Do You Have Any Woods/forest Pictures?

[+Snideswipe]

I got a neat phone call this morning. A guy from New York, Trevor, had stumbled across one of my websites and wanted to know if I had a hi-res image of this picture:

 

 

He told me that he's working on a project for Staten Island, an exhibit of sorts, that shows how the woods are built. If we all think back to elementary school, we'll remember that the forest is built in layers: the canopy, middle layer, base layer and ground.

 

I scoured my drives for the original image, but I only found high resolution pictures of my old Porsche, my cats and... well, let's just say that's all I found.

 

Right before I called him back to inform him that my search was a bust, I thought, "Hey! Geocachers carry cameras!" (Nearly an epiphany, but not quite.) "Maybe somebody out there has a great shot of natural forest that he could use!"

 

So then, if any of you happen to have a picture that shows the different layers of a natural, non-landscaped forest, maybe your image could be part of an exhibit that helps educate people about the importance of natural ecosystems. How neat is that?

[ju66l3r]

My guess is that if it was a digital photo, it will probably not be the "high-res" he is looking for. Most consumer digital cameras barely reach into the 8 Mpx range on the high end (Nikon Coolpix; 8 Mpx; $999). A scan of a film negative will be the high resolution he's probably looking for in terms of art exhibition (10-15 Mpx...I think). There are some professional digi-models out that capture at that rate and a lot of news magazines are using them because they are far simpler to copyedit than film and still give the same high-quality shots (if not better in some cases) than scanning the film.

 

Few if any of us are probably putting out 17x11 shots for 2 page spreads with our geocaching photos. You can always send him what you have and let him filter out what won't work, but I'm guessing based on my experience with these things that he's going to need more than 2-4 Mpx for his art exhibit.

[+astheravenflies]

If you can use something in the 3 mgpx range, I may have a few. It would be more evergreen than hardwood so it wouldn't represent well the forest type in your neck of the woods. Lemme know.

[+Snideswipe]

No worries, friends. These images aren't going to be blown up art-exhibit style. Ideally, the guy from NY is looking for an picture that will get sized up to about 12", at 300dpi resolution. The digital shot that I took would have been great if I hadn't deleted the original, uncropped image. At 200kb, it's just a little too small now.

 

We're not talking about a spread for National Geographic.

 

Edited to add: a 2Mpx image would work just fine.

Edited January 29, 2004 by Snideswipe

[PyroDave]

I do nature photo in my spair time alot while cacheing. I should have some pics that he could use. Drop me a email and I ill look when i go home.

 

even a 6.3 dig camera can be considered hi res my cannon 10d prints out at a 11x something right of the card. and at 8x12 it looks as good as a 35mm pic. Pluss theres many programs out there that you can use to boost you rez as high as you could ever need it I have on program that can do it up to 800x the original.

[ju66l3r]

Snide, send him to My Gallery if you want. There are pics in there from different altitudes on Mt. Greylock, MA, shots from Acadia NP (evergreen island) in ME (oooooooh, krumholtz trees), pics from a greater Boston area park/pond in the fall, and a few others if he wants to root around a bit. If he clicks on the thumbnails, he'll get a resized image. If he clicks on that he'll get the source jpg file on-screen...rt-click to save (3.1 Mpx at 2160x1400 or some such oversized nonsense)....lft-click that to go back to resized image. Camera was a Kodak DX4330. Source JPGs should size to 11"x14" without pixelation (although you might start to notice color banding in the pale colors...ala sky shots).

 

 

As a note for dvand: Programs (such as photoshop et al) that increase the dpi or pixel count do so by interpolation of the pixels around them. If two pixels are green next to white...and I ask for 3 pixels from the software, it will give me a green, a greenish white, and a white. Ask for too many pixels and the edges become choppy and squarish (aka "pixelation"). The only way to get more pixels without compromising the quality of the picture is to start with more pixels (higher res camera or image capture via negative scanner).

 

While a 3.1 Mpx looks pretty good on an 3x5, 4x7, or even 8x12 (and is touted as going up to 11x14 without pixelation), if you examine it carefully you'll see the difference than a film-sourced picture. This is why it wasn't until the 10 Mpx range pro digi's before Time magazine and other pro photogs started to give up on their film cameras (and started carrying around a ton of memory...heh).

 

If your interested in a pretty decent 1D (11 Mpx) vs 35mm comparison from a little over a year ago, you can go here.

[+cachew nut]

Don't they have trees in New York?

 

I vaguely remember a book by Betty Smith...

[+Criminal]

 

 

[+The Leprechauns]

Ferns 'n stuff at the bottom of the hill, on the ground. Low brush higher up the hillside where there's some sunshine. Hardwoods take root on the hillside, forming a canopy. I took this picture because a cacher who shall remain nameless descended this very hillside on a mountain bike. A higher-res version is available upon request, if needed.

 

[+geoguyver]

As a note for dvand: Programs (such as photoshop et al) that increase the dpi or pixel count do so by interpolation of the pixels around them. If two pixels are green next to white...and I ask for 3 pixels from the software, it will give me a green, a greenish white, and a white. Ask for too many pixels and the edges become choppy and squarish (aka "pixelation"). The only way to get more pixels without compromising the quality of the picture is to start with more pixels (higher res camera or image capture via negative scanner).

 

While a 3.1 Mpx looks pretty good on an 3x5, 4x7, or even 8x12 (and is touted as going up to 11x14 without pixelation), if you examine it carefully you'll see the difference than a film-sourced picture. This is why it wasn't until the 10 Mpx range pro digi's before Time magazine and other pro photogs started to give up on their film cameras (and started carrying around a ton of memory...heh).

 

If your interested in a pretty decent 1D (11 Mpx) vs 35mm comparison from a little over a year ago, you can go here.

When interpolating though it is also important to keep your subject matter in mind. Pixelization issues can be scene specific. A good example is if you are taking a picture of a skyline or a forest . In the skyline shot a lot of the pixels captured are going to be very similar, for the most part, to the one next to it. It is easier for your software to "guess" what the pixel color should be in the new pixel being created. The forest image would show the pixelization more since the contrasts between colors are more defined.

 

PhotoShop does an o.k. job at interpolation. I hear many professional photographers swear by genuine fractal. http://www.lizardtech.com/solutions/gf/

 

I myself just let my color lab interpolate the image via the DP2 software they use to run their digital photographic printers. It is as good as genuine fractal and it is free.

[+crzycrzy]

Huh ?

Duuuuuuude.

Whoah.

[+JMBella]

Ferns 'n stuff at the bottom of the hill, on the ground. Low brush higher up the hillside where there's some sunshine. Hardwoods take root on the hillside, forming a canopy. I took this picture because a cacher who shall remain nameless descended this very hillside on a mountain bike. A higher-res version is available upon request, if needed.

 

Looks kind of like cannabis.

 

(Posting here in an attempt to bury the "Wilderness thread" Won't you help? Please post once in any other thread other than the wilderness thread. Make it go away. Please help me.)

[+bigredmed]

I have some shots of riperian forests along the Platte and Missouri rivers.

[WH]

did someone say CANNABIS???

[+briansnat]