Is taking a picture of a single tree a requirement of being a photographer (Page 14): I have heard it said that a good photo should tell a story. This photo of germinating Ponderosa...

Jim Brown Loc: Skagit County, WA

I have heard it said that a good photo should tell a story. This photo of germinating Ponderosa Pine tells a story of potential. These trees can live for hundreds of years providing wildlife habitat, shade, sequester tons of atmospheric carbon and produce countless progeny using locally sourced water and nutrients all with solar power. That kind of story is worth endless photo ops.

SuperflyTNT Loc: Manassas VA

Jim Brown wrote:

I have heard it said that a good photo should tell a story. This photo of germinating Ponderosa Pine tells a story of potential. These trees can live for hundreds of years providing wildlife habitat, shade, sequester tons of atmospheric carbon and produce countless progeny using locally sourced water and nutrients all with solar power. That kind of story is worth endless photo ops.

I dunno. I think the OP is gonna be upset that you explained it. Plus it’s not a single tree. 😜🤪

aellman Loc: Boston MA

grandpaw wrote:

I follow and watch a lot of photography videos and I am wondering a what point does taking a photo of an individual tree become a requirement. A lot of photographers seem to do this. It really hasn't appealed to me, is there something I am missing? They seem to go on and on about the composition and how beautiful the scene of the single tree is. I don't get it! What am I missing???

I don't think there's any magic to it. Some people can make images of a single tree which a lot of viewers seem to like. Personally, I don't indulge.

TomKat Loc: Not here

The heartbeat of a backyard..

Trees have a heart too.
Trees have a heart too....

(Download)

User ID

TonyL wrote:

Perhaps you need to be more mindful. Is it the whole tree in the landscape or are you looking for the small things such as texture, foliage etc? At one time I would look at a location and think there was nothing to take, then I learned to look for the smaller things, perhaps the eye-catching or just plain quirky - whatever. It takes application and thought but it's worth trying!

Ok. So you learned that on second look you could possibly find something. Next evolutionary step is that if you take a serious third look you find that back at second look you were all too often just forcing the issue. Acoarst then there’s always that fourth look, etc etc !

FotoHog Loc: on Cloud 9

User ID wrote:

Ok. So you learned that on second look you could possibly find something. Next evolutionary step is that if you take a serious third look you find that back at second look you were all too often just forcing the issue. Acoarst then there’s always that fourth look, etc etc !

That's right. Let's not overlook anything! . . .

User ID

aellman wrote:

I don't think there's any magic to it. Some people can make images of a single tree which a lot of viewers seem to like. Personally, I don't indulge.

Yup. If it doesn’t grab YOU then there’s no reason. You yourself are the most important audience.

Many images that I see loudly tell me the “secret” of their well executed mediocrity: The author was not really moved but the author is self schooled in recognizing what is supposed to be able to move others. The results of that are, at best, “nice, but uninspired”. “Nice” is just like standing with one foot mired in borrrrrring and the other foot on a rattlesnake.

User ID

Smithyb wrote:

In 2014-15 I drove from San Francisco to New York City and back taking photos of trees along the way. After, I had a show of about 30 of the trees along with their stories. One had assisted in a hanging, two were famous oaks (Austin, TX and Auburn, AL) that had been poisoned—both perpetrators went to jail. There are other stories these trees tell.

I suppose that qualifies as documentary.

Beenthere

grandpaw wrote:

I follow and watch a lot of photography videos and I am wondering a what point does taking a photo of an individual tree become a requirement. A lot of photographers seem to do this. It really hasn't appealed to me, is there something I am missing? They seem to go on and on about the composition and how beautiful the scene of the single tree is. I don't get it! What am I missing???

It's not a requirement, but a budding photographer, in his early quest for subject matter, will eventually encounter "his tree". There is nothing like a lone tree in a vast rolling landscape of just about nothing. If you can get it with a great sunset, or cloud formation etc., it will be even better. I found my "Tree"somewhere along AZ 89A heading for the access road to the north rim of Grand Canyon. I was with a friend from South Africa and mentioned that it struck me as a scene you'd more likely see in her country. She didn't get it either until I showed it to her out of context. It became "Our Tree". Bottom line: You won't know if you're missing something until you run into your own tree. Happy shooting.

Charlie157 Loc: San Diego, CA

grandpaw wrote:

I follow and watch a lot of photography videos and I am wondering a what point does taking a photo of an individual tree become a requirement. A lot of photographers seem to do this. It really hasn't appealed to me, is there something I am missing?

My High School classmate was accepted to Brooks in the mid 60's. He related to us that on the first day the prof.
walked into class, opened a door and told the class to take a picture of it and left.

Maybe it's a way to force the student to explore the many ways one can see an image and depict it. Just my guess.

Ralanco19

“Leaf“ it to them then? 🙄

User ID

From mighty oak trees little acorns grow.

FotoHog Loc: on Cloud 9

User ID wrote:

From mighty oak trees little acorns grow.

And vis a vis ! . .

RodeoMan Loc: St Joseph, Missouri

Charlie157 wrote:

My High School classmate was accepted to Brooks in the mid 60's. He related to us that on the first day the prof.
walked into class, opened a door and told the class to take a picture of it and left.

Maybe it's a way to force the student to explore the many ways one can see an image and depict it. Just my guess.

I'd be thinking "Is this what I paid my money for"?

Greenhi

There is just something moving to me about the nature of individual trees. It is certainly not a requirement.