Sie sind nicht angemeldet · anmelden · benutzerkonto erstellen
 

Diskussion Seite von JeroenZutphen14

Neues Thema hinzufügen

Jüngsten Diskussionen

Mehr...

Nur Diskussionen in deutscher Sprache zeigen
Archiv

Archiv


aljos1, am 2014-04-23 14:23:48, hat gesagt:
This oak has apparently been removed from the list of >9.00 m girth oaks on the www.monumentaltrees.com website, although it still shows up on the map as tree No. 1681 in that size class (red symbol). This is presumably because it is considered multi-stemmed i.e. more than one tree. I have not visited this oak but doubt the validity of this judgement. In England several large oaks have this appearance, it resulted from splitting and subsequent reparation growth (as seen on the left). Is the stem on the right an integer stem grown without former connection to the rest or does it show evidence of connection similar as the stem on the left? What about the section facing the viewer?

This oak needs careful investigation before it is dismissed. I wonder if this has been done and if someone could inform me about it. If it is a single oak tree it is the only one in NL >9.00 m but if more than one tree, it has to come off my list of such oaks in Europe.

Aljos Farjon

Royal Botanic Gardens, Kew

a.farjon@kew.org

Conifers, am 2014-04-23 15:37:59, hat gesagt:
@ Aljos: multi-stemmed does not mean the same as "more than one tree" - it just means that one or more low branches have developed upright, trunk-like characteristics, making the girth measurement much larger than a single unbranched trunk for the same size of tree.

My own guess is that this could be derived from an old coppice stool.

Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-04-23 21:37:43, geändert am 2014-04-23 22:38:52, hat gesagt:
Hi Aljos,

Nice you came aboard at this website, I hope you will take part of the forum from time to time.

I agree with the opinion of Conifers.

The oak of Ruurlo has not been removed from the list, but just is not in the single trunk lists, only in the multitrunk lists wich you can click to from under all single trunk lists.

When you take the list of biggest oaks:http://www.monumentaltrees.com/en/world-quercusrobur/ you can see under the list: show also multistemmed trees; after clicking this link you get a list including the multitrunk trees. At the third page then you will find the oak from Ruurlo.

(or you can take the list trees of the Netherlands: see ttp://www.monumentaltrees.com/nl/nld/ and show or hide the multitrunk trees).

We don't consider this oak as more than one tree in the sense of several different trees planted or growing together from one point. No, we consider it indeed like Çonifers guesses as a coppice stool: it has a common base of only one or two decimeter height from wich originally around eight stems arose. Some of those have died, four large are alive and a small dead one can be seen.

From old photos can be seen that the oak in the early twentieth century was multi trunked. The stems did not result from splitting and subsequent reparation growth. I have seen several of those oaks in England. The photo here above is not very clear, but even the stem at left is not of the type you describe. I have placed some more photos of this oak at MT (as we call Monumental Trees), including some old ones from the beginning of the twentieth century (two of wich also can be seen at my old website:http://www.bomeninfo.nl/berkelland1.htm ).

So the oak is not dismissed as one tree but yes, dismissed as a tree wich has reached its great girth from one stem with one pith of growth. There has always been a lot of air between the trunks wich now together at the smallest point have a circumference of 10,25 metre, but the biggest of the single trunks at 1.3 m height only has a circumference of 4.6 metre.

About big oaks in Europe: you perhaps already have seen that there have been placed many photos / measurements of big oaks of Latvia. Only few have a girth of above 9 m, many are between 6 and 9 m. As can be seen they are mostly maiden trees, rarely they are pollarded oaks like many of the biggest in the UK. This is the same for Poland and Germany. The extreme high number of 9 m + oaks in the UK in part has something to do with the great number of pollarded oaks in the UK.

It should be interesting to count the numbers of maiden as well as pollarded oaks with a girth of over 9 m in the UK as well as all European countries. Better even of all oaks over 6 m in girth.

