HOME | DD

WayneBenedet β€” On The Flood Plain

Published: 2009-11-22 00:38:07 +0000 UTC; Views: 3660; Favourites: 143; Downloads: 0
Redirect to original
Description Online Sales Gallery: The Untapped Source [link]

I have not submitted an old car or truck for a while, so I thought it was time. My nephew Curtis and I found this one last week.

This old 1952 Mercury truck is located along the Red River, just a few miles north of the US. In April 1997 this vehicle would have been totally underwater. That year, the Red River Valley had the biggest flood since 1826. Known as the flood of the century, the area around the Red River, extending miles from the river itself were covered by a record 24.6 feet of water (7.5 m) and occupied at the peak 990 square miles of land in Canada alone.

While the towns and cities of Manitoba were well fortified, all were spared except the town of St. Agathe and did not experience any significant loss or property damage as did areas further south. The towns in the US, notably Grand Forks, East Grand Forks and Fargo, were not so fortunate and experienced major losses. In addition, many farmers and others living in the country were not so fortunate as their land and homes were overcome by the mass of water. In total the flood caused 500 million dollars of damage in Canada and 3.5 billion in the US.

Winnipeg, the capital of the Province of Manitoba has had a floodway for almost 50 years, ever since in was devastated by the flood of 1950. As a result, it was spared significant flooding, but many sand dikes needed to be constructed. As the water levels were higher than the floodway was designed to carry, breaches were just barely avoided. In addition, a new dike system had to be hastily constructed south of the city to prevent overland flooding of Winnipeg. This dike was 42 km long as was constructed in a matter of days at a cost of 10 million dollars. It is called the Brunkild Z-dike because of its shape and because it ended close to the town on Brunkild. Since the 1997 flood, the flood way around Winnipeg has been widened and deepened to allow it to carry more water, the towns in the Red River valley have constructed higher dikes and most farms and homes are now either built above flood levels or have dikes surrounding them.

In 2009 the Red River Valley flooded again. While the river levels did not reach the predicted levels or those of the 1997 flood, this was still the second worst flood since 1826 with the river levels reaching 22.6 feet (6.9 m) at Winnipeg.

This image is HDR processed from 6 separate exposures spanning 6 EV.
Related content
Comments: 81

Quigonjinncosplay [2012-03-09 23:02:16 +0000 UTC]

Interesting story around this place...

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

tterrag7991 [2011-01-20 22:55:28 +0000 UTC]

Great photo. Is that a massey harris machine in the bacground

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to tterrag7991 [2011-01-21 05:20:39 +0000 UTC]

it certainly looks that way to me.... I never noticed that before... just had eyes for the truck.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

tterrag7991 In reply to WayneBenedet [2011-01-23 16:12:22 +0000 UTC]

Well it is still a cool truck

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

PsychoBudgie [2011-01-19 09:17:57 +0000 UTC]

Such a shame these beautiful old trucks are left to rot and not restored, but then they wouldnt make such emotive photographic subjects.
This series of photos is crying out for some hdr treatment, for some reason decay and hdr go hand in hand.
Great gallery

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to PsychoBudgie [2011-01-19 14:22:54 +0000 UTC]

this particular image was processed using HDR tools. However, I do not like many of the effects of HDR processing, like the colour shifts and visual effects, so my use of these tool is very circumspect

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

PsychoBudgie In reply to WayneBenedet [2011-01-19 14:40:50 +0000 UTC]

I agree hdr can be seriously overdone completely ruining a perfectly good image. But like I said decay and hdr work so well together.

And I just read the last bit of your post "his image is HDR processed from 6 separate exposures spanning 6 EV".

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to PsychoBudgie [2011-01-19 14:44:33 +0000 UTC]

I kind of felt I needed to say how I had processed the image because it is so different from what I usually do. The other thing is that people often think that I do HDR. In my first show opening I overheard a "photographer" explaining to his friends that my prints were HDR. It amused me.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

PsychoBudgie In reply to WayneBenedet [2011-01-20 08:16:08 +0000 UTC]

I think there's still a certain snobbery in the photographic world, when digital cameras first came on the market the "purists" put them down, now that they're the "norm", these same people put down the processing techniques.
Some people take longer to embrace change and if the tools are available to create interesting and beautiful art, why not use them.
I have two old point and shoot cameras a 3mp and a 5mp. I have no choice but to use the tools available

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to PsychoBudgie [2011-01-20 14:38:26 +0000 UTC]

indeed there is. One of the things I find is that people want to compare equipment. I find it degenerates into: "my lens is bigger than your lens". So I don't usually discuss equipment in terms of make. Last Friday I was being interviewed at the show opening and I was asked what kind of equipment I used. I said I never discussed that. I did not expect the question and I don't think I handled it well. I hope it gets edited out.

