leveling a large format camera

<i>You heard wrong! Since it is the second time I've read you stating this, clarification is needed. What he did was to cut some grass bushes that were on his foreground. Maybe wrong, but those were not trees, and there is no Zone VI Chainsaw. Please, get your facts straight!</i><p>

 

Nope, it was tree saplings, and as a matter of fact Picker had the gall to suggest the trees should be cut at a slant away from the camera lens so the white spots did not show in the print and did not have to be retouched. I still have the Photo Technique issue where he wrote this. I saved it specially for this reason.

"I still have the Photo Technique issue...I saved it specially for this reason"

 

Jorge: Since I have all Photo Techniques' issues and the formely Camera & Darkroom, and since you saved the issue, I would appreciate if you give me the year + month that he wrote it. I remember reading it years ago and perhaps my memory is failing concerning the "incident".

I'm a pack rat!

I found it! After looking at all my Camera & Darkroom, subsequently Darkroom & Creative Camera Techniques and later Photo Techniques which I've collected since 1991 this is what I read:

 

There were puckerbrushes blocking his 8x10 view of a pond in Vermont (Beaver Pond, Wethersfield, Vermont). Not trees!

 

Camera & Darkroom, June 1995, P34.

Oh brother....puckerbrush is defined as a small tree. Just because it is not an oak it does not make it any less important in an ecosystem. Besides, it is the principle of the thing. I dont care how much you want to excuse it, it was the wrong thing to do.

"Oh brother... puckerbrush is defined as a small tree"

 

By whom? I could not find it in my book Field Guide to North American Trees (Audubon Society). Please tell me your reference.

 

"I don't care how much you want to excuse it, it was the wrong thing to do"

 

I would agree wholeheartedly, that was the wrong thing to do, even though he cut only branches.

 

If you want to protect the ecosystem, please go and fight the developers that buldoze acres and acres of forest land for a new shopping center or for new homes in "suburbia". I do, as I show up at the City Commissioners' everytime I see the absurdity.

<i>By whom? I could not find it in my book Field Guide to North American Trees (Audubon Society). Please tell me your reference.>p>

 

"I don't care how much you want to excuse it, it was the wrong thing to do" <p>

 

I would agree wholeheartedly, that was the wrong thing to do, even though he cut only branches. </i><p>

 

Hmmm, so which is it, if it is not a tree how come it has branches? <p>

 

As to protecting the environment, now you are putting words in my mouth, I never said that. All I said is that it was the wrong thing to do, and I implied it does not behoove us as photographers to make it worse, please dont get all emotional about this. As to the source, the almighty Google.....

You wrote: "Just because it is not an oak it does not make it any less important in an ecosystem".

 

For the above, I gave you an example of buldozing acres of forest trees by developers.

 

You wrote: "As to protecting the environment, now you are putting words in my mouth. I never said that".

 

Yes you did. Read well what you said about protecting the echosystem. If the environment goes away in one area, the echosystem goes with it. When the developers are done, it will be a "sea" of concrete. Flora & Fauna are destroyed.

 

You wrote: "Please, dont get all emotional about this".

 

I'm not at all. I like to debate and please if you still think of it as a small tree, change the name from Puckerbrush to Puckertree.

 

If you still think that a brush is a tree well, goodbye! Nothing more to debate.