Switch to English Language Passer en langue française Omschakelen naar Nederlandse Taal Wechseln Sie zu deutschen Sprache Passa alla lingua italiana
Members: 71,933   Posts: 1,585,518   Online: 849
      
Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast
Results 31 to 40 of 122
  1. #31
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,589
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
    My favorite place to photograph; Carbon prints of various sizes (5x7 and 8x10):
    You really do justice to trees, Vaughn.

  2. #32
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,589
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by baachitraka View Post
    Thanks baachitraka, It's a treat to see them all!

  3. #33
    Bill Burk's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2010
    Shooter
    4x5 Format
    Posts
    3,589
    Images
    46
    Quote Originally Posted by DWThomas View Post
    I have often been attracted by sycamores with their flaky bark patches, especially highlighted against a deep autumn sky when the trees are bare.

    Sometimes it's about texture. A few years back I took a shot of sycamore tree bark trying out my Bronica macro lens. I got in close and captured about a 12 inch square section of tree trunk (it's in my gallery stuff here).
    Nice shot. You've gotta come out to California and see some of our Ponderosa Pines... I haven't any B&W to share, but they have that "jigsaw puzzle" flaking that leads to infinite compositions. I think you'd enjoy a variation on that theme.

  4. #34
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,765
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by DREW WILEY View Post
    ... - sorry AA, but I don't believe in compensating developers - give me a long-scale film to begin with).
    That and long-scale photographic processes!

    What is amazing is to see a ring of huge redwoods that started out as sprouts around the 'parent' tree. The parent tree has completely disappeared...and it takes a long time for a standing redwood to rot away. So the sprouts are somewhere around 1000 years old (give or take 500), and the parent tree might have lived that long, or longer. The sprouts are genetically the same tree as the parent tree, so it could be argued that they are 2000+ years old.

    This photo is from 1986 and the redwood had fallen within about ten years of this photo. Now the trunk is an elevated forest -- no space to walk (or lay) on it anymore (The wood imp might still be there, but I never saw her again... )

    PS -- thanks, Bill. I have been photographing along this section of creek for over 30 years...never tire of it...always something new.
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Fallen Redwood, Nude_7"x19".jpg  
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  5. #35
    VaryaV's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2008
    Location
    Florida
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    1,256
    Images
    26
    That's wonderful, Vaughn. I absolutely worship trees and would be happy to spend the rest of my life underneath one. They are indeed magical, and many people must think so, because it seems the main subject of interest in many circles. (I think).

    Aside from what Cindy Sherman said, I will never tire from looking at pictures of trees. Nev-Ver!

    And, right now I'm a hapless urban dweller that longs for the forests again. So, I have to get mine by proxy.
    Sourdough, salami and blue cheese... and 2 dogs drooling with such sad, sad eyes. ... they're working me... they know I'll cave!

    APUG Portfolio

  6. #36
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,765
    Images
    40
    Quote Originally Posted by VaryaV View Post
    That's wonderful, Vaughn. I absolutely worship trees and would be happy to spend the rest of my life underneath one.
    Quite a few years ago I was walking under the redwoods (on a ridgetop trail) with the university's 4x5 during a 60+ MPH windstorm. Branches were falling from 200+ feet above me -- I certainly thought it was a possibility of spending the rest of my short life underneath one of them! Over the years I got better at judging when the windless days were happening in the redwoods and what the light quality would be. At first it was one trip out of three (it is a 50 mile drive to my favorite area), and now I can hit it right 7 or 8 times out of ten. The other times I just have a great day hanging out in the redwoods...and it is good exercise walking around with 60 pounds of 8x10 stuff -- and who knows, one might come across some still air, or find a way to use the movement to make an image!

