National Geographic's Redwood Trees Issues

Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

I do know first hand how competitive the researchers can be. Especially when it comes locating and nominating champion trees. I met Chris Atkins in Montgomery woods a couple of times and guided him around to trees where some of my canopy pics were taken, and laid out the field of view. Which saved him a lot of time locating the tallest trees that could be seen in the pics.

Chris didn't talk much, wouldn't disturb a single fern or any plant in order to get his measurements, and was anal with exactness, and would repeat the measurements many many times over to be sure. His findings with the Montgomery Giant conflicted with mine by several feet. I pulled a tape on the tree in 81. We concluded that the tree had grown 3 feet in the twenty years since I made my measurement and his.

No, Grover, I never climb with JOMOCO. And yes I am aware that he invented the leather cambium saver. I hope he gets some kickback for all the ones sold.
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

I was a wee bit irritated when the National Geo photog said he was the first to do a vertical pano of an old-growth
-moss

[/ QUOTE ]

I haven't pin-pointed yet where the photographer said that he was the first to do a vertical pano of old growth. Is it in the video and I missed it? Or did you read it in the magazine.

Looks like a good spot to toss in another redwood photo for window dressing ... need to practice my walk like an Egyptian stance ...



193942-Irvine_3_600.jpg
 

Attachments

  • 193942-Irvine_3_600.webp
    193942-Irvine_3_600.webp
    157.5 KB · Views: 58
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

The Sthil Chainsaw poster was panorama of a redwood I did in 1980. Very famous in its day and distributed worldwide to all the dealers.
193969-Big-River-tree.jpg


It was done in three pictures. And actually there are only three people in the tree. The two guys in the first pic of the top changed shirts and hats and rappled down for the second shot. Switched saws too. third pic of me on the bottom. All before photoshop.
 

Attachments

  • 193969-Big-River-tree.webp
    193969-Big-River-tree.webp
    34.1 KB · Views: 72
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

I remember reading about that shot in your A TREE STORY cd rom Jer. Now that's clever to be able to do all that before computers!

Didn't you do that all on your own time and then contact STHIL and get them to run it in their advertisements?
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

[ QUOTE ]
I haven't pin-pointed yet where the photographer said that he was the first to do a vertical pano of old growth. Is it in the video and I missed it? Or did you read it in the magazine.

[/ QUOTE ]

I misspoke, it wasn't what the photographer said, it was the opening title to the video that said that the photographer "...assembled a team to attempt a photograph that had never been done before, a seamless image of a redwood tree from top to bottom".

Not a big deal but not exactly accurate.
-moss
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

This is correct, Chris. During the early 1980's I was doing multiple pic panoramas of the coast redwood and Sequoia. Although without the use of computers matching the images seamlessly,, the focal length, exposure and contrast by bracketing and film processing was costly and time consuming. I was forced to keep the number of pics in my panoramas to a certain minimum. The most pics of a single tree I stitched together was a composite of 6 Kodachromes and shot from a position over 200 yards from the tree.

A few examples can be seen in the second edition of the High Climbers book.

Even though not digital, with Kodachrome film the resolution of the image is quite amazing. You have to appreciate the resolution equivalency of Kodachrome. With a good lens it will match that of a full size ccd imager easily.

It may of been old school film photography, but still state of the art even by todays standards.
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

There's no doubt about it. Your Kodachrome shots are first class. Can you even buy that film anymore with everyone using digital now?

I remember Bailey's selling one of your Big Tree posters with you and your buddy Mike Rantala climbing. Was that the Burns tree? Can people still purchase that poster. I thought that Bailey's was going to do a series of Big Tree posters but I don't know if they sell anyone other than your classic one.
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

The manufacture and processing of Kodachrome film was officially discontinued this year. Probably one of the longest lived color slide films ever made. Over 60 years that I know of.

I used it because of it fine grain and warm rich colors. As a kid I remember the pics in National Geo. The prettiest where always the Kodachromes.

