Arch - from the St. Louis Cathedral parking lot - St. Louis, Missouri
Copyright Andy Richards 2026 - All Rights Reserved

PHOTOGRAPHICALLY, THIS one is interesting - and potentially a challenge. This is a subject where either living in or near St. Louis would be advantageous. The arch itself is not a particularly photogenic subject, making it important to be able to provide some context or a unique perspective. I have seen some pretty cool images from a distance, and hope someday to be able to find and shoot from those spots. There, the photographer is able to add elements of foreground interest and, if fortunate enough to find a spot across the river, possibly nighttime shots with reflection opportunities. Up closer is going to call for a wide angle perspective and wide angle lens. I recenlty picked up a "travel" lens - a 20 - 40mm f2.8 lens (using a "full frame" camera/sensor). I will be traveling a fair amount this year in old European cities and among some landscape gardens, among other things, and I was hoping the 20 - 40 would give me the versatility I would like to get some of those close perspectives. So I was delighted to learn on this trip that for images like the arch from a close up vantage point, the lens performed very well and its field of view fit my eye and the subject.

Gateway Arch - St. Louis Cathedral entrance to Gateway National Park - St. Louis, Missouri
Copyright Andy Richards 2026 - All Rights Reserved

DODGING BETWEEN rain showers, I only really had one outside-of-the-vehicle opportunity. I approached the park (and the arch) from the old St. Louis Cathedral parking lot. There is an entrance there, and the red flagstone surface gave me an interesting lead-in to the image. This may have been a case where the cloudy skies worked to my advantage, as my (perhaps) favorite of the precious few images I did make looks as if the arch disappeared into the clouds. There was some green foliage in the foregound as well. Any one of those elements alone would probably not been enough. But put together, they gave me a (surprising) opportunity to make a reasonably nice image. When I get back I will try a number of different viewpoints and perspectives. For now - this is the one I had, other than the cell-phone snapshots from the "shotgun" seat in the car.

St. Louis Cathedral stands as a sentinel to one of the entrances to Gateway Arch National Park - St. Louis, Missouri
Copyright Andy Richards 2026 - All Rights Reserved

THERE WAS sun back there somewhere. Somewhere behind the clouds. I just know there was. 😏I have made it known here from time to time that I am not afraid to use Photoshop to achieve my "vision." This one is not AI though. Just good, old-fashioned "manipulation" using the sky replacement tools in photoshop to create an image that "could have been." One of my "Rich" buddies rolls his eyes whenever I bring up sky replacement. This one is for you Rich (and you know who you are). 😎

Gateway Arch (what "might have been") - Gateway Arch National Park - St. Louis, Missouri
Copyright Andy Richards 2026 - All Rights Reserved

THE GATEWAY Arch has been on my "bucket list" for a number of years. We have family living in suburban St. Louis, and other than a day-long business trip some nearly 40 years ago, we had never visited the area. That really has been inexcusable from the family standpoint. We are planning to remedy that situation, and along with that will undoubtedly come some additional opportunities for photography in a city that has no shortage of photo ops. We were there for only a couple days this trip and unfortunately, the single day we had allocated to a visit to the city and the arch was one in which Mother Nature determined would be a near rainout. Every image here was made between raindrops, or behind a car windshield. But I saw enough. I will be back! 😀