The maiden oaks wich have lost their haid from storm damage are of course a separate type, but sometimes it will be difficult to see if the tree has been a pollard for most of its life or it was a maiden tree wich lost its crown from relatively recent damage.

Jeroen Philippona

Maarten Windemuller, am 2014-04-24 20:17:59, hat gesagt:
Hei Jeroen,

Nice pictures you added. Is to find out from which year the old foto's are?

Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-04-24 22:49:24, hat gesagt:
Ha Maarten,

The old photos are from around 1920 - 1930, I will look for it.

Jeroen


mrgreen, am 2014-04-22 11:08:55, hat gesagt:
There must be a mistake with the height :)
Conifers, am 2014-04-22 15:41:59, hat gesagt:
Yes, definitely!! Looking at it on google street view, looks to be in the range 16-18 metres tall.
Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-04-22 22:03:20, hat gesagt:
To me on google street view it looks more like 25 metres or a bit higher.
Martin Tijdgat, am 2014-04-22 23:01:02, hat gesagt:
Lionel, jeroen, Conifers and mrgreen,

The tree has a diametre off 28 to 30 meters, if compared to the row off cars on the carpark. I agree with Jeroen that this tree must be around 25 meters tall or about 80 feet as viewed with steetview.

Greetings, Martin

Conifers, am 2014-04-23 15:29:25, hat gesagt:
Not as much as that - look at the building at the left (as google-viewed from N Ross St); blue side doors 2m high; so 3m to tops of orange columns, and 7m total height. Tree is just over 2.5 times higher than the building, i.e., about 18 metres. The crown is 1.6 times as wide as high, i.e., from 18m tall, about 29m diameter, which accords well with Martin's diameter estimate compared to the cars.

Meting linde van Conjoux.
Für jedermann sichtbar · permalink · nl
Wim Brinkerink, am 2014-04-22 20:52:25, hat gesagt:
Ik ben van mijn tripje naar vrienden in Straatsburg teruggekomen en ben langs de linde van Conjoux gereden. Wat een lastige boom om te meten. Ik had het geluk dat voorgangers al getallen hadden toegevoegd. Jeroen Philiponna gooide als laatste toet in het eten door een meting op 1 meter aan te geven, terwijl voorgaanden hadden gemikt op 1.50 m. I kwas dus voorbereid.

Desalniettemin Multi interpretabele uitkomsten. Mijn metingen laat ik in een volgende post zien.


Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-04-22 21:53:52, hat gesagt:
Dag Wim,

In dit geval gooide ik graag roet in het eten. Ik werd overigens vergezeld door een heel team van boomspecialisten als Koen Smets, Ton Stokwielder, Huib Sneep, Just Bleekemolen en Wim Kruik (Koen is medewerker van de Vlaamse overheidsorganisatie die toeziet op het beheer van groen cultureel erfgoed ofwel monumentale bomen, de anderen zijn Nederlandse boomverzorgers). Het is m.i. niet lastig de omtrek van deze linde te meten, de boom heeft tussen de wortelaanzet en de verbreding door de takaanzet een smalste punt (taille) op ± 1 m hoogte.

Indien je de omtrek simpel definieert als die op 1,3 of 1,5 m hoogte, zullen veel mensen die daar meten, maar vrijwel alle bomenmeters, boomregisters en dendrologen die hier precieze afspraken over maken geven de voorkeur aan een taillemeting tussen de bodem en 1,3 of 1,5 m hoogte. Je meet dan alleen op 1,3 of 1,5 m hoogte als dat de smalste omtrek tot die hoogte is. Een enkele figuur meet hogere tailles (bijv. de Duitser Bernd Ullrich van boeken als 'Deutschlands alte Bäume'), maar dat zou bij standaard bosbomen betekenen dat je op vele meters hoogte moet meten.