    I do have my favorite trees that I enjoy visiting during the 35 or so years I have been photographing there. I have seen some of my favorite maples die and fall...the big-leaf maple in the first image of the five I posted has lost one of the two trunks, but the vine maples in the last image still dance around the redwood each Fall. Redwoods have fallen to open up large areas to the light, and I have seen areas of light slowly fill in. As Cliveh seemed to ask, does spending that much time studying the light and the landscape in a particular place allow one to make more meaningful images of that place? Could anyone see any difference with a photo(s) taken by someone just 'passing through'? My ego would like to think so, but it would depend on the skills and insight (and luck) of the visitor, too.

    But I also enjoy photographing in the desert, and this is a different approach to photographing a tree, it has created its own 'ecosystem' that I thought it was important to represent:
    (Death Valley, 8x10 platinum print)
    Attached Thumbnails Attached Thumbnails Spring_Death_Valley.jpg  
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  7. #37
    Regular Rod's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2012
    Location
    Derbyshire
    Shooter
    Medium Format
    Posts
    584
    Quote Originally Posted by Vaughn View Post
    Quite a few years ago I was walking under the redwoods (on a ridgetop trail) with the university's 4x5 during a 60+ MPH windstorm. Branches were falling from 200+ feet above me -- I certainly thought it was a possibility of spending the rest of my short life underneath one of them! Over the years I got better at judging when the windless days were happening in the redwoods and what the light quality would be. At first it was one trip out of three (it is a 50 mile drive to my favorite area), and now I can hit it right 7 or 8 times out of ten. The other times I just have a great day hanging out in the redwoods...and it is good exercise walking around with 60 pounds of 8x10 stuff -- and who knows, one might come across some still air, or find a way to use the movement to make an image!

    I do have my favorite trees that I enjoy visiting during the 35 or so years I have been photographing there. I have seen some of my favorite maples die and fall...the big-leaf maple in the first image of the five I posted has lost one of the two trunks, but the vine maples in the last image still dance around the redwood each Fall. Redwoods have fallen to open up large areas to the light, and I have seen areas of light slowly fill in. As Cliveh seemed to ask, does spending that much time studying the light and the landscape in a particular place allow one to make more meaningful images of that place? Could anyone see any difference with a photo(s) taken by someone just 'passing through'? My ego would like to think so, but it would depend on the skills and insight (and luck) of the visitor, too.

    But I also enjoy photographing in the desert, and this is a different approach to photographing a tree, it has created its own 'ecosystem' that I thought it was important to represent:
    (Death Valley, 8x10 platinum print)
    A beautiful photograph in every way!
    RR

  8. #38

    Join Date
    Jan 2005
    Shooter
    ULarge Format
    Posts
    542
    Somehow, I seem to always take pictures of things in their shadows. Perhaps I'm always looking down at my feet (I have a walking problem).

    RE: imperiled trees - I just finished reading The Man Who Planted Trees by Jim Robbins. It's about an eccentric gentleman who believes his calling in life is to clone "Champion Trees", i.e., the biggest, broadest exemplars of their species. Not a real page turner, but it's good to know some of the wackos in the world are doing positive things.

    Charley

  9. #39
    Vaughn's Avatar
    Join Date
    Dec 2006
    Location
    Humboldt Co.
    Shooter
    8x10 Format
    Posts
    4,765
    Images
    40
    Thanks, RR!
    At least with LF landscape, a bad day of photography can still be a good day of exercise.

  10. #40

    Join Date
    Jan 2013
    Location
    SW NY
    Shooter
    Multi Format
    Posts
    12
    I treat trees as if they were people. If an old, fat tree can stand its own in the middle of an empty field, then no need to add any more. If a skinny sapling is better off in the company of friends, then let it be so. However, in the end if a tree or group of trees fail to add anything to the composition or leave your shot a mess of confusing twigs, then I'll either move to a better spot or forget it altogether.

Page 4 of 13 FirstFirst 12345678910 ... LastLast


 

APUG PARTNERS EQUALLY FUNDING OUR COMMUNITY:



Contact Us  |  Support Us!  |  Advertise  |  Site Terms  |  Archive  —   Search  |  Mobile Device Access  |  RSS  |  Facebook  |  Linkedin