sotc
Dormant hero!!
I was thinking it was phototropism. You thinking it's collapsing?
Redwood Coast 2015 & 2016
- Thread starter mdvaden
- Start date
- Replies 228
- Views 28K
SouthSoundTree-
TreeHouser
- Joined
- Sep 24, 2014
- Messages
- 4,941
Can you expand on what the implication of the tree not self-correcting means? Do you mean that it looks tipped over, but continued to grow?
That's how it looks to me, not being able to see if the top went vertical after a height or not (self-corrected lean).
mdvaden
Treehouser
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,467
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #78
I think it either got pushed into a lean when it was much younger, or that and a combination of the phototropism you mentioned. I looked carefully again at the photo enlarged the the general direction of the bark ridges in the bottom 8 to 10 feet is more straight, then the rest of the trunk's lines change and follow the trunk direction overhead. I think may have been like a 160 foot tall skinny thing years ago, got bent, then continued to develop that way for centuries.
The way the base looks, it doesn't appear like a redwood with an entire base tilting out of position.
Burnham
Woods walker
A mature tree that has lean introduced to it once mature, will correct with a smoothly curved return to vertical in the upper portion of the crown. In my years of taking stand exam plots, categorizing sweep among a wide variety of other defects, the majority of that recurve will be in the upper half of the crown or above. No mature tree takes an abrupt jink down low to correct for lean, imo. That's what I saw in the photo...though in real life, I might see something different, sure enough
.
So I agree with Mario, that jink happened relatively early on. I think very early, like juvenile, for it to be such a sharp change in direction...much younger than the 160 years he suggests, imo.
We can all prove our positions....in no way I can see
.
.So I agree with Mario, that jink happened relatively early on. I think very early, like juvenile, for it to be such a sharp change in direction...much younger than the 160 years he suggests, imo.
We can all prove our positions....in no way I can see
.
Burnham
Woods walker
Sorry, Mario...mis-read, or didn't read all the words, just like I admonished Sean about in another thread .
Though I think it would have to be smaller in diameter to be flexible enough to show that kink later in life...just a supposition, for sure.
.Though I think it would have to be smaller in diameter to be flexible enough to show that kink later in life...just a supposition, for sure.
mdvaden
Treehouser
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,467
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #82
Sorry, Mario...mis-read, or didn't read all the words, just like I admonished Sean about in another thread
Though I think it would have to be smaller in diameter to be flexible enough to show that kink later in life...just a supposition, for sure.
Sometime I should measure the skinny trees in there and see how tall they can become for, say, 14 inch dbh trees. I recall when Taylor and I were looking for large and tall Ponderosa pines, I used the laser on a small 2 ft. dbh pine that was about 200 ft. tall.
mdvaden
Treehouser
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,467
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #83
A few years ago I started selling a print of this redwood. A photo that got 3rd place in Save the Redwoods League photo contest. I sort of regret offering that one as a limited edition, even if just 8 sold and there's 192 to reach the 200 cut-off. Its practically beyond a rare composition. It can't be photographed anymore, because a storm nudged one of the trees on the right side over in front of it.
But I dug through my files today and found that at least one, if not two more from the 10 image set, had a good enough look for a second print. The mist kept moving, so only a few can work. But for this Version II, it will be an unlimited edition.
Just ordered an 18 inch x 24 inch test print canvas.
But I dug through my files today and found that at least one, if not two more from the 10 image set, had a good enough look for a second print. The mist kept moving, so only a few can work. But for this Version II, it will be an unlimited edition.
Just ordered an 18 inch x 24 inch test print canvas.
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
Beautiful!!!
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
Great aspect ratio! 
Altissimus
TreeHouser
Cool Pic , shows the Bigness.
Burnham
Woods walker
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
Really like that.
I don't.
The tree is soo extremely gnarly that it wouldn't register as a tree, to someone unfamiliar with redwoods.
As it is, with the extreme focus on the woman, the tree might as well have been a brick wall.
IMO you sat down between two chairs with this one.
Compare it to Kiera and Lost Monarch and it has not a bit of that " fairy in the woods" lavour.
Actually, And this'll probably get me banned, there are simply too much focus on breasts in this picture and too little on the tree.
( Probably why Stephen likes it
)
The tree is soo extremely gnarly that it wouldn't register as a tree, to someone unfamiliar with redwoods.
As it is, with the extreme focus on the woman, the tree might as well have been a brick wall.
IMO you sat down between two chairs with this one.
Compare it to Kiera and Lost Monarch and it has not a bit of that " fairy in the woods" lavour.
Actually, And this'll probably get me banned, there are simply too much focus on breasts in this picture and too little on the tree.
( Probably why Stephen likes it
)
MasterBlaster
Administrator Emeritus
Agreed!
mdvaden
Treehouser
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,467
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #96
I don't.
The tree is soo extremely gnarly that it wouldn't register as a tree, to someone unfamiliar with redwoods.
As it is, with the extreme focus on the woman, the tree might as well have been a brick wall.
IMO you sat down between two chairs with this one.
Compare it to Kiera and Lost Monarch and it has not a bit of that " fairy in the woods" lavour.
Actually, And this'll probably get me banned, there are simply too much focus on breasts in this picture and too little on the tree.
( Probably why Stephen likes it
When I look at the photo, I tend to soak in the entire thing at once. The Emphasis is on the woman in this photo since its a portrait, but the photo adjustment is intended for a 20 x 30 canvas in which case it becomes a somewhat different photo.
The reason her breast stand out to you is probably because you pay closer attention to that spot. it is of course diameter "breast high"
The curve of her hips and legs and gaze are what I gather more from looking at it. I will probably print a large canvas for my new office to hang with others. But I know Kiera's mom wants a print of this one too. I'll probably get a 16 x 20 for her.
CurSedVoyce
California Hillbilly
mdvaden
Treehouser
- Joined
- May 4, 2007
- Messages
- 1,467
- Thread Starter Thread Starter
- #98
Just finished our move to southern Oregon. Sold on the 10th / closing and bought on the 11th / closing. After a hard week, I escaped to the redwoods to explore with a friend Chad from Grants Pass, and his lady friend.
We did a very vigorous 5 hour bushwhack, then stopped for a quick half hour of portraits afterward before heading back.
We did a very vigorous 5 hour bushwhack, then stopped for a quick half hour of portraits afterward before heading back.
