When a tree falls in the forest ...

no matter if anyone hears it or not ... it nourishes the future generations of trees, as well as providing food for small insects and the small critters which feed on them. Here's an image of what is known as a "nurse log" (in the Hoh Rain Forest in Olympic National Park) showing how a new generation of trees draws its sustenance from the old.

and serves the same purpose.



This was taken near Buena Vista, Colorado. I've always called it the Phoenix Tree because of the new life rising from the old. Same beautiful, fascinating, miraculous, natural process. Although as far as the photos go, I think yours is a superior tree shot by far. Mine has so many distracting clouds and mountains that many people have not noticed the rebirthing aspect of the shot--my intended main focus--until I pointed it out to them. And that's when they're looking at the huge blown up version framed in my living room!

Worth a place on any wall. My guess about why your guests "don't get it" is that it is not those things that distract them, but, rather, the fence. (At least for me, since the whole photo is about the elemental aspects of nature.) I cropped it on the bottom (and a bit on the right) to remove the fence and it seems to put the trees more squarely as the subject and the rest as meaningful context.

...all it does is make a bloody mess of things. :grr:

...because she didn't recieve her favorite shoes for Christmas.

(I know I posted this picture before, but it just seems to fit here)

What software are you using for scanning? I've taken to doing my own digitizing but the results have been.... rather horrible. Your scans, and of course your photographs, are always so damn good.

Picture Windows Pro ($100.00) http://www.dl-c.com/ . The initial scans are done using the scanner software provided by Minolta with the Dimage Scan Elite 5400 II machinery, but there is a often a lot of detail in the data that isn't shown in the the scanner software's initial rendering of the image. I tried a lot of software, Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Corel Paintshop and a few more, but PWP was the only one that really approached image editing from a photographer's POV - menu layout and such. A true "virtual dakroom" in its design, but much more. I've only taken a few steps in using it - there is far more to learn - but the author was a programmer who made his bucks with Electronic Arts in its early days and then turned his leisure time and talent to his love for photography and developed this program. It was the first program to allow calculations to be done with 48-bit data - a real plus for those of us who ae fanatic about not losing image info during processing, and a testament to the author's attitude (although Photoshop's latest version now also allows this). There's a 30-day free trial. There are also a lot of very helpful "white papers" at the PWP "downloads" link that will be useful to anyone, regardless of which software you use. The discussion board at http://www.dl-c.com/discus/messages/2/2.html?1141826408 is also worth reading. Give it a (free) try and see if it fits. And take a look at the "tips" at http://www.dl-c.com/discus/messages/5234/5234.html?1141689263 for some very handy shortcuts.

The "Transformations" menu contains all of the basic darkroom tools most folks are familiar with, even if they haven't done darkroom work. Plus many things 'of the same sort' that no mechanical darkroom apparatus could do.

The "Geometry" submenu includes all the sorts of things you would expect to accomplish by moving the film, enlarger head and paper into various positions.

The "Gray" submenu includes all the sorts of things that you might do by adding various kinds of filters between the film and the paper, but they are "gray" because they affect all the colors in the image. The most useful to me has been the "levels and colors" item here, because it is essentially the same as the "contrast mask" used in higher end labs for converting slides to high quality prints. The difficulty in printing slides is that the range of tones in a projected slide is greater than a paper reproduction can render, so shadows shadow and highlight areas lose all detail without this kind of correction. The same goes for reproduction on monitors. Digital cameras normally do this kind of adjustment in their own software, but scanners do not, and perhaps RAW files from digital cameras will also benefit from this processing step.

The "Colors" submenu lets you selectively do color shifting within certain ranges of the spectrum without changing other colors, or change some parts of the range in one direction and others in a different way. (For example, making the greens a bit yellower without making the reds oranger.)

Most of the other items in the "transformation" menu are either obvious or too complicated to explain briefly, but "Composite" means essentially overlaying several images (or versions of the same image) over each other, and "Layout" is for putting several side by side (or overlapping, etc.)

The "Mask" menu item is where the real power of the program lies, since it allows you to perform the previous types of operations selectively.