De meetadviezen die ik op MT heb gezet zijn grotendeels vergelijkbaar met die van de Eastern Native Tree Society (ENTS) uit de VS, al heb ik ook gekeken naar de methodes van de Belgische Dendrologische Vereniging en het Tree Register of the British Isles.

Groeten, Jeroen


Wim Brinkerink, am 2014-04-23 09:10:19, hat gesagt:
Hallo Jeroen,

Ik had moeten zeggen: moeilijk om te bepalen wat 1 meter en wat 1.50 meter is. Er is enig niveauverschil, dus als ik de eerder door jou gemelde regels toepas, kun je niet op 1,50 meter meten. Dan kom je immers op een zware uitlopende tak, die de dikte vertekent. Mijn metingen waren de volgende":

Van de weg af gezien ( de N919 de Grande-Trussogne) heb ik aan de achterkant gemeten. Daar begint op 1, 50 meter vanaf de rechterkant de zware uitloper. Links is de hoogte dan 1.00 meter een verschil dus van 50 cm. Op die plek heb ik 8,81 meter gemeten. De te registreren hoogte is dan 1,25 meter. Dus ik kom niet in de buurt van 1,00 meter van Jeroen en niet op de 1,50 meter van BELTREES en TIM. Ik heb toen de meting 25 cm laten zakken en dan kom ik wel op de 1 meter van Jeroen. Daar heb ik 8,66 meter gemeten.

Dus zou ik als meetresultaten moeten opvoeren 1.30 m 8,86 meter en op 1 meter 8,66.



RedRob, am 2014-04-17 17:27:29, hat gesagt:
Hope to have abit of help with 100% verification for this tree. Emailed Duncombe to ask them to confirm but no reply.

Photo 4, a 32 metre Beech had fallen over winter plus a smaller Sycamore and opened up a window to see this tree. Photo 1, the three tall trees in the centre, the one on the right was definitely Oak when I measured it at 34.6 metres last year. I couldn't see the bases of the other two to hit them with the laser. I think that they were Oak, took photos of the ground underneath and Oak and Beech leaves but I amjust not 100% sure as the Oak and Ash bark patterns on trees on this estate are quite if very similar. I stood 48.2 metres below the right branch tip of this tree doing a horizontal measurement. The laser measured 40.8-41.2 metres for the vertical separation between the tree base and tip. I did over 30 measurements to just make sure that I was not getting deflection, mis-readings from any stray closer twigs between the laser and tree base but got measurements in this range consistantly. No leaves on trees and difficult to get a hit on the tallest twig, right one which was the highest, so if anything it may be abit more than 41.2 metres but I will go with 41 metres.

Are these photos good enough to confirm 100% that this is Oak, the twigs were so high up?

The 32 metre fallen Beech in the photo, the tree just above it is the 36.2 metre Ash, the two Beeches just up to it's right, the front one in 40 metres, very lucky that some of these didn't fall. It is very sheltered from the SW wind at the bottom of this escarpment, surprising that this has fallen (and several other Beeches and what looks like a big Sycamore on the escarpment), there must have been a whirlwind or vortex or something?


Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-04-17 22:04:20, hat gesagt:
Hi Rob,

Better buy a looking glass for identification of high branches. Soon there will be leaves, so identification will be easy. Branch pattern of common oak and ash is very different, so should not be a problem.

A height of 41 m is not amazing for an oak at such a sheltered location, but oak, beech, ash and lime all four can grow to such heights. In Bialowieza there are many pedunculate oaks of 40 to 41 m and some of around 42 m with one over 43 m as heighest measured. This is at a site with rather dry climate and cold winters. There is of cours much less wind in such a far inland location compared to Yorkshire. The very tall sessile oaks in some forests in France are on very favorable sites but perhaps these trees also are genetically of a special quality.

