General Sherman knocked-off it's AF Point pedestal

[mdvaden]

The fallen / broken redcedar topic inspired this one. It's about growth though, rather than damage. Between 2010 and 2016, the 1321 point General Sherman was unofficially surpassed by coast redwood, by no less than 40 points. The reason it's not official, is a bunch of us on the west coast decided to quit nominating trees to American Forests due to the fact that the redwood park will not issue a permit for them to do their "official" measurements. And on top of that, AF would be relying on one of us anyway. So for now, we figured it's time to self-certify. Stats have been kept on the lean side just enough to prevent a stampede shift from the Sierra Nevada, which is well-prepared with paths, rails, signs. etc..

As of of the past few years, S. sempervirens exceeds S. giganteum for total AF points, making it the actual "Big Tree" in the USA on the AF point rating scale. Coast redwood now has the greatest girth / circumference at both ground level and dbh. And there is now coast redwood with 19 ft. diameter at 50 ft. above ground level. Some updates are added to this page as they come to light.

http://www.mdvaden.com/redwood_year_discovery.shtml

Although one species is much smaller, I'm hoping there's more to find of Bigleaf maple for size and height.

Here is one of many interesting redwood encountered the past few years.

 

[cory]

That picture: Insane.

 

[Grendel]

!!! Wow!

Amazing, just absolutely amazing. . .

 

[MasterBlaster]

Unbelievable that something like that still exists today!

 

[mdvaden]

It's still amazing how these redwoods blend in though. Some are in groups of redwoods not as big, but still hefty. And among all the sword ferns and 10 ft. Huckleberry, they are cloaked. It's not hard to miss one by 5 seconds of walking through a patch of forest and looking the other way.

Probably posted this elsewhere once before, but typical of some of the stuff encountered. It literally takes time to reach every trunk. For us, it's fun though, even if we misjudge and one only happens to be 10 ft. wide when we cross a chasm to reach it.

 

[cory]

We all know how angles and perspectives can throw off perceptions (like in trophy fish pictures), but is that picture pretty much what it looks like when you are there with the naked eye?

Very cool and interesting how easily monsters can be hidden from view.

 

[mdvaden]

To keep photos realistic, I almost always ask the other person to stand mid-trunk. If they stood behind the tree, it would be exaggerated. So in those shots he's at mid-trunk which offers the closest comparison of human and trunk.

When I looked at this image from two years ago, a month after I shared it, I asked myself "is this really how it came out of my camera?" So I went back to the original file, and realized it's really that big. That's also when I also started envisioning a female subject for scale because they are more dainty than men, usually.

Actually, in this photo, I am closer to the front than the back of the redwood for composition, but for scale, should have stepped backward about 10 more feet.

 

[rbtree]

Awesome, Mario!! I recall you bringing up this possibility before!

I'm headed back to Vancouver Is in a couple weeks for my 49-50th HS Reunion....will miss Reg this time... but won't miss getting to see what is now the largest WRC in the world, since the Quinault Cedar fell, no less than 33 days after I was underneath it taking pics with my new 8mm fisheye....

Here's a slide show from my Olympic peninsula trip several images of the Q cedar...and the awesome Nolan Creek Cedar, now number 2 after the Carmanah Walbran Cheewhat Cedar. The Nolan cedar is also 95% dead, but appears sound enough to stand for centuries. Hope so, it is stupendous and a joy and breeze to photograph, standing alone surrounded by 30 year old firs not yet 50 feet tall....
https://www.flickr.com/photos/rbtree/albums/72157669030536131/show

In this fisheye image, one can see the small hemlock leaning into the Quinault Cedar. I doubt it was adding much pressure to the cedar, but it would be interesting to go see in what direction the cedar failed....it is now about 20 feet tall....

And the Nolan Creek Cedar

 

[MasterBlaster]

Very nice... soothing.

 

[mdvaden]

That's pretty good. Not much distortion from the fisheye in that one. I've had 2 fisheye's already and resisted the urge for a 3rd, but amusingly keep thinking about one.

The 16-35mm on the 5DS is ample presently.

I suspect there are more big redcedars undiscovered in the Olympic, possibly near Manzanita Oregon, and B.C. forests.

 

[cory]

Thanks for the info, Mario.

That dead cedar is awesome looking, it must be way cooler in person.

 

[gf beranek]

The red cedars in Darius Kinsey's work were spot on specimens. Now the ones left by the loggers, that we see today, are anything but. There's a few in Prairie Creek, but they can't come close to matching the ones farther north.

The natural range of the red cedar ends along the coast in southern Humboldt County. And, btw, the natural range of the Sitka spruce near Ft Bragg. Even with that a given there are some stately specimens to be found the razors edge.

 

[Marc-Antoine]

You know what ? your redwood's pics made me happy!

 

[rbtree]

Agreed, Jer.... I have the book "Kinsey, Photographer" Especially love the images by and stories of the 20x24 view camera and the smaller, but still huge 12x16...... the large one required him to be on a 12 foot ladder!!

 

[mdvaden]

You know what ? your redwood's pics made me happy!

Hey ... when you say that, it could mean G. F. Beranek who posted prior to you, because his photos make me happy too.



I could sit for hours browsing, and enjoy a cup of brew.

 

[mdvaden]

Agreed, Jer.... I have the book "Kinsey, Photographer" Especially love the images by and stories of the 20x24 view camera and the smaller, but still huge 12x16...... the large one required him to be on a 12 foot ladder!!

RBTREE ...

This post and the two photos are in reply to your reply at the portraits thread, related to the 5DS, etc..

I just ordered this print as a 40 x 60 print canvas. If it turns out as hoped for, even a 2000 pixel sample on a large monitor won't represent it. In the full file, even the needles and pea size lichens are fairly distinct. But here's one size attachment to begin with.

 

[mdvaden]

Now here is a 100% crop from the front of the trunk. Hopefully the upload doesn't screw it up

Felt I was pushing things at 1/2 sec, ISO 500 and f/11 .... this is a 2100 pixel attachment.

 

[rbtree]

Thanks....definitely couldn't achieve that much detail with the III's 22 mp sensor......

1/2 second no problem as long as you used mirror lockup and a delay....

Which lens did you use? I'm quite happy with my 16-35 f/4, clearly a substantial improvement over the 17-40, which still hasn't sold.... I did note that the 16-35 f/2.8 III was just announced, coming 10/6, and a few maybe available that day for a bit of a deal... but at a MAP of $2199, methinkx I'll pass ..... http://www.canonpricewatch.com/blog/2016/09/first-day-street-price-on-ef-16-35mm-f2-8l-iii-usm/

I occasionally get good results from my 24-105 f/4, but may at some time upgrade to the 24-70 2.8 II as I know it is exceptionally good.... I'm always impressed by the version II of the 70-200....

Also seriously considering the Tamron 150-600 version II which was just released.... at $1400, a lot cheaper than the Sigma Sport..and optically just as good, reports claim.... won't be as capable as my old 500 when fitted with teleconverters... but it may be sharper than the 500...and, or course, a lot lighter and smaller.....

 

[rbtree]

I declare, Mario, that Stump Face Guy looks to be on more than coffee... like maybe some danged good herb...love it!!!