I'm guessing it's photoshopped, or otherwise not real. Why? because looking at the cut… it would take a 30 foot chainsaw to make that cut. Also the large splinter hanging on the side, by the cable. Seems a splinter that big would have fallen off. But I could be wrong. What say you?
I don't see any other trees like this in the forrest behind the log. There are trees that large but there is not just one tree in a forest of smaller trees. It would be nice to see a closer view of the growth rings to see if they were 2 feet wide. I cut a 37 inch diasmeter oak tree. The log I wanted to move was about 10 feet long. It was estimated (with a chart for this type of thing) to be about 5,000 pounds. This log would weigh a hundred tons.
Depending where the photo was taken Ted. If in the USA I would say it was photoshopped but it could possibly be one of our Australian Red Gums so it would be a real fair dinkum photo. By the way this would be one of
the SMALLER Murray Red Gum trunks maybe 4-500 years old. Makes damn good fire wood.
Maybe not photo-shopped. Ever hear of Forced perspective. The log is real close to the camera, note the crane BESIDE it. That truck is a long way off. I'll bet the logs on that truck are the same size as the one hanging there.
I gotta agree with you, Bandit. I was thinking not force perspective because the top of the truck racks seem to be in front of the log. But then I looked closer and I think they are behind the log. I think it's not photoshopped but force perspective, as you say.
This is an older thread, you may not receive a response, and could
be reviving an old thread. Please consider creating a new thread.
LumberJocks Woodworking Forum
A forum community dedicated to professional woodworkers and enthusiasts. Come join the discussion about shop safety, wood, carpentry, lumber, finishing, tools, machinery, woodworking related topics, styles, scales, reviews, accessories, classifieds, and more!