File talk:Logging oregon.jpg

From Wikimedia Commons, the free media repository
Jump to navigation Jump to search

This image originated from en.wikipedia.org. List of contributors:

Original title:

  • Loggers.jpeg

Upload log:

  • (del) (cur) 20:01, 11 February 2004 . . Hephaestos (Talk | contribs) . . 250×357 (15,812 bytes) (Loggers on break, c. 1910)

Text:

{{NowCommons|Image:Logging oregon.jpg}} Loggers on break, c. 1910 Loggers in [[Oregon]], between 1905 and 1910. Photograph from the Bureau of Land Management website [--www.blm.gov/education/00_resources/articles/green_mansions/article.html] via the Oregon Historical Society. Public domain. {{PD}}

Poccil 02:39, 7 September 2006 (UTC)[reply]

Discussion

[edit]

Montaged image of logging, showing grossly exaggerated size of a tree (or versa, three dwarf lumberjacks). Particularly, if men are of a normal tall, then steel(?) bars under them have to be at least 7 cm thick – could they operate those bars? Evidences of a montage or physical implausibility are annotated. (Incnis Mrsi 12:52, 6 November 2012‎)

The tree is actually 6 feet (1.9 meters) in diameter and neither the tree nor the loggers are exaggerated. They are standing in thick wooden boards called spring boards that are fitted with a small steel tip that bites into a notch cut in the tree. This tree is actually a medium sized specimen of Douglas Fir (scientific name Pseudotsuga menziesii). The species is well documented to reach diameters of over 15 feet (4.5 meters) and heights of over 330feet (100 meters). The lighting in the photo appears unusual because it was photographed with a monochromatic glass plate. These plates render colors much different than modern polychromatic film. Is phot is very similar to hundreds of photos producd by Darius Kinsey, who was a photographer in the region just after 1900. (Lylemcglothlin, 01:31, 20 July 2013‎)
(N.B.: The above discussion was moved to here from the main description page.) Please see also Commons:Village pump#File:Logging oregon.jpg: an expert on ancient photography needed. -- Asclepias (talk) 02:59, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
I agree with Lylemcglothlin. This is a subject with which I'm familiar. My father felled trees in this manner about 1930. I'm reminded of Darius Kinsey's work also. I don't have an explanation for the "lighting" artifacts, but such artifacts are not uncommon in photos from the era. The bottle contains oil used to lubricate the saw. It was hung via a steel hook attached to its neck. Only Pseudotsuga menziesii has the thick, deeply furrowed bark, of this individual, in Washington or Oregon. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 03:36, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Okay, the problem with a bottle vanishes (BTW there is yet another black bottle above the left man). What is the point? I do not refute that the tree with a damage from the saw, two “spring boards”, an inserted axe, and probably also bottles was genuinely photographed. I claim that three men were photomontaged. What is about “thick wooden boards called spring boards that are fitted with a small steel tip that bites into a notch cut in the tree” needs an expertise in logging: if usage of 7 cm thick “spring boards” will be confirmed, then this point becomes invalid. One who claims that there was no montage still has to explain:

  • Two instances of incompatible lighting;
  • Unexplained rectangular artefacts (BTW yet another one above the men exists);
  • A man with his hands in pockets standing on an apparently inconvenient footing (to me, it is obvious that a montage of a man who touches the trunk would be much more complicated that what we currently see).

Also, I do not understand from which data user:Lylemcglothlin computed the diameter of 6 feet (1.9 meters). From the assumed tall of the men? Are sizes of some other items known well? Incnis Mrsi (talk) 07:22, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