Jeroen


RedRob, am 2014-04-18 16:25:51, hat gesagt:
Hello Jeroen, I corrected the map co-ordinates on Google and that of the 36 metre Ash near it, the crowns on the two trees do not look the same and this tree looks the same as the definite 34.6 metre Oak in front of it, I am 99% sure it is Oak. Even through the laser rangefinder I was still not 100% sure but the leaves on the floor below were Oak and Beech. Oak, Quercus Robur or Ash, it is a Britain and Ireland champion for height.

RedRob, am 2014-04-19 16:38:41, hat gesagt:
I have added an up trunk photo of this 41 metre tree, does this help to identify?

Gemeine Esche (Fraxinus excelsior) '12653' It has flummoxed me, the bark looks Ash as here with this definite tree (click on all four photos to see added up trunk view) but it also looks exactly like the Oaks on the estate.


Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-04-20 13:02:25, geändert am 2014-04-20 13:16:05, hat gesagt:
The bark pattern of the ash is typically for that species. It differs form most oaks in being more regular, less deep furrowed, less rough looking. The bark patter of the supposed 41 m oak indeed looks more like oak than ash to me. Also the branch pattern looks much more like oak. Ash has rather coarse, thick twigs, pedunculate ans sessile oak normaly have finer but more winding / irregular branches.

Something related: recently the American tree expert Bart Bouricius found a new world height record for Quercus: last week he measured an oak high in the mountains of Costa Rica if the species Quercus bumelioides with a height of 60.4 m (198 feet)! The CBH over buttresses is 14.2 m (46'5") but above the buttresses at 4.3 m (14') height the girth is 5.8 m (18'9").

The oak is proparly called "Grandfather Oak".

There is reported an even taller and larger oak in the region he wants to visit soon.

There were already reported oaks of 50 to 60 m from these forests, but now this has been proven by a laser measurement!

So the height of this subtropical oak is over 11 m taller than any oak accurate measured in Europe or the USA, were the records stay below 49 m till now.

There are reported (but not proven) Quercus trees also of 60 m from Asia and of 50 m from Iran.

Here is a link to the report:http://www.ents-bbs.org/viewtopic.php?f=93&t=6256 .



TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, am 2013-11-15 17:55:00, hat gesagt:
The historic heights for this tree seem to show the limitations of both hypsometers and lasers. 33m is optimistic, aiming at branches which are arching slightly towards the observer. 27m is much too low, due to the laser hitting low twigs on the near side (the top of a tree with a crown as rounded as this is completely hidden, even from a distance, in summer. Having measured it several times (with hypsometer) before it leafs out, I'm going to plump for 30.8m - though I can't really claim that degree of accuracy.
Jeroen Philippona, am 2013-11-16 00:43:03, geändert am 2013-11-16 00:46:48, hat gesagt:
Yes, I think with 31 m you are near the true height of this tree. My 33 m measurement in 2007 with Suunto clinometer was not very accurate. Owen, you should add your 30.8 m measurement also in the system with the right date.

When you visit Kew next time you could measure it again with laser. I also think Wim B. did not hit the tallest branches.

Wim Brinkerink, am 2013-11-16 15:02:11, hat gesagt:
What both of you are saying might well be true. It's not always easy to find the highest one and a mistake is easily made.
krossdal1, am 2014-03-30 10:43:24, hat gesagt:
great tree
RedRob, am 2014-04-17 16:07:40, hat gesagt:
Wouldn't an answer for this tree be to email Kew and ask them to meet you with one of those hydraulic extendable things which men stand in to get up to the crowns of trees to prune? It would give you a view over the top of the crown more and down to the base, that said some of the branches look low and could obscure the view of the laser from some windows.
Conifers, am 2014-04-17 19:14:24, hat gesagt:
That sounds a good idea, offer them £1000 for the costs of using it, and I'm sure they'd do it ;-))
Wim Brinkerink, am 2014-04-17 19:17:58, hat gesagt:
One mistake I made before 2014 is that I didn't add my own length to the measurement. So my measurement must at least be heightened with 1.80 meters.
RedRob, am 2014-04-18 16:30:00, hat gesagt:
I regularly enjoy a walk around the Fountains Abbey estate and the National Trust often have their hydraulic container mounted on the back of a Land Rover out and pruning trees, I imagine that Kew will have something similar. Shouldn't be a difficult job to email them to ask when they might be doing some pruning in that area. If it is to confirm a champion tree they possibly would be quite obliging.
Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-04-18 20:57:31, hat gesagt:
I am sure that it is not that difficult to measure the height of this tree, you just have to get far enough to see the real top: from the north there is an open view from over 100 m to the tree, the top can be seen easily from there.

