Bob- Yes, it's a digital, full size SLR (Single Lens Reflex, like most 35mm film-type cameras were for years), with interchangeable lenses. Cost? Fairly expensive...probably over a thousand or so by the time you get the right lenses, etc. I'll have to get with my nephew, but there may be photogs in the forum who would know too...I'll get back to you on this later in the day. -Don
Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 21:16:57 +0000 From: [email protected] To: [email protected] Subject: [ENTS] Re: A good day in the field Don, I could use that kind of camera. Is it digital? Cost? Bob ----- Original Message ----- From: "DON BERTOLETTE" <[email protected]> To: [email protected] Sent: Wednesday, August 5, 2009 5:12:31 PM GMT -05:00 US/Canada Eastern Subject: [ENTS] Re: A good day in the field Bob- I'm reminded of how long you've been searching for ways to photographically capture what your eye sees in the woods, when I think back to the 90's when you were working with, hmmm, I want to say Melendez, a photographer acquaintance of yours with an array of lenses to bring to bear on trees. I have only seen one feature that I can think of that is relatively new, that might help. Not in terms of accurate graphical analysis (measurements), but in terms of including entire trees in a single image. My nephew recently purchased a Canon (a model unfamiliar to me) which enables him to capture a panorama by depressing shutter release, panning the camera from left to right and then releasing shutter...exposure changes seamlesses as you pan. There's no reason one couldn't pan vertically with a similar success. Well of course, but for other trees and shrubs being in the way... As we get single devices doing multiple tasks, it won't be long before most cameras will have GPS imprinting coordinates, time/date, etc. either on image or in the image metadata, or both. Some already do. -Don Date: Wed, 5 Aug 2009 13:20:25 +0000 From: [email protected] To: [email protected]; [email protected] CC: [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected]; [email protected] 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. Express your personality in color! Preview and select themes for Hotmail®. Try it now. _________________________________________________________________ Windows Live™: Keep your life in sync. http://windowslive.com/explore?ocid=PID23384::T:WLMTAGL:ON:WL:en-US:NF_BR_sync:082009 --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ 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] -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
