http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=C9LHjV48e9s&feature=player_embedded

The rigging and Canon hw is insane!

I see 6 Pocket Wizards, 3 1Ds3 with 24L II?

Cool

I was reading that very issue of Nat Geo today! There's a big fold-out of that photo, it's very impressive!

isn't it 300 feet tall, and 1500 years old?!?

skibum5 wrote:
why are you mentioning inland Giant Sequoia's?

I posted a link above to "Coast Redwood" which redirects to "Sequoia". Not sure if it was right or wrong, but the page states that the Sequoia is known as the California Redwood, which is what National Geographic referred to in its article.

you guys are killing me.

kakomu wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
why are you mentioning inland Giant Sequoia's?

I posted a link above to "Coast Redwood" which redirects to "Sequoia". Not sure if it was right or wrong, but the page states that the Sequoia is known as the California Redwood, which is what National Geographic referred to in its article.

The Coastal/California Coast Redwood is known as Sequoia semperviren which is indeed part of the Cupressaceae family, the same family as inland Redwoods known as Giant Sequoia/Sierra Redwood [Sequoiadendron giganteum]. Either way both species of tree grow over 300' and both have been known to age past 2000 years. At least this is what most, if not all, reliable sources report.

Wow, guys... get a grip. This is an old, tall tree and the technique and technology behind the photography is amazing. Thanks to the OP for the link!

^^^

WoW! What a TROLL!!

Pssst. Don't feed the Trolls

379.1-foot tree is the Tallest known Redwood Tree in the world. And researchers aren't saying exactly where it's located.

Geez, this thread got ugly, over a beautiful tree.

A ban request has already been sent to the moderator. And let me quickly use the HIDE ME button before Opportunity get's her panties in a bunch and starts talking nonsense again.

Congrats Opportunity. I hope you and Canonical have a happy life together!

Opportunity wrote:
bum,

Your "factoids" and "percentages" are bought fraught with error,which far exceed your comprehension. No doubt that will swell your stupidity,yet those realities are constant.

Funny to me,that you wipe your ass with Old Growth daily,yet are too stupid to know same.





haha. sound argument there. i think you just defeated me.
good job man, good job

kakomu wrote:
skibum5 wrote:
why are you mentioning inland Giant Sequoia's?

I posted a link above to "Coast Redwood" which redirects to "Sequoia". Not sure if it was right or wrong, but the page states that the Sequoia is known as the California Redwood, which is what National Geographic referred to in its article.

you got it right

the other guy is the guy who started babbling about inland Giant Sequoias for no apparent reason.

Going back to the photoraphy... Are those 24 or 35mm primes?

Monty oh Monty!

Somebody left the door open at the local nut house and a lumberjack escaped.

Jim

Apologies to dolina for feeding the troll.
MAY YOUR THREAD BE RESURRECTED,
from the depths of useless OT posts(other than Pixel Perfects)
And Pixel Perfect gets my vote for for best OT post

Pixel Perfect wrote:
All right folks all together now in a loud happy voice:



Oh no, you've done it now, Pixie. As soon as his/her momma wakes him/her up, Spanky will return to have a fling with you.