Sessile oak in Knole Park, Sevenoaks
Für jedermann sichtbar · permalink · en
Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-04-03 20:06:36, hat gesagt:
Hi Owen,

Nice you confirmed it to be 41 m! I visited Knole with Tim Bekaert in April 2007 and was a bit frustrated I did not know where this tree stood so that I did not find it.

Did you remeasure the girth also?

Regards, Jeroen


Tim B, am 2014-04-04 06:58:54, hat gesagt:
Yes indeed, I remember very well. I looked on the map where the tree stands, and reconstructed our walk in 2007: luckily for us now, Jeroen, we did not walk very close to the tree and missed it.

Kind regards,

Tim


TheTreeRegisterOwenJohnson, am 2014-04-06 16:37:10, hat gesagt:
I've now heard that the tree was climbed by Waldo Etherington last year at 38.7m, which is much closer to my hypsometer estimates, so this time the laser height is probably not accurate. I could only record 41m from one direction - the rest of the time I was getting around 39m but felt I was only hitting near shoots on the side of the crown. It is a difficult tree to record because of the broad, even dome, and I doubt if Waldo's team got to the very highest shoots.

RedRob, am 2014-04-17 15:56:41, hat gesagt:
This is a superb tree, is there any visible wind shear on it Owen, was the higher reading looking at the tree from the north east side? With a big crown like this, it must be a real decision for a climber to decide which is the tallest shoot sticking up, how would they have decided which one to choose?

RedRob, am 2014-04-17 15:56:57, hat gesagt:
This is a superb tree, is there any visible wind shear on it Owen, was the higher reading looking at the tree from the north east side? With a big crown like this, it must be a real decision for a climber to decide which is the tallest shoot sticking up, how would they have decided which one to choose?


Winter storm damage.
Für jedermann sichtbar · permalink · en
RedRob, am 2014-04-15 17:17:30, hat gesagt:
How has everyone faired with damage from the winter storms? Quite alot of my own to report, alot of damage, fallen and shattered trees up here.

Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-04-15 21:21:32, hat gesagt:
In the NW of the Netherlands there was a lot of storm damage in November and December, in Amsterdam a lot of trees in the old city fell over. In the region where I live in the east there was little storm damage this winter. The winter here was a lot dryer and with less wind compared to most of the UK. January to March were very warm and dry.

Jeroen


Martin Tijdgat, am 2014-04-16 00:57:40, hat gesagt:
RedRob and Jeroen,

From the 10.000 trees I take care off in my area (Wijdemeren next to Hilversum) there were 45 storm victims after october 28 2013. 10 birch in one street, 7 young Liquidambar, 5 young Pterocarya stenoptera, and only a few 60 year old trees as oak, Groeneveld-iep, aspen, London plane, willow and lime.

We have already replanted 19 trees like 4 Ostrya carpinifolia, Ulmus 'Frontier', 3-stemmed Parrotia persica, Ginkgo biloba 'Saratoga', Acer platanoides 'Eurostar' Acer rubrum 'Karpick', Ulmus 'Dodoens'. I have to find room for 11 other trees to keep in line with our 60% replant in the local tree policy paper.