During the 60's I shot Kodachrome in Viet Nam, and mailed it to Kodak labs in Palo Alto on Page Mill Road for processing. Even through the late 90's I continued to have my films processed there. And believe it or not I never lost a single roll in all those years of shipping through the mail. Really amazing when you stop to think about it.
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

I think Mark Chisholm has the last one left. See if he could make a copy of it for you.

I asked Mark if he could talk to the company and get the poster redone. But haven't heard anything about it. It was a classic poster and really is a demand item. The company should "just do it!"
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

[ QUOTE ]
The manufacture and processing of Kodachrome film was officially discontinued this year. Probably one of the longest lived color slide films ever made. Over 60 years that I know of.

I used it because of it fine grain and warm rich colors. As a kid I remember the pics in National Geo. The prettiest where always the Kodachromes.

During the 60's I shot Kodachrome in Viet Nam, and mailed it to Kodak labs in Palo Alto on Page Mill Road for processing. Even through the late 90's I continued to have my films processed there. And believe it or not I never lost a single roll in all those years of shipping through the mail. Really amazing when you stop to think about it.

[/ QUOTE ]

Kodaks film was made around the corner from here in Peabody, MA @ Eastman Gelatine. Still is as a matter of fact. Pretty high security place. I have pruned the trees on that property many a time. One of their headquarters was 20 minutes the other way, Waltham, MA. That building was simply enormous! They closed it down about 2 years ago.

I really enjoy your work, and hope to make it on a hike with you someday!
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

Gerry, assuming you still have original negs. Perhaps BostonBull and/or other Buzzers would assist in doing a new poster based on the photo? You could potentially get a high res scan made locally, from that a decent 4-color poster could be printed at reasonable cost. Something to think about anyway.
-moss
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

[ QUOTE ]
Gerry, assuming you still have original negs. Perhaps BostonBull and/or other Buzzers would assist in doing a new poster based on the photo? You could potentially get a high res scan made locally, from that a decent 4-color poster could be printed at reasonable cost. Something to think about anyway.
-moss

[/ QUOTE ]

Let us know, I am sure we could all pitch in and cover the costs as a group!
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

Yes, I have the original slides. And in pretty fare condition considering they're nearly 30 years old. Those particular films were Ektachromes because it was a heavy overcast morning when we went to make the shoot.

Nonetheless they been have been stored well and color shift is negligible.

My slide scanner is a mere 2800 dpi, but the three films combined will make the resolution acceptable for a poster size print. Making the file would only take a mornings work, it's the printing that gets costly. And the cost per print, of course, is less the more that are printed. Usually price breaks start at 1,000. That's a lot of posters.

Then there's the matter of using the Stihl Logo. Some people would like the poster with, and some without.

You guys in the city could probably find a reasonably priced lab that could do the printing affordably, There's not many choice is Ft. Bragg, Ca.

That's the way it would have to work. The print size would be approximately 10 X 40 inches.
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

[ QUOTE ]
The Sthil Chainsaw poster was panorama of a redwood I did in 1980. Very famous in its day and distributed worldwide to all the dealers.
193969-Big-River-tree.jpg


It was done in three pictures. And actually there are only three people in the tree. The two guys in the first pic of the top changed shirts and hats and rappled down for the second shot. Switched saws too. third pic of me on the bottom. All before photoshop.

[/ QUOTE ]

I remember looking at that picture when I was a kid and would go to the sawshop with my Dad and thinking how "I would love to do that someday". You the man Ger!
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

I did panoramic pics of redwoods before that, during he mid 70's but the Stihl poster was the first I had published.

The PC and photo imaging programs today makes panoramas as simple as cutting cake.
 
Re: National Geographic\'s Redwood Trees Issues

[ QUOTE ]
...
You guys are really going to like the NG issue. Believe me!

Ask Steve Sillett where he got the custom helmet that he's wearing in one of the photos.

[/ QUOTE ]

The helmet was made in Wales and was purchased from an REI in Seattle.

Don't know the brand name. Recall something about the maker's signature inside or on the helmet.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.

New threads New posts

Back
Top Bottom