I can see a monster standard deviation, wich allows me to say that when you submerge in a pic of a tree, with no scale refferences, you can imagine the scale that better fit your expectations, and it seems those can be different for different people....
I want to think, that when you introduce a scale refference in one tree (an animal for instance), you're setting a scale..
Setting a firm scale WITH AN EXTERNAL OBJECT, for the tree, the thinking goes in Japanese bonsai, actually takes away from the tree's impact. The Japanese use empty negative space, in particular, to emphasize scale.
Is it fair to add that assumed position? CAPS
Just seems slightly misleading without it, since the use of negative space is used to emphasize scale.
I think then it may be the definition of "firm" that is "fuzzy" in the conversation.
I believe a "firm" scale IS set by the proportions of the tree. Beginning with the roots, as usually this is the first thing we approach in nature.
I feel this thread is dangerously close to pushing folks away from this reality that SCALE IS ALWAYS AND ALWAYS HIGHLY IMPACTFUL.
I feel there is an odd disconnect in understanding the relationship between scale and height....
As this quickly became a height guessing game that has absolutely nothing to do with scale.
Crop the roots back into picture, everything changes, it's likely just a shrub again. Nothing elegant, nothing stately.
This is to say that roots, as I've been ranting about as of late, are almost always entirely too large. Once that's gone, scale is never correct.
I would like to know everyone idea of the height of that tree IN SCALE....
25ft? 100ft? 200ft?
Perhaps we do not have very good understanding of such heights? Not many references?
I know I may have a few more references of heights due to measuring these things in building, and I still have a hard time guessing the height of a tree.
I think this is something that needs excersize, understanding the relationship between height and scale.
Sorce