Martin


RedRob, am 2014-04-17 15:51:19, hat gesagt:
When you watch the BBC weather forecasts, a great deal of the time with the depressions you can see the tight isobars over us even down to the channel and then open isobars sometimes none over France, Germany, even the low countries as you say, amazing what a few miles difference makes southern England over to the continent.


Beuk op de Burcht in Leiden
Für jedermann sichtbar · permalink · nl
Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-04-06 20:16:29, geändert am 2014-04-08 19:44:49, hat gesagt:
Hoi Wim,

Kun je de leeftijd van deze beuk onderbouwen? Volgens jouw melding de oudste beuk in Nederland die op MT is vermeld en ouder dan de oudste beuk die we in het boek Bijzondere bomen in Nederland hebben gemeld, die uit Haastrecht van 1694.

Dat het park in 1651 is aangelegd zegt weinig over het plantjaar van de beuk, wellicht heb je meer specifieke informatie.

Zo ook is de leeftijd van ± 314 jaar van de beuk van Oegstgeest bepaald niet zeker. Van de beuk in Haastrecht zijn er in ieder geval documenten betreffende de aanplant ter gelegenheid van de geboorte van een kind van de toenmalige eigenaar, zie het artikel in Bijzondere Bomen.

Frank Moens meldt in dat boek voor de beuk in Oegstgeest 1860 - 1870 als plantperiode, ook dat onderbouwt hij niet, maar het vermoeden van de eigenaar van 300 jaar moet op meer gebaseerd zijn om het als feit te accepteren.

Groeten, Jeroen


Wim Brinkerink, am 2014-04-07 07:34:18, hat gesagt:
Hallo Jeroen,

Ik zal uitzoeken op grond waarvan ik die leeftijd heb toegevoegd. .

Tussendoor een vraag. Normaal krijg vragen ook via mijn mail door. Deze vraag kwam ik toevallig tegen omdat ik op de hoofdpagina langs de nieuwe posts scrolde en jouw vraag tegenkwam. Snap jij het, weet je er iets meer van?.

NB. De eerste keer ( 5 minuten geleden) dat ik deze vraag probeerde te beantwoorden kreeg ik de melding dat er geen verbinding met monumentaltrees.com gemaakt kon worden. Nou gebeurt dit laatste wel vaker, maar in dit geval waard om bij stil te staan, terwijl ook mijn tekst verdwenen was.

Groet

Wim


Wim Brinkerink, am 2014-04-07 09:19:47, hat gesagt:
Hallo Jeroen,

Ik heb me gebaseerd op het feit dat de Burcht in 1150 is aangelegd en dat het stadsbestuur hem heeft aangekocht en er in 1651 een stadspark van heeft gemaakt. Gezien de plek van de boom en het feit dat deze zo hoog boven het maaiveld stond, vond ik het niet onlogisch dat de boom er al vanaf het begin heeft gestaan. De vertakking van de wortels lijkt daar ook op te duiden. Jij vindt dat dus niet aannemelijk?

Groet

Wim


Conifers, am 2014-04-07 11:30:56, geändert am 2014-04-07 12:04:23, hat gesagt:
I agree with Jeroen, this tree is not so old. First, Fagus sylvatica is not a long-lived tree; specimens over 250 years old are very exceptional (and usually only found at high altitude where growth is slower), and even trees >200 years are rare. Second, the cultivar 'Atropunicea' was only described in 1770; there are no records of any purple-leaf Fagus sylvatica cultivars until 1680 (when one was reported at Buchs, Zurich, Switzerland).

It should be possible to find historical evidence for planting dates, or old illustrations with useful information. In a quick look, I found this 1742 drawing showing newly planted trees where this tree is now, but whether it is one of these is not certain (if it is, it would be the middle right tree in the set of nine). However, I suspect even ~1740 is too old for this tree; my guess for its planting date would be around 1800. Can anyone estimate a date for this undated drawing, where the tree is not present?

