A funny forest

[fjp]

Check out this forest:

http://www.pbase.com/fjp/mb_2005_06_04

I think it is rather whimsical. I'm sure few people have ever seen a forest like this much less walked through one, and people who have actually been in this type forest seldom stop to appreciate their unique beauty, because they're generally near the top of something and are streaking towards it without giving a thought to what they are walking through. Believe me, I've seen it happen many times. These photos were taken from 4,000 to about 3,500 feet.

This is a Silver Fir forest. They thrive in cold, wet, foggy conditions, and as you can see, grow exceeding close together, which makes the forest looks so whimsical. This is actually Old Growth. Not all Old Growth consists of fat trees. These Silver Firs are mostly 9 inches to 3 feet in diameter with occasional "giants" as big as four to five feet in diameter.

Unfortunately, somehow I made a mistake when I posted these pictures and the first couple dozen are much too large to show on your monitor at full size. Just click on "Large" to tame down the size.

 

[Gale]

Beautiful images and a beautiful forest..

Love to walk in the woods...

Your lucky to have the forest to just LOOK, and relax :>))

Thanks for sharing

 

[fjp]

Yes, living in Florida, you certainly wouldn't have anything like this! But you'd have completely different and interesting things!

 

[beaucamera]

Hi, Frank, welcome to Nikon Cafe.

I've always admired your work so it's good to see more of it. I only have one comment. Your pictures are sooo big they don't fit on my screen. It's hard to get the full impact of their beauty never mind the load time. Is there a way you could post a slightly smaller version for normal viewing and reference the original for anyone who want to see more detail?

BTW, thanks for taking us along on another of your fabulous trips!

Virginia
aka beaucamera

 

[fjp]

Ridiculously large pbase images

Yes, this was a big mistake and I don't know how it happened. Did you notice that only the first half of the pictures were big? I wonder if I'll ever figure out what happened? Anyhow, tomorrow I intend on replacing those big images with my normal 1024x768. The big ones were 1920x1440, which is the size of my monitor, and hardly anyone uses a resolution that big.

 

[fjp]

I accidentally posted images too large in this gallery. I’ve corrected the problem so you can go back and look without any trouble this time.

 

[dmwphoto]

great pictures, thanks for sharing that walk

 

[fjp]

Hey, Dave...

Tell me how much you love that 200mm Micro. I have the Tamron 180mm f/3.5 DI Macro. It's a great macro lens but not so hot for distance. I'm not so sure it's all that important a deficiency because I also have the Nikon 180mm f/2.8 and it would probably be irresponsible for me to replace the Tamron with the 200mm Micro.

 

[dmwphoto]

I hate to tell you this but you would LOVE the 200mm micro. it is SHARP! it makes macro fun and makes you look like a pro instantly. working distance is great which will keep some subjects from spooking. It is really the macro lens to have in my opinion and that may not mean much. No offense to the tamron as I have no experience with it but if you look at my macro shots at dmwphoto.smugmug.com you may compare to what your lens is doing.

 

[dmwphoto]

by the way, none of the macro lens' are very good for distance. the focal length is for 1:1 ratio not telephoto as one might deduce from say a 200mm lens

 

[fjp]

by the way, none of the macro lens' are very good for distance. the focal length is for 1:1 ratio not telephoto as one might deduce from say a 200mm lens

Well now, that's interesting because I saw it claimed up on Dpreview that the 200 was equally good at distance. Actually, this is what I'd always heard about macros and I thought I was being set straight. Maybe the guy was just blowing smoke. You know how some people just can't admit that any photo equipment they own can't have any flaws.