I bought a digital camera in about 2001 for an organization i was working with. It was a 2.1 megapixel. I was impressed and felt that it was as good as most 35 mm film based cameras. But I still held off because I was using a 6x7 for my work. A back was available for this camera, at a cost of $17,000.00. Then in 2007 or so, 8 meg cameras became available. They were quite costly as I remember, but they began to perform better than most 35mm cameras, so I bough one. Now the higher end digital perform as well as medium format cameras so my 6x7 sits on a shelf. I still love it, but 20 pounds to take a picture is a lot of weight.

I have always viewed negatives as tools rather than as finished products, but I never felt that processing and printing in the film world gave me the control I wanted. The move to digital was a real stretch for me, but it has worked. I like the total control I have over my work now as compared to film.

I think you last point is the crux of the matter. People tend to think that it is the camera that makes the picture.... but it is not. I have seen so many people with expensive cameras who never learn how to use them, that I tell my students.... learn to use that you have... learn the strengths and weaknesses and suck everything you can out of what you have... don't spend more money. It seems you are doing that... andit is a good thing.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

PsychoBudgie In reply to WayneBenedet [2011-01-21 08:11:40 +0000 UTC]

"Suck everything you can out of what you have... don't spend more money. It seems you are doing that... and it is a good thing"



I don’t do it through choice, I do it through circumstance. Sometimes it works, sometimes it fails miserably. But I enjoy the challenge of trying to bring the best out of what would (unedited) be a rather uninspiring photo.



I have to admit, I still have pixel envy and an "EOS 450D/Rebel" is high on my wish list, I think that would be sufficient for my needs. But there’s a lot to be said for small point and shoot cameras, the ability to keep it in your pocket ready for any opportunity being the main one.


Good "talking" to you, I wish you all the best in your endeavours.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to PsychoBudgie [2011-01-21 15:02:57 +0000 UTC]

Often it is out of circumstance... not choice. But regardless, the results is the same. I have been in both situations, where I did not have the money to get better equipment, and where I did.

Back in the 70's when I got into this game of art, i stared painting. I had a small camera but nothing to speak of. I bought a better camera so that I could take pictures to use as reference for painting. In the process I learned how challenging photography was, and I never painted again. Now that I have control over my work, it feels very much like painting again and I can bring out the elements that I want to and suppress others. So for myself, it is the issue of challenge too that keeps me going and learning.

And this is perhaps my point about the equipment. There has to be something more than the equipment if one is going to grow and develop. (At least that is my observation... for what it is worth). I have seen too many people who have the resources to buy the best equipment, believing that this will make them into a photographer. They spend all their time researching the next camera and lens, and don't have time to develop the art. Then there are those folks who can't afford every new camera that comes onto the market. Some of them give up, but some of them decide to get the best out of what they have. They concentrate on the art and learning to get the best out of what they have. In my mind.... this person is the most fortunate... though it may not feel that way, and they are the ones most likely to develop real photographic skill and understanding of the process and lens dynamics.

It all reminds me of a series of articles I wrote here on magnification and lens dynamics. My point was that lenses don't really magnify... at least not in the way that we suppose. Any way some folks took serious issue with me, and one decided that name calling was a good tactic. He called me an amateur (though he did not use that word). What i fund most amusing about that series of articles, is that the science was correct... (Perhaps I could have done a better job with the language). But some people are so stuck on their individual understanding of a small part of the art, that they miss or don't have any concept of the bigger picture. One guy wanted to argue the point from a large format perspective. In trying to prove to me that he knew what he was talking about, he only proved that he did not. Now I don't claim to know all there is about photography, but I have trained at the college level, I have spent 35 years working with cameras of all sizes shapes and forms, and I teach at a college in a program that is growing every year, and I am the only instructor. And after all of this.... I stand by what I say. It is not the camera that makes the art. It is the photographer, and a good photographer can make are with a fixed lens point and shoot camera.

Having tooted my horn now.... I do very much agree that pixel envy is a hard thing to overcome. So keep learning the art for now... you will eventually get the pixels you want and need... and when that happens, you will be ready to suck the most that you can out of that too.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

DrAlexTGizmotiki [2010-05-22 20:00:28 +0000 UTC]

This is the kind of elusive image that keeps haunting me, now I have more imagery to build on as I search for even MORE!! Thanks!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to DrAlexTGizmotiki [2010-05-22 22:50:43 +0000 UTC]

thanks a lot for your visit.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

DrAlexTGizmotiki In reply to WayneBenedet [2010-05-22 23:28:04 +0000 UTC]

Imma all over this site and the wild world web! I was busy with other things, and neglected CARZ!! and truckz.
No more! Soon I will post some, when I get rolling with my HP850 digiZooM!!
Look out!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

yankeedog [2010-03-03 18:11:19 +0000 UTC]

Beautiful photo! There is a real sadness to it.
-YD

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to yankeedog [2010-03-03 19:17:59 +0000 UTC]

thanks.

