# untitled river and woodland pics



## bribrius (Dec 25, 2014)




----------



## Rick58 (Dec 26, 2014)

I wish I could help you out with this one but that big arsed tree is really fouling things up for you. A couple steps to the right and you might have gotten something with the bridge and falls, or a couple steps to the left and down might have gotten a shot of the falls. Maybe someone sees something I don't. Heck, I just take record shots.


----------



## KenC (Dec 26, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> Heck, I just take record shots.



You keep saying that Rick, but you post some pretty good stuff and it can't all be an accident.  You must be thinking about this stuff.

In any event, back to the original post - I agree with you about the tree.  Maybe if the tree were on one side as a frame and we were getting a partial look at what was beyond the tree, but with the tree dominating the frame I don't think it works.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 26, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> I wish I could help you out with this one but that big arsed tree is really fouling things up for you. A couple steps to the right and you might have gotten something with the bridge and falls, or a couple steps to the left and down might have gotten a shot of the falls. Maybe someone sees something I don't. Heck, I just take record shots.


lol. I have about ten of these to go through. Really just not very exciting river pics I might post more on here. But this one I actually shot this way BECAUSE of putting the tree there. Usually I am afraid to do such things. But in this case, I liked the way the bridge and walk wrapped around the tree in the shot. I liked how close the tree was in the foreground. It is in about a third line. But mostly I think staring straight at that tree is what you would see if you were standing there. So I thought it made it a little more real. Figured instead of avoiding it I would pronounce it, kick up the contrast and color. And see if I could make this photo really feel like you were standing there just for fun..


----------



## Rick58 (Dec 26, 2014)

Actually, if I was standing there, I'd cuss out that tree and move to the left so I could see the bridge 
Just messing with you. We can't take all this stuff too serious.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 26, 2014)

KenC said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > Heck, I just take record shots.
> ...


I am more interested in how rick thinks about the record shots.   I think ricks mentality on photography is actually much more interesting than the tree. Feel free to divert the thread!!


----------



## bribrius (Dec 26, 2014)

Rick58 said:


> Actually, if I was standing there, I'd cuss out that tree and move to the left so I could see the bridge
> Just messing with you. We can't take all this stuff too serious.


well. then if the tree bothers you that much in the photo and you were cussing when you looked at the photo then in some odd way perhaps my idea succeeded. lol. Hate, love, totally cant stand the photo. Tree annoying the crap out of you. hey any reaction is good for a generic landscape pic I wont be picky.


----------



## Woodsman (Dec 26, 2014)

Photographers checklist,  camera /check,  chainsaw/check ..........

It is an interesting looking bridge and white water though


----------



## bribrius (Dec 26, 2014)

Woodsman said:


> Photographers checklist,  camera /check,  chainsaw/check ..........
> 
> It is an interesting looking bridge and white water though


geesh. I never knew you guys loved trees so much...  okay, I will admit now I am sorta messing with ya..


----------



## bribrius (Dec 26, 2014)




----------



## Didereaux (Dec 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Rick58 said:
> 
> 
> > I wish I could help you out with this one but that big arsed tree is really fouling things up for you. A couple steps to the right and you might have gotten something with the bridge and falls, or a couple steps to the left and down might have gotten a shot of the falls. Maybe someone sees something I don't. Heck, I just take record shots.
> ...




I think if your crop the left side to eliminate the sign that the pic would work as you had envisioned.  As it is the sign keeps pulling the eye to the far left.
I am not a fan of high saturation, but with these two shots it seems to work.  thumbs up.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 26, 2014)

Didereaux said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Rick58 said:
> ...


it is hard to get saturation at all out there now. colors died down. can get some in these but the damn water will turn blue about the same time I manage to pull any reds and greens. And thanks. Really just stuff for the sake of it.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 26, 2014)




----------



## Ron Evers (Dec 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> View attachment 91835 View attachment 91835



The authority needs to get some armour around that left abutment before they loose the bridge.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 26, 2014)

Ron Evers said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > View attachment 91835 View attachment 91835
> ...


???? looks like it is bolted down to a giant cement block??? water gets pretty high there but hasn't washed it out yet??


----------



## bribrius (Dec 26, 2014)




----------



## Ron Evers (Dec 26, 2014)

bribrius said:


> Ron Evers said:
> 
> 
> > bribrius said:
> ...