Edit: I asked someone with experience of historical clothing fashions; he dated the undated drawing as later 18th century, 1750-1800, and definitely later than the 1742 drawing. So the young trees in the 1742 drawing had been removed and replaced with a parterre garden, and cannot include the beech in question.


Wim Brinkerink, am 2014-04-07 15:43:27, hat gesagt:
Hi Conifers,

A

I started to try and find an answer to your question about the age of the drawing. It's not that simple. I think I'll go to the archives this week. And thanks for your research.

Greetings

WIm


KoutaR, am 2014-04-08 10:28:33, hat gesagt:
Fagus sylvatica is not a long-lived tree; specimens over 250 years old are very exceptional (and usually only found at high altitude where growth is slower), and even trees >200 years are rare.

Hi Conifers,

I guess you slightly under-estimate the longevity of beech. At least in Central Europe, it regularly reaches 300 years in the few remaining old-growth forest remnants, also at low elevations. Or maybe you mean that specimens over 250 years are very exceptional because there is so little old forest left?

Kouta


Conifers, am 2014-04-08 18:15:41, hat gesagt:
Hi Kouta,

Thanks for the extra details! Although I had not known about these older trees in natural forest conditions, it does not surprise me, as they will spend a long period growing slowly in the understorey before reaching maturity (same applies to e.g. Abies, which I did know about). That won't apply in the present case of a planted tree, of course.


Rayn, am 2014-04-08 18:57:58, hat gesagt:
I know of one beech in that grew naturally to over 400 years:http://www.dendrochronology.se/res/pdf_s/niklassonfritz2003.pdf

Girth was only 232 cm.

"In 2001 an extraordinary old (Fagus Sylvatica) was found in a beech forest at the Mårås nature reserve. The tree died in 2002. A sample from about 50 cm off the ground contained 397 annual rings. Normally the beech in that area needs between three and ten years to reach that height. The tree was therefore at least 400 years and is the oldest dated individual so far in Northern Europe. Slow growth during most of it's life is like to have contributed to it's high age by keeping it's dimensions down. The tree showed no signs of having been pollarded"

There is one heavily trimmed beech in Epping Forest in England mentioned in that pdf that is said to be between 500 to 1000 years, is that tree on this site?



Frank Gyssling, am 2014-04-03 09:21:51, hat gesagt:
Hier hat sich wieder mein "Abwerter" gemeldet.

Das ist ein historisch bedeutsamer Baum an historischer Stääte, gepflanzt anlässlich der Vereinigung Deutschlands! (siehe Kommentar zum Herbst-Foto).

Frank Gyssling, am 2014-04-03 09:33:06, hat gesagt:
Ich bin gespannt ob sich der Erstbewerter einmal meldet und seine Note kommentiert.
Wim Brinkerink, am 2014-04-03 12:04:05, geändert am 2014-04-03 12:47:20, hat gesagt:
Hi Frank, This time I agree with the rating, allthough I myself will not rate it. My preference is nice and beautiful trees of some monumentality.For me the picture is the most important and not the height of a tree or whatever record might be broken.

I like your picture but I think the composition could be better. In my opinion the tree should be dominant and to be seen completely. This composition gives too much weight to the bridge as if that is the object of intrest. I like the idea of the bridge in the background, but it should be less dominant. So I wouldnt rate above 3 and than I do not rate it, Unless it has an average score of above 4,25.

Wim Brinkerink

Frank Gyssling, am 2014-04-03 15:01:02, hat gesagt:
Tank you for your friendly opinion.

best wishes frank

Martin Tijdgat, am 2014-04-03 23:47:12, hat gesagt:
Hai Frank,

I did rate this picture first. My comment is almost the same as Wim wrote as a comment. I think the tree should be more dominant in this picture and more complete to rate it higher than I did. I do rate a lot of pictures in MT in this way. I also try to rate the photo's for their technical skils

Greetings, Martin Tijdgat

KoutaR, am 2014-04-04 12:20:08, hat gesagt:
Hello Frank,

Die Komposition ist super, wie in deinen Fotos immer, aber da MT eine Baumseite ist, könnte der Baum wirklich ein Bisschen mehr Gewicht haben.