I think many of my images affect people in that way. To me though, I rarely feel that way about them.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

yankeedog In reply to WayneBenedet [2010-03-03 22:48:21 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome. I always feel a sadness when I see old rusty abandoned cars, trucks or locomotives.
-YD

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

snowzapped [2010-02-13 06:43:39 +0000 UTC]

Very nice!

You have a wonderful gallery. Is watching you now.

Thanks for the fave, by the way.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to snowzapped [2010-02-13 14:42:31 +0000 UTC]

thanks

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

snowzapped In reply to WayneBenedet [2010-02-13 15:33:55 +0000 UTC]

You're welcome.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

JurajParis [2010-01-15 11:28:55 +0000 UTC]

nice work!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

QuanticChaos1000 [2009-12-10 09:39:56 +0000 UTC]

It's actually a 1952... and it looks to be in amazing shape still, I wonder what it would cost to bring it home...

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to QuanticChaos1000 [2009-12-10 14:28:42 +0000 UTC]

Thanks Ryan,

No idea on the last part. Probably just the cost of getting it there.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

horai [2009-11-24 20:45:34 +0000 UTC]

She was a beauty in her day.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

tailsanger [2009-11-24 00:11:45 +0000 UTC]

you should get it some how, mercury trucks i kinda rare a little work it my ok ^^

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

falcon01 [2009-11-23 12:00:38 +0000 UTC]

Nicely done!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to falcon01 [2009-11-23 13:58:48 +0000 UTC]

thanks

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

alimuse [2009-11-23 02:06:54 +0000 UTC]

Nice work, Wayne!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

retro2k [2009-11-22 15:41:53 +0000 UTC]

Great find again Wayne!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to retro2k [2009-11-22 15:58:03 +0000 UTC]

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

jeepdork [2009-11-22 15:24:44 +0000 UTC]

great find! that thing is worth quite a bit being a mercury panel truck, don't think they made very many. looks great for being underwater.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to jeepdork [2009-11-22 16:00:57 +0000 UTC]

thanks,

I have no idea of the relative value of the vehicles I find. I am not really into restoring them myself, but I do like how the look hanging on a gallery wall printed on canvas,

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

jeepdork In reply to WayneBenedet [2009-11-22 23:24:35 +0000 UTC]

i love the look of them on a gallery wall as well as driving them down the road.

everything you see is the conception of an artist.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

BekkaLynn [2009-11-22 13:25:41 +0000 UTC]

Wow this is really wonderful!!!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to BekkaLynn [2009-11-22 15:56:48 +0000 UTC]

thanks becky

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

BekkaLynn In reply to WayneBenedet [2009-11-23 11:44:52 +0000 UTC]

Welcome Wayne

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

erene [2009-11-22 11:54:52 +0000 UTC]

Very nice work Wayne!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to erene [2009-11-22 15:56:39 +0000 UTC]

thank you

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

erene In reply to WayneBenedet [2009-11-23 05:34:24 +0000 UTC]

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Vipallica [2009-11-22 11:18:41 +0000 UTC]

What a sweet car.
Wonderful picture

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to Vipallica [2009-11-22 15:56:33 +0000 UTC]

thanks

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

inObrAS [2009-11-22 10:21:51 +0000 UTC]

Wonderful shot!

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to inObrAS [2009-11-22 15:56:04 +0000 UTC]

thanks

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Xantipa2 [2009-11-22 09:53:26 +0000 UTC]

Superb..

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to Xantipa2 [2009-11-22 15:57:25 +0000 UTC]

thank you

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

Xantipa2 In reply to WayneBenedet [2009-11-22 17:08:46 +0000 UTC]

..

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

rajeshvj [2009-11-22 06:06:37 +0000 UTC]

Nice work! Where did you spot this?

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1

WayneBenedet In reply to rajeshvj [2009-11-22 15:54:47 +0000 UTC]

location is in the comments.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 0

Jeffinitely [2009-11-22 04:27:34 +0000 UTC]

ooooooh. gotta one up me huh? hahaha. it's better than my old oldie car in the woods shot... yours has leaves all over it...



nice find.

πŸ‘: 0 ⏩: 1


| Next =>