Highland Hammock

Highland Hammock, FL

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 27 2008 5:51 pm
From: James Parton

Jarrid,

Live Oaks are among my favorite trees. I just live to far inland to
see many of them.

Larry Tucei is our " Live Oak King! ". He would have much to say about
the subject of Live Oaks.

The Angel Oak is actually located in a semi-forested area. I visited
it last year. It is one magnificent tree!

JP

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Sun, Jan 27 2008 10:07 pm
From: James Parton

Jarrid,

Yes, the Angel stands out. It is much larger & almost without doubt
much older than the other trees around it. I would love to see the
Highland Hammock oaks.

James

== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 11:36 am
From: jarrid spicer

I'm in Savannah GA going to SCAD. I came down last year and fell in love with the live oaks here and haven't shot anything but trees sence. I just got back from a 3 month trip working on a project I call "Ancient Forest of the East" I think you all would approve. here is a list of the parks I was at
beall, ILL
turkey run, IN
Shrader Weaver Purdue Farm, In
Cook, PA
Smokies
Joyce Kilmer
Congaree
Bidller
archibold Research center, Fl
Highland Hamock, Fl
Corkscrew, Fl
Fakahatchee
everglades
Lignavitee Key

that pine forest in the keys That I can't think of the name.
among a few others that might slip my mind at the moment.
I'm in a web-page class right now, if you guys give me a few weeks I should have a ok site to look at.
most of my images when I finally print them should be about 3 feet by 6 feet, some should be over 20 feet long. :) I had to buy a new camera just for the project.

== 2 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 12:12 pm
From: jarrid spicer

I'm not sure what your asking, unless your asking me to print a 170' tall photo. which I would love to but I don't think there is anyway I would ever be able to afford the paper. even the 6 footers almost break the bank, and the 20' are so expensive so far I haven't been able to print one, but I will. As soon as I get my web-page up and running I would love to have you guys give me some comments. honestly I don't think many of my teachers quite appreciate what I'm doing, and I would value your opinions more then most of them. I really love the forest and I would give most anything to bring some attention to these areas.

== 3 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 12:25 pm
From: "Will Blozan"

Yes, my suggestion was mainly in jest, but wow- that would be an impressive
print!

Will

== 4 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 12:52 pm
From: jarrid spicer

if you want to finance it I bet I can shoot it :)

== 5 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 3:46 pm
From: Carolyn Summers

If you scale it 1 foot for every 10 feet of tree it would only be 17 feet
tall. Totally manageable!
--
Carolyn Summers

== 6 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 6:58 pm
From: "Edward Frank"

Jarrid,

What kind of camera are you using for your project?

Ed

== 7 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 7:05 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE

Carolyn-
Have you thought about the spherical aberration that the roundish camera lens imparts on a 3D world when it transfer it to a 2D photo?
-Don

== 8 of 8 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 8:01 pm
From: "Edward Frank"

Don,

The giant photo could be taken like Jim Balog. In his photos he climbs a nearby tree and shoots straight across at the target tree. Then the images are merged together into a single shot with limited aberration from the central portions of each image. The background becomes chopped up but the tree itself is near perfect.

Ed

== 3 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 8:42 pm
From: jarrid spicer

it's a medium format film camera the negs are 6x12 and the camera is a weird one called a Fotoman. I thought it was the biggest thing I could still hike with, if your interested they have some neat cameras on their web-page just type up Fotoman.

== 5 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 8:47 pm
From: jarrid spicer

with my toys there is less distortion then most, but actually my father and I have been messing with some 3d images, like the old view-masters. there very cool just hard to show anyone.

== 6 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 9:01 pm
From: jarrid spicer

yah actually Balog is great I've been doing similar. I do it a little different, I don't use multiple images to fix anything like him but in order to make giant images. I wanted my viewers to get at least partially the same feeling that I had standing there. hear is on from my new stuff, the one is on Albright Grove loop trail in the smokies we measured it at 24' the other one is from Congaree and the on cypress in the back is also 24' this is one of my 20' images

== 8 of 10 ==
Date: Tues, Jan 29 2008 9:08 pm
From: James Parton

Jarrid,

Medium Format? Sweeet...

That is quite an impressive list of places visited. I probably went
that many places last year but not that widely spaced geographically.
Congaree and Albright Grove are high on my list. I also want to boat
in and see those Black River Cypresses.