Frank Gyssling, am 2014-04-04 17:09:21, hat gesagt:
Ja, da hast du prizipiell recht. Aber ich wollte der weltbekannten Glienicker Brücke, welche als Pflanzort hier bewust anlässlich des Falls des "Eisernen Vorhangs" gewählt wurde etwas Raum geben. Das können naturgemäß wir Deutsche besonders gut verstehen. Ich bin direkt an dieser furchbaren Grenze aufgewachsen. Insbesondere dieser Baum hat für uns einen hohen symbolischen Wert und ich hoffe sehr, er wird reletiv alt und mahnt uns immer Diktaturen ernergisch zu begegnen.

Vergleichbar wäre ev. dieser noch so junge Baum mit den vielen "Kaiser- od. Königs-Eichen bzw. -Linden die wir nicht nur in Deutschland kennen.

viele Grüße Frank

Conifers, am 2014-04-04 21:44:53, hat gesagt:
What I find odd with this tree is the choice of species, a very short-lived one, to commemorate such a momentous event of history. Sadly, the tree will likely be dead while there are still people alive who remember the event. I saw it was a gift from Japan, maybe a long-lived species like Sugi (Cryptomeria japonica) or Keaki (Zelkova serrata) would have been a better choice?

The photo composition (unless truly dreadful!) doesn't matter to me in giving a rating, this is after all a site about monumental trees, not monumental photographs. It is a nice pic for balance of subjects (though a bit over-saturated*), but what matters to me in rating is the monumentality of the tree itself.

* (something I've noticed with many of Frank's photos, perhaps the camera settings need adjusting slightly so as to reflect actual colours better?)

KoutaR, am 2014-04-05 11:18:46, hat gesagt:
About the saturations: I think it's only that tastes differ. What someone regards as over-saturated, is a stunning photo to another. And what is natural for the first person, is boring to the second.
Frank Gyssling, am 2014-04-05 13:01:06, hat gesagt:
KautaR,

I wish a little more tolerance of conifers to other opininons and a correspeonding rating. He always finds something to criticize. He should better more owne trees present of MT.

Greetings Frank

Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-04-05 23:40:51, geändert am 2014-04-06 12:19:20, hat gesagt:
It seems that several of the frequent users of this website still have completely different opinions about what is important at the website, what are beautiful or important trees and what are beautiful or good photographs.

The same discussions can be seen many times again but there seems to be little understanding of each other.

I like to repeat that Tim Bekaert did start the photo-rating system to rate the quality of the photos, just to get a good order in the photos of one tree so that the heighest rated photos would be on top and seen first.

Alas mr. Conifers has never understood this and still likes to give ratings of the monumentality of the trees themselves, wich never was the meaning of the system. The monumentality, importance or beauty of a tree is rather subjective and I don't like to make ratings of them. Everybody can have his own preference and it is clear that those differ a lot among the users.

Concerning the photograph by Frank of the Sargentkerselaar at Glienicker Brücke: to my opinion it is a very beautiful photo of an important subject. Indeed also a photo of the whole tree would be nice.

Regards,

Jeroen Philippona


Beuk op het landgoed Elswout, Overveen
Für jedermann sichtbar · permalink · nl
Jeroen Philippona, am 2014-03-30 21:19:58, hat gesagt:
Hallo Henk,

Deze beuk is dezelfde als nr 1894, die Leo Goudzwaard eerder op MT zette. Het beste kun je jouw foto's toevoegen aan zijn pagina.

Groeten, Jeroen



Mehr...

 

Hauptseite · Zum Seitenanfang · Teilen/Sichern

© MonumentalTrees.com · Disclaimer · auch in · Castellano · English · Français · Nederlands · übersetzen?