Interesting scene, Santiago. I don't hear much about such geological features in Europe.
In the US a natural bridge was carved by a stream, whereas an arch was caused by wind, rain, cold, heat, etc. The terms might be quite different in France and the rest of Europe, though.
I also prefer your first image. Is the second just a tight crop, or a different exposure?
Charlie
Santiago - I love the first one. Not only do you push my eye towards the bridge, you do so pleasantly with the wonderfully detailed foliaged on the right.
Charlie Shugart wrote:
Interesting scene, Santiago. I don't hear much about such geological features in Europe.
In the US a natural bridge was carved by a stream, whereas an arch was caused by wind, rain, cold, heat, etc. The terms might be quite different in France and the rest of Europe, though.
I also prefer your first image. Is the second just a tight crop, or a different exposure?
Charlie
Thanks Charlie, and I've heard the two terms being used to define essentially the same thing.
I found this in the usual wikiplace :
The choice between bridge and arch is somewhat arbitrary. The Natural Arch and Bridge Society identifies a bridge as a subtype of arch that is primarily water-formed. By contrast, the Dictionary of Geological Terms defines a natural bridge as a "natural arch that spans a valley of erosion."