What you annotated as "light bars" and "artefacts" are portions of the big letter H watermak that the Oregon Historical Society places on its reproductions. The watermark is very subtle on this particular photo but you can see it when you know where to look. I suggest you take a look at the other photos on the OHS website to see the shape of that H and its position on the photos. Then come back to this photo and you should see it. Your upper horizontal "light bar - obvious montage artefact" annotation shows the middle horizontal bar of the H watermark. Your lower horizontal "light bar - obvious montage artefact" annotation shows the large speading feet of the H watermark. Your vertical "montage artefact" annotation shows a part of the left side of the H watermark.
The more I look at the photo, the more I become convinced that there is no major problem with it. The relative sizes of trees and men are fine. Some of those those trees had that size (until the logging companies practically cut them all), as can be seen on many other photos of that era. Your arguments are about small details. Those details are actually interesting for a discussion, to learn about the logging practices of the early 20th century, but before claiming that this photo is a montage, one should ask why would the Oregon Historical Society, who says it has the negative of this photo, decide to lie to the public with a fake photo?
I don't understand what problem you are trying to invent about the thickness of the springboards. Your annotation links to another photo showing a springboard that you say you estimate 4cm thick. What are you trying to say? That there was some 1905 logging code requiring that all springboards have the same thickness and forbidding springboards thicker than exactly 4cm? I would think that springboards were just fine as long as they fulfilled their mission of solidly holding the workers standing on them. Besides, the springboard on the other photo is seen perpendicularly, whereas on this photo the springboard is seen at a small angle from above (the camera was apparently placed at the level of the man in the middle), showing not only its thickness but also some of its width.
Basically, you're left with speculating that if it were your first day in a logging camp and you were standing on a springboard for the first time in your life, then you would choose to place your hands differently while posing for the photographer. But those lumberjacks spent their days on those springboards while working their axes with both hands. Surely they got used to stand and work there without need to hold on to the trees. Granted, the man on the left looks dressed like an administrator of the camp or a visitor, but it's likely not his first time there and anyway once he is solidly installed on the board, he can well place his hands where he pleases.
-- Asclepias (talk) 14:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Okay, a springboard is roughly 7 cm thick or even less because of a perspective. It is plausible, although I’d compare it with more such photos. But what about light? Why the shadow from the axe does not match neither the shadow on a hat nor a brightly illuminated man’s arm on the opposite side of the picture? If the sun is in a position to produce the axe’s shadow as it is represented, then the far side of the arm must certainly be obscured, by the arm itself. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 16:57, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
If you have spotted the big H-shaped watermark by now, you can see that the width of the right arm of the H covers the area from the middle of the hat to the right side of the bottle. Note that the line of left edge of that part of the watermark passes exactly where you spot the potential problem with the shadow of the hat. The watermark probably makes the right part of the shadow look brighter that it should and by contrast it makes the unaffected left part of the shadow of the hat look darker than the right side in comparison. I don't see any obvious problem with the lighting. The sunlight comes mostly from above with a small angle from the left. The curve of the trunk may make comparisons of the shadows difficult from one spot to another. I think all your questions were valid and very interesting to discuss, but honestly, I think you are now reduced to pursuing shadows to continue to defend the idea of a montage. :) -- Asclepias (talk) 17:40, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
You admit “a small angle from the left”, say, not less that 10°. It means that the right contour of the arm (I speak about the rightmost man) cannot be illuminated by a direct sunlight. All its possible illumination is a scattered light only. Even if it does not make it black, it must be very far from a full white pictured, in any case. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 18:20, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
The focal length is rather short given the apparent height disparity of the two men on springboards. A en:flash-lamp, located to the right of the camera, may have been used to fill in shadows and illuminate the right side of the man with the axe. --Walter Siegmund (talk) 21:52, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
An interesting thought… I even see the shadow behind the right man consistent with this theory. It is astonishing that I did not think about it. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]
Incnis Mrsi argued that the size of the tree is "grossly exaggerated" (see above). Based on the likely height of the men, 5.5 to 6 feet, the tree is perhaps 6 to 8 feet in diameter. It doesn't matter if this estimate is a bit off; "diameters up to 4.5–6 metres (15–20 ft) have been documented" (en:Pseudotsuga menziesii). The size of the tree is well within the range for the species. Regarding the pose of the man on the left: "Loggers made only one clear concession to safety in the slippery wetness of the rainforest: hobnailed boots to prevent slipping off their springboards."[1] --Walter Siegmund (talk) 15:54, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

I withdraw my montage claim. Thanks for your attention. Incnis Mrsi (talk) 02:48, 28 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]

Annotations

[edit]

There seems to be two annotations on the photograph. One is "JF Ford", near the bottom right. There seems to be another one under the man on the right. Something looking like "fir diameter"? Can anyone read it? -- Asclepias (talk) 03:38, 27 July 2013 (UTC)[reply]


As a long term serial photoshopper (since mid the 90's), I'm curious about this image. There are anomalies relating to the guy in the dark suit, I can't be certain, not at this resolution, but it's possible the suit guy has had work done, he may have been modified, 'enhanced', let in, or maybe there's been some repair work/restoration. Take a look at the bottle hanging on the tree beside the suit guy, look at the bottom of it. Notice there is a line of abrupt tonal change running at a slight angle which passes just bellow this guy's left eye (his left) and thorough the guys right eye (his right). There is a less noticeable second line of abrupt tonal change running parallel, making this a band of lighter tones. Extending out from the lower edge of his jacket on his right is horizontal line of abrupt tonal change running for perhaps 50cm (in his scale) where this ends, there is what appears to be a vertical line of abrupt tonal change running up to an area that appear confused at this resolution. Finally the watermark is a capital letter H, in a serif type face (the word 'font' is incorrect for this usage) the shape of the serif is that it curves out from the ascender (vertical line), this transitions into a slope, which transitions into radius to a sharp corner with the flat bottom of the serif. The capital letter H has 3 identical, symmetrical serifs, however the lower left serif is a triangular shape where it intersects with the suit guy's pants, between his ankle and knee. There is not enough detail in this image to be absolutely sure this region has been 'shopped, but there is enough for me to be able to say... I can't be confident that it has not been. (Anon - and yes, I really do know what I'm talking about.)

Retrieved from "https://commons.wikimedia.org/w/index.php?title=File_talk:Logging_oregon.jpg&oldid=113042923"