Is taking a picture of a single tree a requirement of being a photographer (Page 9): If you have time go back and read my post on page seven. I am not against taking photos of trees, I...

grandpaw

If you have time go back and read my post on page seven. I am not against taking photos of trees, I have taken some myself. What I do not understand is taking a photo of a tree and the photographer trying to talk about why the photo was taken. How it is coming across to me is they are taking the picture because so many other photographers have taken tree photos and they need to do it also. They come across as trying to not only convince others it was worth photographing but they seem to be trying to convince themselves as well. As I have said earlier, I have no problem taking tree photos but it seems like they feel obligated to do so. Find a nice tree and setting and photograph away. I just don't understand the need to explain why the picture was take in the first place. If the photo is worth looking at why does it need a reason to be taken. Just taker the picture and let others enjoy it. The explanation comes off more as a justification to take the picture than as a teaching experience.

DJ Sam

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 think it's the simplicity of the photo and as an individual human we are also ONE......

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

grandpaw wrote:

If you have time go back and read my post on page ... (show quote)

Are you referring to instructional videos - as your opening post suggested? If not, exactly where are you are finding this distasteful and offensive "need to explain?"

Jim Brown Loc: Skagit County, WA

Why bother with only 1 tree in the frame when you can get a quarter million

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

Harvey wrote:

I agree with you- I have lived in forested areas most of my life and it is as you say-"when you find your tree - you will instantly know it"
Over the past 20+ yrs I have found around 5 trees that instantly called to be "Shot" although here is one that is just part of the composition - same as the fence.

If your first shot is not on your wall at home, it should be. Lots of great tree shots today on site but this one is one of the winners. One of these years, I have to take 2 or 3 weeks off in the spring and do some traveling to these great areas.

Fredrick Loc: Former NYC, now San Francisco Bay Area

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???

Well, some lone tree images can be pretty powerful. Here’s some examples.

User ID

autofocus wrote:

no, it's not a requirement, but sunsets and fast moving streams that are shot to look like cotton are ;)

I despise those bogus water shots.

Phony as they usually are, there’s been way many threads about 10X ND and crossed PL filters. Disgusting.

As to sunsets they may be de rigeur cliches but at least they are real. Cotton candy moving water is not.

One Rude Dawg Loc: Athol, ID

quixdraw wrote:

Can only speak for myself, but occasionally a particular tree has such a presence in its surroundings that it generates interest worthy of photo.

That's it.

User ID

Linda From Maine wrote:

Are you referring to instructional videos - as your opening post suggested? If not, exactly where are you are finding this distasteful and offensive "need to explain?"

I’m with Gramps.

Other than journalism/documentary the back story is worthless. The image is everything. Documentary is journalism in slow motion.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

grandpaw wrote:

If you have time go back and read my post on page ... (show quote)

And do you feel that photographers who like to shoot trees are more likely to try to explain why they shoot them than photographers of any other subject?

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

wdross wrote:

If your first shot is not on your wall at home, it should be. Lots of great tree shots today on site but this one is one of the winners. One of these years, I have to take 2 or 3 weeks off in the spring and do some traveling to these great areas.

I am very fortunate to have this scene just a few miles from my house every spring - this is in the CA Sierra Mnts foot hills at about 1,000 ft - for every 10 mi the road - CA 88 - goes up a 1,000 ft topping of at Carson Pass at 8,500 ft. so the roadside wild flowers are in bloom from May 1st to Sept 1 st the about Oct. 1st the Aspen turn and we have fall colors for about 3 weeks much like around my home town of Pagosa Springs

bbrowner Loc: Chapel Hill, NC

User ID wrote:

I despise those bogus water shots.

Phony as they usually are, there’s been way many threads about 10X ND and crossed PL filters. Disgusting.

As to sunsets they may be de rigeur cliches but at least they are real. Cotton candy moving water is not.

I agree with you about cotton candy water. As to sunsets... these days, sunsets, skies and sun's rays may or may not be real.

Amator21 Loc: California

I wanted to add my picture of my favorite tree (I love trees!) but I haven't figured out how to add a picture. Am I unusually dense?

Overthehill1

Maybe not, but you're missing some good opportunities if you don't at least try.

(Download)

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

bbrowner wrote:

I agree with you about cotton candy water. As to sunsets... these days, sunsets, skies and sun's rays may or may not be real.

I have caught a few sunsets in the past that were so unusual they looked fake.