UP - Middle Fork South Fork Chambers Creek

Oh OK. I don't have any pictures, but that does help me for future reference.

Nathan's website is not an open posting format like Bridgehunter. Email him if you have photos of a bridge you think he might be interested in using.

How do you get an account on the historicbridges.org website that Nathan has?

thanks! i use a professional camera and a tripod for my pictures. Some of the bridges i took pictures of are going on nathans historic bridges website and i still need some more bridges that he wants. and Tony i have been guilty with a couple bridges of multi shots with trains crossing the bridge but thats about it. i also take the time to avoid posting duplicate pictures or very similar pictures with barely any lighting differences or retakes.

also if anybody on here wants me to check out a bridges in texas or surrounding areas let me know

Although I don't see an issue with most of these pics, I do think some discretion needs to be used when uploading photos. We have had issues before with contributors having their camera set on multi-shot, which literally takes a number of essentially identical images (with only slight body movements seen). They then proceed to "dump" the entire lot into the uploader without any thought given. I've also seen pics added of unrelated stuff (trees, rocks, animals... I've seen it all), and for the purpose of what this site is about those should be omitted.

Yes, the photos are greatly down-sized when they are uploaded, but we still need to be respectful with the number of photos added... and certainly the content.

In regard to Anon's comment about the "Braggin' Rights Table" being removed. It's actually still there... although I would be more than happy to see it gone. I have heard contributors before comment about wanting to be #1 in photos submitted.

That makes sense. and your pictures are great. You really take your time in framing the shot and try to look for something interesting to pinpoint on.

i appreciate feedback of any kind and i can see how some people might see that many pictures from one single person to be spammy. In less than 3 weeks ive already taken 3000 pictures of bridges. some pictures that might seem identical are probably two different of the same angles but different lighting especially on cloudy days or others are focused on foreground or background. there arent many photographers on this site from texas so i get enough detail from the pictures so people on this site can help label the bridge. also if we want to attract professionals to use this website as a credible source, a bridge with a complete documentation profile of 100 pictures from a slightly different angle from one single person is way better than 100 different people with the same angle "i was there" snapshot picture.

I thought both these issues were settled a few years ago. The consensus was that another photo is almost always welcome. Additionally, I think it's pretty universally agreed that allowing non-contributors to post comments has garnered a huge amount of personal recollections and histories that add greatly to the quality of the site. The extremely small number of troublesome commenters have always been promptly handled by the site owner(s).

Yes, I agree with Luke that many times forum posters who are not editors can contribute valuable information, such as locals who often have firsthand knowledge about a bridge being replaced, etc. My comment was not meant to suggest any administrative action but rather as pushback against unnecessary negativity on this site.

I think something should be done though to prevent anonymous commenters criticizing good and decent uploaders.

I disagree with that, as some of the informational finds we've made have been from random forum contributors.

I see a small amount of repetitiveness, but I personally would rather have a lot of pictures of a bridge than too few or no pictures. These anonymous commenters might harm the website and I think the webmaster should make it a requirement for a user to have an account before commenting on the forum.

Addressing the anonymous comments below...

While repetitious photos are unnecessary, I really don't see them being a problem on this page. Really, the only instances of repetition that I see are photos #9 and #10; all the rest to me have value for covering different aspects of the bridge and/or different angles of the same elements. Nathan has indicated that individual photos really do not take up that much space, and to me it is better to have too many photos than too few. Many of the leading members of Bridgehunter post a great number of highly detailed photos that cover bridges from every angle, both in terms of overview and detail shots. And take a look at Nathan’s website with its vast selection of photos, which to me is the gold standard of bridge photography. Let’s appreciate the quality of the photos that have been posted rather than criticizing, okay?

Second, I would like to address the recent (and past) trend of calling people out on the forum, especially under the cover of anonymity. That to me is a surefire way to offend and lose a good contributor. I'd much rather see a few repetitive photos and/or banal modern bridges mixed in with a lot of good ones than have any of our contributors cease contributing at all. While there are some legitimate issues that need attention, such as the past and recent addition of a number of modern bridges that I and others are currently making a list of to send to Nathan for deletion, I would urge everyone to be professional and polite when dealing with these issues, remembering that the forum is in many ways the public face of Bridgehunter. If someone has constructive criticism to give, in my opinion they should present their point of view in a dignified, professional manner on the forum with their name attached, or privately via email.

Side note: very impressive photos indeed, Mr. Sharkoman! Look forward to seeing more!

Amen. That's why James removed the "Braggin' Rights" Leader Board.