My "skill" is pretty much limited to using the "Geometry" and "Gray" transformations in an attempt to get the monitor image to resemble the original slides, but these are easy and seem effective, and the others make sense, but will need practice to master.

And one quick hint, if you try this program. Most transformations bring up a dialogue box with a "percentage" slider that lets you select how much of that effect you want to apply to that image. There is a box at the 100% end, and if you shift-click it, the preview image will toggle between the before and after views, making it much easier to tell what you are doing to the original image.

I haven't had a chance to work with it, but it looks interesting. Actually, I really like the way it "flows". I find myself using different programs for different "workflows". Probably a really stupid thing on my part, but I find myself comfortable with the variety. And it is always usually based on how simple or how complicated I want to get. Or how lazy or inspired I am at the moment.
:D

What I'm also interested in is the Profile Mechanic-Scanner with the additional Target addons for specific film/slides (some of which I use). Have you used this? It looks interesting but I have to wonder if I should just spend the additional money and buy a dedicated scaner with that ICE stuff built in. I snap about 75% digie and 25% film, but the cost of digitizing and printing has gotten obscense with the film.

I have to figure out something because I'm having trouble getting decent scans. I use a flatbed with one of those adaptors that you put on the bed. Maybe I'm just doing something waaaaay wrong that has nothing to do with the scanner. I scale to 600% on slides and scan at 600 DPI but some come off looking like really bad instamatic prints.

If I run into a question or two I might post them here to ask you. Given limited time I have right now... might be awhile. I'm going to take a few of my waaaay bad scans later tonight and give the program a test drive.

Again. Thanks!!!!

and the monitor and the printer (and the paper). Too much for me to handle, although I have Wolf Faust's IC8 targets for Fuji and Ekta and gave it a few tries. Even without doing this kind of calibration, you already have all the data your scanner or camera could produce, and you can use the program to make the kinds of adjustments needed to get the print you want using trial and error and experience to do that tweaking yourself. Not as efficient, but cheaper. Getting color management set up properly is a really hard process, unless you have a lot of time and money to spend.

Some flatbeds give good scans (the Epson 44xx or such, or maybe some altogether different model number (I could find it again if I had to) has a good rep, but for others the film scanning option is just advertiser's hype. In any case, the initial scan often has more data than you will see without some processing. Playing with the "Transformation/Levels and Color" option will give you a pretty good idea of how much data your scanner copied and whether it is "enough." But, by contrast, my scanner ($500.00) turns the slides (or negs) into 7500X5000 pixels with 48 bits of color gradations, and the resulting file is around 230 MegaBytes in size. Older (see Ebay) scanners can get close-enough results, but take longer, and whether it is worth the cost to buy one depends on how you value your film images. In any case, the longer you wait, the cheaper/better a deal you will find. The skills you develop (as you have proven with your photos) matter more than the gear you buy.

On the one hand I think that all the technical processing is a distraction from focusing on just taking photographs, but as I look at the work of others (prints... not web stuff) I can see where I'm seriously difficient on the processing side of things. And the more I learn the more critical I become of everything I do.

I'm not going to give up film. On some of the better Fuji stuff I've used the color has blown me away. I've also signed up to join the Fuji and Kodak pro sites so I can gain access to the "better" films and learn from others with faaaaaaaarrrrr more experience than I. I'm also convinced that being a decent film user will make me a much better digital user.

When I have time I'll play round' with my scanner more. See what I might be doing wrong. But when I consider the cost of having Wolf/Ritz do my digitizing and printing it might be more cost effective over the long haul to invest in a decent ICE scanner for my film/slides. We'll see. Right now I'm just trying to survive 10-12 hour work days and longing for the time when I can go out for the day and just be by myself with the camera.

Again. Thanks for all the info. Really appreciate it.

but that photo brought tears to my eyes. We should all be like that: drawing strength and nurishment from those who went before us, and sharing them with all around.

And I've seen some photos here that have that same effect on me.

...it sounds like all hellfire and damnation being unleashed at once as the slight crackle turns into an ear shattering horrific screaching sound of splintering logs as the tree first breaks loose, then it sounds like a herd of angry elephants charging right at you, hellbent on stomping you right into the ground, as the falling tree crashes through the branches of the trees in it's path.