|
==============================================================================
TOPIC: ancient forest of the east
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/8d8510cbe5d2ef94?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 8:59 am
From: jarrid spicer
http://jarridspicer.com
hi everyone I have been working on a project for my MFA theses and I
think you will all enjoy it. The project is titled "Ancient
Forest of
The East" I traveled from NY down the appalachian mountains and
ended
up in Key West. I shot the smokies, congaree, cook forest, joyce
kilmer, beidler, the everglades, and some in the keys among other
spots. I just got my web page up and I thought I would share it with
everyone. Without this website I don't think I would have found such
fantastic forest to shoot, so thank you all!
thanks
jarrid
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 9:53 am
From: Andrew Joslin
Beautiful work Jarrid, thanks for posting it.
I would like to see some location info per photo but it is fun to
guess general location based on the terrain/species in the images.
-AJ
Andrew Joslin
Jamaica Plain, MA
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 10:17 am
From: Josh Kelly
Great stuff, Jarrid! Those photos are bad ass! Old-growth is
extremely hard to capture on film, but the combination of your eye
and
the large format photos have done it.
Josh
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 12:55 pm
From: Christine Schadler
Jarrid,
Gorgeous photos. Do you plan to make any of these shots available?
Chris
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 2:59 pm
From: James Parton
Jarrid!
@#*&#%! AWESOME dude! I have been an amateur photographer for a
little while but you are WAY ahead of me. Great website!
What kind of cameras do you use. I use a Nikon D40.
James P.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 4:29 pm
From: jarrid spicer
sure I would love to sell some of them. My standard size for all of
the ones in the Ancient forest portfolio is 20x40 and I have been
selling them for $400 unmatted and unframed (some I can make bigger
on request) but for anyone that is a member of ENTS I would be happy
to cut that in half and make them $200. I'm sure you all would
appreciate them and give them a good home. I have been working on
putting titles on them for the web site to make identifying them a
bit easier, I'm still working on it.
jarrid
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Tues, Nov 11 2008 4:45 pm
From: jarrid spicer
For this project I bought a large medium format camera and shot film
but I use a lot of cameras depending on the project at hand. I
wanted to make big prints and film still seems to beat out digital
for size, my biggest one has been 40x100 inches. I did just post a
$200 price for 20x40's for any ENTS member which is half of the norm
if anyone was wondering, if you are you should just e-mail me at
jaxtapoze@hotmail.com or photo@jarridspicer.com
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 5:47 am
From: Marcboston
Excellent work! I wish you luck with your new webpage! I have done a
fair amount of landscape photography and curious what size lense you
like to employ? I recently picked up a super wide lense 10-20mm and
have had a really fun time with it. I am not familiar with large or
medium format cameras, but have noticed many pros like to use them.
I believe that Thomas Pakenham used a large format camera while
taking
pictures of trees for his book "Remarkable Trees of the
World" . Then
again I could be wrong. In any event you took some really great
shots. Take care.
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 8:48 am
From: Miles Lowry
Jarrid,
Great work...luscious!!!
I shoot with a Hasselblad and combine frames in Photoshop...my stuff
is on the ENTS page...
Please contact me off lilst...maybe we can
share sites that each of us has visited and talk pricing. I think
there is a market for your work. I have a few years of experience
selling in the fine art world that might be of help to you.
Once again....great stuff!
Miles Lowry
== 4 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 12:47 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE
Bob-
I wondered if your tree library had any of the following references
on eastern white pine volume data :
PART B. DIAGNOSTIC CRITERIA
VOLUME TABLE/EQUATIONS
Form-Class Volume Tables (2nd Edition). 1948. Department of Mines
and Resources, Mines, Forests, and Scientific Services Branch,
Dominion Forest Service, Ottawa, Canada.
SITE INDEX EQUATIONS
Beck, Donald E. 1971. Polymorphic Site Index Curves for White pine
in the Southern Appalachians. Dept. of Agriculture Forest Service,
Southeastern Forest Experiment Station, Asheville, North Carolina.
