Joe,
No. My brain went into idle. CBH!
Bob
Sent from my iPhone
On Aug 5, 2009, at 10:14 AM, "Joseph Zorzin" <[email protected]>
wrote:
> Bob, you've measured striped maple up to 40" DBH????? If you have
> found such a tree, I'm going to contact the Pope and have him
> declare a miracle!
>
> Or do you mean circumference?
>
> Regarding photographic techniques- I've read a lot on the subject
> but I'm a bit too lazy to take the extra time. It would be necessary
> to slow down and I know you get so excited when amongst your
> favorite trees- that to stop and fiddle with a camera's adjustments
> is frustrating.
>
> A few things that stick to my mind are:
>
> use a tripod, then stop down the exposure as much as possible,
> while making sure that the meter is looking mostly at the main subject
> bright cloudy days are best- to minimize extreme contrast which
> usually makes dark trees and rocks too dark and grainy
> most modern digital cameras have options for typical scenarios-
> choosing those is much simpler than actually adjusting exposure or
> speed
> use of a high powered flash can make up for dark woods - or woods
> with too much contrast- photography purists hate using flash, but if
> it gives a clearer picture, so what? if used carefully, I don't know
> if anyone could tell you used a flash- and, with the flash, and the
> camera set on automatic- the camera's meter will do a great job
> lens quality is very important, along with the size of the image in
> pixels- I'm not sure what the "sweet spot" is at this time for
> digital cameras in terms of getting the most bang for the buck but
> it might be worth investing in a digital SLR camera- which looks
> like a 35 mm
> I recommend to everyone to check out Dave Gafney's web site- "50
> tips to great outdoor photos" at: http://www.gafneyphoto.com/ Dave
> sells a DVD with all those tips but offers several on that web site.
>
> A decade ago I bought a top of the line 35 mm with extra lenses but
> I wasn't happy with it. Using such a fancy camera can probably
> result in superior images to digital but using film is obsolete-
> just too much trouble. I'm quite happy with the 700 digital 3 meg
> pictures I can take with my Canon HV-20 video camera. Most come out
> very nice- perhaps not nice if printed, but nice enough for the net-
> especially with brightly lit scenes.
>
> For truly blow your mind photography, I think most professional
> photographers will say you need to use a "large format" camera- one
> of those big boxes which have huge negatives- but carrying those
> cameras around is a huge chore- probably best for large landscape
> scenes rather than routine shots of trees.
>
> I recall seeing in a bookstore once some large formatted images-
> poster size- of forest scenes- the detail was microscopic- it was
> like looking through a window into the real forest. Perhaps such
> extra effort could be taken for your absolute favorite trees of all
> time.
>
> Meanwhile, as we discussed recently, I hope to TRY to video tape you
> at some of your favorite Berkshire forests.
>
> In my experimenting with the video camera- I taped myself in my
> early succession forest behind my house- which is growing into an
> abandoned gravel pit, which was not reconstructed with top soil-
> and, on that site, the previous owner left all sorts of construction
> debris which I'm slowly trying to clean up. The forest consists of
> birch, white and pitch pine, poplar, etc. Nothing exciting, but I'm
> excited about it as I can improve it by cleaning it up, prune some
> trees, thin it out- so that instead of a trash heap with low value
> small trees, it may someday, in another 50 years, look decent-
> purely aesthetic work. I have this minute long video at
> http://vimeo.com/5876075
> which is password protected- the password is "enip" which of course
> is "pine" spelled backwards. I used a wide angle lens, a tripod, a
> shotgun microphone and controlled the camera with a remote.
>
> Joe
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: [email protected]
> To: [email protected] ; Weiss, Nancy
> Cc: Zelazo, Timothy ; Davis, John ; Dittmer, Paul ; Heller, Sharl ;
> Hurley, Claudia ; Kaiser, Amy ; Morrison, Laurie Sanders & Fred ;
> Ryan, Mike ; Williams, Bill ; Stransky, Laura ; SCHRATER, FAYE ;
> White, Richard
> Sent: Wednesday, August 05, 2009 9:20 AM
> Subject: [ENTS] Re: A good day in the field
>
> Joe,
>
> As you've no doubt deduced by now, a behind-the-scene motive of mine
> in presenting these forest images on the ENTS list is to entice
> better photographers than I am into visiting idyllic Berkshire
> forest sites with me. It is my increasing belief that exceptional
> forest sites and features need to be captured on film for
> posterity before climate change, forest policy, disease, etc. claim
> out champions and reduce exceptional forest sites to mere memories.