JP

== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2008 8:05 am
From: jarrid spicer

thanks for the nice comments guys. Was doing some research and found Miles on the internet just last week, I love his stuff. Personally I like his even better the balog, I didn't know he was a member but I should have guessed. I would love to sit down with him and talk shop, I am from Indiana and I got the impression that he is from the chicago area. Has he published his book yet I haven't been able to find it, I'd love to get my hands on one. If I remember right I thought he did platinum printing, and I bet the originals are unbelievable.

== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2008 8:37 am
From: "Will Blozan"

Jarrid,

Miles Lowry is planning to come to the ENTS gathering here in western NC
this April, can you make it?

Will

== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2008 8:46 am
From: jarrid spicer

That's in the middle of my classes, but I sure would love to. Maybe I can figure something out. by the way what happens at these gatherings, a bunch of tree hugging maybe :)

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2008 7:52 pm
From: jarrid spicer

Do you guys know that alot of modern lenses have aspherical lenses in them now which fixes this problem, not everything but most all of the good ones. And as long as your not shooting wide open like at 2.8 your depth of field eliminates this entire problem all together, and on top of all of this if your using a normal lens say a 50mm on a 35mm camera I would be surprised if you would get any aberration anyway. but if this isn't good enough for you you could always buy a nikon 45 2.8p lens or the classic noct-nikkor 58 f2.8 both are famous for eliminating this problem. I use a schneider APO lens and if you can see any aberration in this lens you have much better eyes then me, it also cost almost as much as my car but what the hell.

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Wed, Jan 30 2008 9:05 pm
From: DON BERTOLETTE

jarrid-
will the suggested lenses fit my old Nikon F2A? It used the AI line (Auto Indexing, I think?)?
-Don

==============================================================================
TOPIC: highland hammock
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/3959d628a8da975c?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 31 2008 8:20 am
From: jarrid spicer

don
I think your right about the f2 being AI although I never had one so you would know better then me. regardless the 58 noct will work for sure and as long as the camera is AI the 45p will also work. The noct is pretty rare so I haven't had the chance to use it, but it is famous for sharpness. I had a 45p and it was the sharpest nikon lenses I've ever used, including lenses like the 70-200 2.8 which is considered by most to be the best. If I wasn't shooting medium now I never would have gotten rid of it. The 45p is more expensive then it should be but it is worth it. one neat thing about it is it has all the electrical hook up's for the new cameras, so if you got a new digital or film camera with matrix metering, and I-TTL flash everything will work perfectly, but it also translates back to the older stuff like your F2. It is also tiny, but your F2 is so big that probably doesn't matter:) In my humble opinion and most F2 shooters don't like this opinion, I'd consider getting a f100 if you still want to shoot film. Not to pick on your F2 because it's great but matrix metering is the best thing since sliced bread and no one seems to care about film anymore so cameras like the f100 are very cheep (ebay). It's the 35mm I kept. (AI does mean Auto Indexing)

== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 31 2008 11:16 am
From: DON BERTOLETTE

jarrid-
thanks for the follow-up!
No offense taken re F2 opinion! When I purchased it in 1979 in Singapore for $640, it was exactly what I wanted...a high quality metered manual with high quality lenses. Ten years ago, I treated it to a cleaning...it's never failed me, although these days of digital cameras, I don't take it out as much.
-Don

== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Jan 31 2008 7:00 pm
From: jarrid spicer

Well honestly I would be surprised if even my f100 would out last your f2 and noway will a digital last that long, and it's always my pleasure to give an opinion on a camera question.

== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 2 2008 7:51 am
From: James Parton

Jarrid,

You mentioned having a medium format film camera. What other cameras
do you have? I have a canon A620 and a Nikon D40 DSLR with 18-55 and
70-200 Nikkor lenses . I am no pro but enjoy photography as a hobby. I
just opened an account on Pbase and will upload some to it when I get
a chance. It is hard to show an appreciable amount of photography on
ENTS. You need a photo page for that.

A friend of mine has talked about opening a photography business of
his own. He has been into photography since the mid-eighties. I am a
relative newcomer at it.

Let's go to work...On Saturday...

James P.

== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 2 2008 8:18 am
From: jarrid spicer

james
I worked at a camera store for about 9 years so I have had alot. right now my main camera is a Fotoman 6x12 medium format, I have a D200 and bunch of lenses but my favorite is a 20mm 2.8 and the 70-200 2.8, but I always carry a olympus SW720 it's waterproof to 30 feet very cool. I also love my Holga, and pinhole cameras, and my father who I shoot with alot loves his Fuji 645 ZI it's a medium format point-and-shoot also very cool. I have a 4x5 but don't use it, Oh ya i forgot about my F100 & the F5 nikon, and my LOMO LCA. you might not know this one but check out their web-page its lomography.com, they have some cool weird stuff the Holga is my favorite of theirs. My dad and I share cameras so I have more then I probably need. Oh ya I almost forgot my favorite from last year it's the hassablad X-pan this one you might really like, it's a small panoramic with super quality I've turned alot of people on to it. I'd just google it I stooped using it because of my Fotoman. That D40 of yours is a heck of a camera, which 70-200 do you have? (the 2.8)
I don't know Pbase I'll look into it, I was going to set up with flicker it sounds like the same thing.

jarrid

== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 2 2008 8:37 am
From: James Parton

Jarrid,

The D200 is a really nice camera. A friend and I were just talking and
he is talking about selling his D40x to buy it's successor the D300.
In time I will move up from the D40, but for now it suits me fine. I
have always liked the Canon 5D. Yes,the 70-200 is is an f 2.8. The
other lens is the kit lens which does ok but has some flare & displays
some chromatic abberation, especially towards the edges of the field,
I have to remember here that I am talking about cameras and not
telescopes. Photoshop with the CAFree and PFree plugins can remove
most of those distortions. This proves very useful on forest photos.

James P.

== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 2 2008 3:51 pm
From: jarrid spicer

james

buy buddy just got the D300 and he is in love. It is very similar to the D200 but much better low light, which as I'm sure you know would help alot in the forest it has a cmoss chip instead of a CCD like the 5d. My school has a bunch of 5d's and they are super duper. even better then my d200 and I would assume better then the D300. There are rumors about a new one coming soon.

==============================================================================
TOPIC: photos
http://groups.google.com/group/entstrees/browse_thread/thread/71b22a321cd752c4?hl=en
==============================================================================

== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 2 2008 8:03 am
From: Beth

Jarrid, Don, and James,

I have no idea what you three are talking about, well I do know that
it has to do with photography but that is it. I own only three
cameras and the first two were of the point and shoot type, Kodak
Brownie Instamatic with 126 flim and flip flash and Olympus Newpic.
The last one is a digital, Olympus Camedia. I have no idea if I
really take good pics are not but everyone tells I do. The only thing
I know is I like the photos I get from it.

Beth

== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 2 2008 8:42 am
From: James Parton

Beth,

An old Brownie? Cool. I have not seen one of those in a while. What
matters the most in photography is not how " perfect " the picture is
but how much you enjoy doing it. If it satisfies you, that is what
counts. Naturally if others like your work it is a bonus. The more you
do it the better you will get. Learn how to use all of your digital
cameras settings and read up on photographic techniques. The more you
learn and do the better your photos will be.

James Parton

== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 2 2008 9:23 am
From: Beth Koebel

James,

Since you guys have been talking I would like to know
if my camera can do the panoramic photos or
stitch(?)photos together. This last summer when I was
in Europe I had trouble getting the whole building in
one photo so I had to take two. If I am understanding
what you have been saying, my camera may have a way to
"stitch" those two together? I will have to read the
manual and play with every option it has.

Not only do I have the Brownie I still have film and
flash for it! I email Kodak and they told me that
they would always have film for it. I need to email
GE and find out about the flashes.

Beth

Only two things are infinite, the universe and human stupidity, and I'm not sure about the former....Albert Einstein

== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 2 2008 3:46 pm
From: jarrid spicer

Beth
you know thats all that really matters is that your having fun, keep it up:)

== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 2 2008 4:02 pm
From: jarrid spicer

Beth
I should have read on before I replied. your camera might not be able to stitch but there is software out there that can, like photoshop. But I would find a free program like GIMP or just type photo stitch on in google and you'll probably find a bunch of stuff.

And I'm not sure what kodak is telling you but they haven't made 126 for along time. they do make 120 which is the same size but you have to take it of of the 120 reel and put it on a 126 reel in the dark. If you want an easier way I'd buy a Holga. The photos will look similar and it uses 120 film, and the camera only cost $30 and thats with a built in flash. I'd be surprised if you could find the bulbs for your flash and they would probably be expensive. check out lomography.com they will have the holga, it's one of my all time favorite cameras.
have fun shooting:)

== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 2 2008 4:51 pm
From: Beth Koebel

Jarrid,

I still have one unopened 126 film for it (not sure if
it's any good) and a flipflash for it also but I think
the flipflash is all used up. I used to carry a used
flipflash to extend the shutter speed.

Beth

== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Sat, Feb 2 2008 8:32 pm
From: James Parton

Beth,

I was really surprised that Kodak told you they still were making 126
film. I have not seen any for years. I did not even know they made
120. Now 110 I remember.

JP

Home