Is taking a picture of a single tree a requirement of being a photographer (Page 5): Great examples boberic. Magnificent Fall colors in the first shot. However, that blob in the sky...

SpyderJan Loc: New Smyrna Beach. FL

boberic wrote:

Nowhere in any book about any thing says you have to do "this" to be a "that". You don't like trees, fine. don't shoot them--as has been said- Whatever floats your boat. I like trees, here are a coupla mine

Great examples boberic. Magnificent Fall colors in the first shot. However, that blob in the sky keeps drawing my eye away from the main subject.

jtwind

There are no requirements in art! What are you missing? Maybe everything, maybe nothing.

DebAnn Loc: Toronto

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???

That's kind of weird Grandpaw. It's like everything else in nature. Sometimes a single anything is very photogenic, even a tree.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

You feel about trees much the same that I feel about birds. Yet look at all the bird pictures posted here! I see lots of photos that make me wonder why anyone wasted a shutter click on them. Trees happen to be one of my favorite things, and I will brake for them (also for cactus, horses, wildflowers, etc.).

Jim Brown Loc: Skagit County, WA

It can be a real challenge to capture an image of a single green tree against a backdrop of green vegetation.

lamiaceae Loc: San Luis Obispo County, 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? 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???

You do not really want me to answer that do you?

truckster Loc: Tampa 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. <snip>

Did I pass? Can I consider myself a photographer, not just a snapshot taker?

(Download)

CHG_CANON Loc: the Windy City

I would think the requirement is that a tree be captured in the glory that is a full-frame sensor.

User ID

leftj wrote:

I haven't seen any insulting comments. Guess my computer filters them out.

They see them where they seek them, regardless of their absence. Simply yet one more instance of barking up the wrong tree.

truckster Loc: Tampa Bay Area

CHG_CANON wrote:

I would think the requirement is that a tree be captured in the glory that is a full-frame sensor.

I usually bow in awe to most of what you post, but I do hope this comment was in jest as there is no sarcasm emoji.

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

Kmgw9v wrote:

“I think that I shall never see,
A poem as lovely as a tree”.

Indeed! Anyone who has ever visited the Joyce Kilmer National Forest would would understand.

StanMac Loc: Tennessee

Linda From Maine wrote:

A lot of people don't get a lot of what other people's art or "art" is about. So what. Go take some pictures - or look at some pictures - of what you do like!

Is this pretty? I think it is 🤗
.

lone tree etc, on Flickr

That, Linda, isn’t pretty - it’s beautiful! Truly a piece of high art!

Stan

wds0410 Loc: Nunya

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???

Speaking for me -- the answer is yes but so what? I think a single tree down correctly is great for minimalism.

Everybody has the own propensities, likes, dislikes, etc. Just about every time I see a picture of a bird on UHH I roll my eyes and say to myself -- its a freakin bird! I don't get it.

amyinsparta Loc: White county, TN

JohnSwanda wrote:

How about a photo of a single flower? I see lots of those. I have done many photos of both single trees and single flowers. I consider them portraits of a life form. Nobody complains about a photo of a single person. If you can't see the beauty of nature in a single tree, I feel sorry for you.

User ID

Jim Brown wrote:

It can be a real challenge to capture an image of a single green tree against a backdrop of green vegetation.

Really ? You’d bother photographing a subject that is camouflaged into the surroundings ? I’m sure it’s a challenge. It’s also a challenge to drive the back roads blindfolded at high speed. Just a question of which is more fun.