> The direct benefit of being a 'forest snob' (I clearly am that) is
> that I spend most of my time in the truly exceptional forest sites.
> I abandon unexceptional places pretty quickly. But other than those
> who accompany me, and with a few other exceptions, not many people
> visit the exceptional places - or if they do, their 'snob eye' isn't
> sharp enough to distinguish the nice from the exceptional -
> exceptional for Massachusetts, I mean.
> In my self-appointed mission, I'm struggling to get good pictures
> because while I may have an intuitive feeling for fairly artistic
> shots, as recognized by my friend Don Bertolette, I have simple
> equipment and only the most rudimentary understanding of the
> features of the camera that could be employed to capture difficult
> scenes. The job calls for someone with greater skills and
> experience. For example, the three attached images represent my
> attempt to capture the extraordinary rock and rock-tree scenes on
> Todd Mountain. I flubbed most shots badly. The challenge of
> photographing green, on green, on green with dabbles of gray and
> brown was too much for me.
> To put an even finer point to my lament, yesterday, when exiting the
> Trees of Peace Grove, I decided to check on a favored striped maple.
> It is fairly slender, but not small. Most people who pass it
> misidentify it. It would appear large to people who recognize the
> species, but likely they would not look up, except to ID the tree.
> Only a tree nut like me (and others on the list) would take further
> notice of it. But what should we notice? Holy Molly, as Dale would
> say, that sucker soars. I remeasured it and its upper leaves are 66
> vertical feet above its base! There may be a leaf or two at 67 feet,
> making it one of 4 striped maples in Mohawk that I've measured to
> over 60 feet in height. All of us routinely see the species in the
> woods. It typically struts its stuff at girths of 12 to 18 inches
> and heights of 25 to 45 feet as typical maximums. People are often
> very impressed when they see those dimensions. Well, in the Hopper
> of Greylock, I've measured specimens to 40 inches DBH. In Mohawk,
> I've made it to 39 inches. I've measured striped maple to 54 feet in
> the Adirondacks, about the same in the Catskills, and commonly 30 to
> 45 feet elsewhere, but haven't broke 60 feet anywhere in the
> Northeast except in Mohawk and Monroe State Forests. I'm sure sites
> in NY and PA have striped maples in the 60-foot height class, but
> not many.
> Joe, I'd love to capture the verticality of striped maple in our
> forest reserves, but I have no idea of how to photographically
> capture what my eye sees with the species, other than its large,
> bright green leaves and elegant striped bark. Both these features
> are evident up close. We don't need to search for the biggest or
> tallest to photograph its leaves and bark. But what if we want to
> capture it in its full glory, capture its extraordinary canopy
> achievement in areas of mature forest? Can that be done?
>
> Bob
>
>
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: "Joseph Zorzin" <[email protected]>
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 7:40:56 AM GMT -05:00 US/Canada
> Eastern
> Subject: [ENTS] Re: A good day in the field
>
> when I see such pictures- and they are very nice- I wonder how
> they'd look with a fish eye lens? anyone have one?
>
> another camera option I'd love to try if I could afford it is a
> double camera designed to take 3-D images, which you then look at
> with a viewer, as we all did as children- I still remember how much
> those viewers blew me away- I'd love to use one for forest photography
>
> Joe
> ----- Original Message -----
> From: Randy Brown
> To: [email protected]
> Sent: Tuesday, August 04, 2009 9:28 PM
> Subject: [ENTS] Re: A good day in the field
>
>
> The next image looks high into the canopy of the Algonquin Pines.
> The sight is inspirational. When I go to the Algonquin Pines, I
> frequent the location of this image. There is a substantial
> difference between looking up into the canopy of 90 to 100-foot
> trees versus those near and above 150. This brings me to a point.
>
> Ahhh.. beautiful canopy shots. Here's a few good ones I've gotten
> in Ohio.
> #1 Is looking up into a ~120' Tulip trees in Mohican State Forest.
> #2 Is a grove ~140+' white pines in Hocking Hills State Forest.
>
>
>
>
>
>
>
> >
--~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~
Eastern Native Tree Society http://www.nativetreesociety.org
Send email to [email protected]
Visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees?hl=en
To unsubscribe send email to [email protected]
-~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
