Is taking a picture of a single tree a requirement of being a photographer (Page 8): A single tree standing in a field empty of anything else is a symbol of strength & hope for future...

Blair Shaw Jr Loc: Dunnellon,Florida

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???

A single tree standing in a field empty of anything else is a symbol of strength & hope for future growth. I cannot imagine a world without them. Just sitting in the forest and looking up at the clears my thoughs and stresses like a breath of fresh air after a storm. The only way to enjoy something is to dwell with it and learn & appreciate it's purpose and dreams. Even tress have em....just ask it.

R.G. Loc: Scotland

grandpaw wrote:

....Some give me the impression that they need to take a image of a tree no matter what it looks like.....

Many of our shots are taken opportunistically. However, I think we all have a list of preferred subjects, and when we see an example of one of those preferred subjects, we'll take the shot regardless of whether it's a perfect example or not. In fact sometimes we'll take the shot knowing that it's mediocre at best, perhaps just for the practice and perhaps just because it is a preferred subject. I don't think anybody should be judged on the strength of one photo since we don't know the whys and the wherefores. And sometimes less than perfect photos can be used as topics for discussion. We can all learn from understanding both the strengths and the weaknesses of others' images.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

grandpaw wrote:

I hope everyone that has posted takes the time to ... (show quote)

Are you still referring to the videos you mentioned on page 1? Or a different source?

What was the purpose of the videos? To teach composition? To sell a product or themselves (their You-Tube channel)? Like any instruction, there are good teachers and bad, and some who make you sorry you ever signed up for their class

But your follow-up is even more generalized than your opening, such as "some photographers seem to need to explain..." Who are these "some," how many have you heard, and where/under what circumstances are you forming these opinions of what they've said?

There have been many well expressed comments within this topic (I've read every one of them) that are educational regarding composition and how to see, along with suggestions about keeping an open mind and respecting all genres and photo subjects...so thanks for that part!

wdross Loc: Castle Rock, Colorado

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???

Nothing! You just haven't found your lone tree. Sometimes the tree is an offset or balancing element. Sometimes the tree is merely one of the focal points. Sometimes it is the main subject. And there is always the chance you will never find your lone tree. And that does not mean you are not a good or seasoned photographer. It just means you haven't found your lone tree.

bbrowner Loc: Chapel Hill, NC

grandpaw wrote:

I hope everyone that has posted takes the time to ... (show quote)

------------------------------

That is why I prefer photographs with no (often) silly captions and long winded explanations. It is my strong belief that I (the viewer) need not and should not be told what to think. e.g "a beautiful sunset". Why can't we just let photographs stand on their own two feet... with out explanation or guidance? They don't (necessarily) have to tell a story. I sometimes get the feeling that some here spend more time trying to come up with a catchy caption than the photo itself.

Earlier this year I ran a weekly posting "silent photos" supplying a subject and asking for photos to be posted satisfying that subject... with no captions and no discussions. It did alright for a while. There were those who really liked it... and those who wouldn't or couldn't follow guidelines. There were still replies with comments, etc. So I finally gave up.

My bottom line is... let photos stand on there own two feet... and don't tell me what to think.

Thanks

Barry

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

bbrowner wrote:

...Why can't we just let photographs stand on their own two feet... with out explanation or guidance... I sometimes get the feeling that some here spend more time trying to come up with a catchy caption than the photo itself...

Catchy titles on UHH are often about getting people to look. As you know, only 1/3 to 1/2 of Photo Gallery topics make it into the emailed daily digest and evidence suggests many people use only the digest for their browsing (ergo, the rest of UHH doesn't exist for them).

I've hosted a couple of discussion topics where people gave their opinions about titles. Often exhibits and other venues, such as contests, require them.

Harvey Loc: Pioneer, CA

wdross wrote:

Nothing! You just haven't found your lone tree. Sometimes the tree is an offset. Sometimes the tree is merely one of the focal points. Sometimes it is the main subject. And there is always the chance you will never find your lone tree. And that does not mean you are not a good or seasoned photographer. It just means you haven't found your lone tree.

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.

(Download)

foggypreacher Loc: Dickinson, Texas

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 do not know if this makes me a photographer or not, but I really liked this maple tree in Kittery, Maine. I also took photos of it in the spring, fall and winter (of which I cannot find them). It was for my own gratification. It was long before I knew anything about PP. Enjoy it if you will.

foggypreacher Loc: Dickinson, Texas

foggypreacher wrote:

I do not know if this makes me a photographer or not, but I really liked this maple tree in Kittery, Maine. I also took photos of it in the spring, fall and winter (of which I cannot find them). It was for my own gratification. It was long before I knew anything about PP. Enjoy it if you will.

Photographer Jim Loc: Rio Vista, 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???

Sometimes an image simply “works”. When it does, take it. For this image, I literally sat for 25 minutes waiting for sun to drop into the right position. My most successful image in terms of competitions (Five best in shows; wins at local, state, national levels) and sales (my best selling image; large framed print sells for $1K+).

As to what you’re missing ... possibly nothing. Some people simply don’t find some subject matter interesting. I, for example, have no interest in portraits or photographing people. The key point, however, is one’s attitude toward other photographers who do find those subjects interesting. Maybe they have an ability or insight that you don’t! You may not be the type of photographer who would even venture into the area where this image was taken. You might not have been willing to do the wait needed to get the shot. You might not have even recognized the potential shot had you been there!

(Download)

cdayton

Does this count?

JD750 Loc: SoCal

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

Yes. I think that is a beautiful!

dick ranez

Kmgw9v wrote:

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

But if, perchance, one should be
I'd want a camera next to me.

davyboy Loc: Anoka Mn.

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???

If you can’t see it, it is not in your vision

je13quincy

I personally like to take pictures of trees or I’ll purposely just catch a part of a tree/bush in the corner of a photograph just to show depth of field. My daughter had a dead tree on her property looking kind of shabby and they were going away for the week-end and I asked if I could do something with it not knowing at the time exactly what I would do. So after about a 6 hour day and a chainsaw this is what was hiding in the dead tree again a great reason to take a picture of a tree.