The bridge is sitting on a newer CONCRETE abutment which in turn is sitting on an older CONCRETE footing that is in danger of being undermined by the stream.  See how the other side is being protected from the stream erosion.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 26, 2014)

Ron Evers said:


> bribrius said:
> 
> 
> > Ron Evers said:
> ...


lol. don't like me calling concrete cement eh?  okay, I get you now. you think the water is going to undermine the older CONCRETE footing. Thing is, I haven't a clue how deep that footing goes. They could have driven it down ten feet and rebarred it to the ledge rock behind. I worked on a bridge crew once and we drove concrete straight down into the middle of rivers. So it could be dead center in the stream and not make a difference. Depends how deep it goes and what it is attached to and what is under it.  so if I call someone and you are wrong, they will probably yank out the plans and ask me why I just wasted there time driving over there from wherever (state I guess?) for no reason. so in all seriousness, do you actually think you are correct about this or will I look like a moron if I call?


----------



## Ron Evers (Dec 27, 2014)

It may be deeply footed or it may be on piles but it would not hurt to report your observation & let the authority know so the call is theirs.  I saw a highway bridge footing undermined exposing the piles & that became a very expensive restoration. 

The cement/concrete  thing is a peeve of mine; cement is what holds concrete together.  Unfortunately Joe average is exposed to the wrong terminology all the time by the media so one cannot really blame him.  The media usually call transit concrete mixers "cement trucks".  I will try to link a pic of a true cement truck which hauls the cement powder to the mixing plants. 







Edit: that did not work.


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

Ron Evers said:


> It may be deeply footed or it may be on piles but it would not hurt to report your observation & let the authority know so the call is theirs.  I saw a highway bridge footing undermined exposing the piles & that became a very expensive restoration.
> 
> The cement/concrete  thing is a peeve of mine; cement is what holds concrete together.  Unfortunately Joe average is exposed to the wrong terminology all the time by the media so one cannot really blame him.  The media usually call transit concrete mixers "cement trucks".  I will try to link a pic of a true cement truck which hauls the cement powder to the mixing plants.
> 
> ...


i really don't even think about the terminology. I go to lowes I throw ten bags of ready mix on it if I am doing cement (sorry concrete) stairs. Doing outside of rock throw on ten of Portland cement. Doing some brick pointing or something ten of mortar. I order some I will ask for five yards mix it thin, stiff, depends. I really don't pay much attention to the terminology but I usually know what to grab for what I need. Generally speaking I am privy to Portland cement and mixing my own, but really don't do much of that kind of work. Last thing I did was my cement stairs or I think I touched up a foundation, don't remember it was a few years back..


----------



## Gary A. (Dec 27, 2014)

bribrius -

I am not a fan (yet) of your stuff. But, I appreciate that you seem to to working very diligently with your photography. In the beginning your stuff seemed to reek of Beginning Photography 10. But it is getting much better very quickly. Your images, including these, all have an awkwardness to them. I initially thought the lack of seamlessness or silkiness was due to skill and experience ... but now I think it may be your style. Your images are abrupt and awkward because that is how you see. I think that is a good thing ... that you shoot how you see and not how others would like you to see. Does your style work for me ... not yet ... is your style successful with stand alone images, not really ... but as a body of work, your stuff is interesting ... rude and abrupt ... but interesting.

Gary

PS- Remember you must know the rules before you break them.
G


----------



## bribrius (Dec 27, 2014)

Gary A. said:


> bribrius -
> 
> I am not a fan (yet) of your stuff. But, I appreciate that you seem to to working very diligently with your photography. In the beginning your stuff seemed to reek of Beginning Photography 10. But it is getting much better very quickly. Your images, including these, all have an awkwardness to them. I initially thought the lack of seamlessness or silkiness was due to skill and experience ... but now I think it may be your style. Your images are abrupt and awkward because that is how you see. I think that is a good thing ... that you shoot how you see and not how others would like you to see. Does your style work for me ... not yet ... is your style successful with stand alone images, not really ... but as a body of work, your stuff is interesting ... rude and abrupt ... but interesting.
> 
> ...


these are all trash shots but the first one. And the first one posted isn't the one I am considering keeping it is a different edit. Bw low contrast under exposed low sharpness and has more of a haunted feel going. Pretty much near the opposite edit. And even that isn't really worth keeping as in bw it is busy looking unless I re edit again and darken it even more.
Honestly, looking through the photos on here I oversaturated the chit on some of them, and the first problem might be they are landscape shots which generally speaking bore the begeezus out of me. Pretty much anything shot for landscape that day, in color, is crap. the light wasn't there and in the woods the iso is in the 1500 to 2k range on hand held everything is soft or shot in low aperature. and not even worth the color and noise reduction efforts. winter here color is non existent right now. Delete, delete, delete, delete.

I learned a lesson on rules a few months back. I critiqued a photographer photo (not here elsewhere) on something he had in the foreground that "broke the rules". In which he basically told me to go fruck myself and that he had been doing this for 35 years and will put whatever the hell he wants to in the foreground as he sees fit. LMAO... Then he gave me this freakn list of all the places he had been published so I basically did stfu.  he just taught me something right then though and I didn't even see it coming.


----------