YIELD TABLES
Normal
Leak, William B. 1970. Yields of Eastern white pine in New England
Related to Age, Site, and Stocking. USDA Forest Service Research
Paper, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, PA.
Empirical
Leak, William B. 1970. Yields of Eastern white pine in New England
Related to Age, Site, and Stocking. USDA Forest Service Research
Paper, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, PA.
Variable Density
Leak, William B. 1970. Yields of Eastern white pine in New England
Related to Age, Site, and Stocking. USDA Forest Service Research
Paper, Northeastern Forest Experiment Station, Upper Darby, PA.
I chose older tables, thinking that they might be more in line with
older (higher form class) trees.
-DonRB
== 5 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 2:07 pm
From: "Edward Frank"
Bob,
I guess everything boils down to one general observation. It seems
to me that looking at all the numbers and formulas you have
generated, a remarkable accomplishment that I could not have done,
the biggest factor contributing noise to your results is the
variation in the amount and height of the basal flare of the trunk.
Without the basal flare, I believe the results from your equations
would demonstrate a much cleaner pattern of shape characteristics
related to the age and growing conditions of the tree. So I think
that incorporating the girth at the root collar into your formulas
will serve to only add more noise to the overall results. I
understand that your goal is to find physical parameters that can be
measured with a tape to remove variations in interpretations between
different observers of the overall tree trunk shape. You want
objective measurements, rather than subjective assessments. I think
the process of using the girth at the root collar creates more
problems than is gained by it being an objective measurement. I am
not sure how to generate a protocol that would allow different
observers to assess the overall shape of a tree trunk and obtain the
same results, but this is what I think is a better option than using
the girth at the root collar. I hope you and everyone else realizes
that the vehemence of my arguments is simply meant to persuade and
not meant otherwise.
Ed
"Two roads diverged in a yellow wood, And sorry I could not
travel both. "
Robert Frost (1874–1963). Mountain Interval. 1920.
== 6 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 4:18 pm
From: dbhguru@comcast.net
Ed,
I basically agree with what you are saying. Determining upper and
lower boundaries for the volume at the outset by using a
cross-sectional area that leads to over-estimation and another that
leads to under-estimation with a common F value is just a first
step. I apply it when I really don't have a simple way of refining
the F value applied for a particular height (BH) on the trunk. My
preference really is to manipulate F from a standard spot.
The big challenge for us is to find ways of refining F, which we
agree conveys critical information about trunk shape. In general,
the value for all pines will fall between 0.3 and 0.5 using BH to
establish the basal area. However, this is a very wide range. We
know that the canonical form of the trunk, courtesy of the forestry
profession's past modeling efforts, starts as a neiloid (F=0.25),
changes to paraboloid for a section, then goes to a cone (F=0.33),
and in some cases back to a paraboloid. An F value we would select
for a particular tree would have to reflect the proper averaging of
these forms for the tree being modeled, but we are not very far
along in refining the process.
A point I would make about the BH standard for modeling purposes. On
some trees, 4.5 feet up is still in the neiloid zone. On other
trunks, 4.5 feet is in the zone of the paraboloid or cone shape.
Seldom will the 4.5-foot height coincide with an inflection point.
If it did, it would be far more useful in tree modeling. BVP likes
to go much higher up the trunk to get a circumference in order to
volume model. He wants to be clear of the root flare influence - a
point you well understand, Ed. Of course, if we are modeling the
tree with a reticle or through a climbing, we can look for
inflection points and establish frustums that correspond to the same
kind of curvature, but in lieu of detailed modeling, maybe we should
choose the height where the point of inflection occurs. Just a
thought.
Bob
== 7 of 9 ==
Date: Wed, Nov 12 2008 5:37 pm
From: "Edward Frank"
Bob,
Yes that is the crux of the problem. Some of the measurements are in
the neloid zone, while others are above it. BVP's idea of measuring
higher is good, but there is always a counter of practicality. How
can a measurement be made consistent and ideal at the same time?
Breast height is better than lower measurements, because the higher
up the less less influence of basal flare. But yes it is not ideal
either.
Ed
|