Wikipedia:Featured picture candidates/Arborist felling eucalyptus

Arborist felling a eucalyptus tree[edit]

**Original** - An arborist working about 25m above the ground using a chainsaw to fell a eucalyptus tree in a public park

Reason: I went out to take some bird photos only to have the birds scared off by a tree-felling crew clearing some (apparently) dangerous trees at a nearby picnic ground. So I turned the camera on them as well and got some decent images, and something a bit different for FPC. Overall I think this close-up's the best, though some may prefer this one from arboriculture. I particularly like the shower of sawdust which was a bit tricky to capture properly.
Articles this image appears in: Arborist, Chainsaw
Creator: jjron

Support as nominator --jjron (talk) 08:38, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Question. Just out of interest, do you downsample to 1600 pixels for the same reason as Fir0002 (to reserve higher res images for sale privately), or was it a sharpness issue? I noticed that even at this res, it looks a bit motion blurred. I can understand why it could be though, as forests can have pretty dull lighting. As with Fir0002's images, you've removed the EXIF data so I can't see what shutter speed or focal length was used. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 09:14, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- Yeah, you could say I've learnt from the master :-). There is definitely some motion blur there, particularly on the chainsaw and his arms, due the high frequency vibration of the saw - you'd have to be shooting pretty high speed to eliminate that, and I'm not sure if it's a negative anyway as it gives that feel of action, i.e., he's not just holding the saw, he's using it. I also wonder about putting up tech details as the occasional user opposes because they don't like your settings or your camera. Checking the details again though, they actually surprise me that it came out so well, I thought it was done at 1/60s. In the interests of disclosure, it was actually taken at 1/30s, 300mm (where my lens can unfortunately get a bit soft), F/5.6, and ISO400, and done hand-held as I wasn't expecting to be shooting at that length or time of day. As you suggest the forest was pretty murky; put it this way, it was around 4pm in early July, on an overcast day, under trees up the Dandenongs, so to say the least the lighting wasn't ideal, and at something like 40m away it's getting a bit out of reach of the flash! --jjron (talk) 08:09, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - I'd like to think that nobody would oppose simply because they didn't like your camera. Its the result that matters. Camera settings generally just confirm suspicions already held (at least, for me). The issue I found was that the entire image is slightly motion blurred/soft (the tree included, which shouldn't be suffering from vibration enough to be that soft). I can appreciate the difficulty of the scene though. It is acceptably sharp, but not ideal. However, as you said, you were not shooting in ideal conditions, so I'll stick with a Weak Support. Diliff | (Talk) (Contribs) 10:07, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
    - - It's sad but people will oppose an FPC because they don't like the phase of the moon outside their window or the time of day they see the nomination... sad really. Cat-five - talk 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - it could probably do with a little colour noise reduction in places, but its other wise pretty decent considering the probable low light level of the scene (evidenced by the falling sawdust). I realise the reality that many people don't wear safety glasses when they are supposed to, but this guy wasn't. The composition is clear, though a little more chainsaw blade would have been nice. Noodle snacks (talk) 11:08, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support - very nice, quite unusual for FPC! I love the expression on the guys face! Intothewoods29 (talk) 14:10, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Great angle, encyclopedic, interesting. As for sharpness, if you've used a gas saw before, it's impressive given the vibration those things put out. Theoretically it might be sharper (could a faster lens have been used, while maintaining acceptable DOF?), but really this is not the kind of shot you can easily prepare for, much less reshoot. Fletcher (talk) 16:12, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Interesting subject, good enc and even a bit of "wow". ;-) Tech quality is not perfect, but we are building an encyclopedia, not a poster collection... --Janke | Talk 17:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support The enc. definitely trumps the minor technical flaws in the pic. Spencer^T♦^C 21:01, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support, good but could you crop a little bit the right side to emphasize the worker? --Caspian blue 23:00, 16 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- I wouldn't support such a crop, you loose the sawdust spray. Noodle snacks (talk) 00:48, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
  - Correct, that's exactly why I left that room on the right. --jjron (talk) 07:39, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Only quibble is that I'd like to see more context of how high up he is...but then you lose the focus (artisticly and photographicly). HereToHelp ^{(talk to me)} 01:26, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
- If you check the image page there's some 'other versions' that may give a bit more context to the height (not the third one where you can see the crew on the ground, where I'd estimate he's about 10m up, but he'd descended a long way by then). But as you say, to get more feel for the height, the man starts becoming less significant in the image, so it's a trade-off. --jjron (talk) 07:44, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support Good EV and I like the way the sawdust is given off. Muhammad(talk) 19:50, 17 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]
Support good EV, very nice shot. Cat-five - talk 01:17, 21 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]

Promoted Image:Arborists-3,-Kallista,-VIC,-09.07.2008.jpg MER-C 06:52, 23 October 2008 (UTC)[reply]