First RMJ

[coh]

I don't know why you would want a white background. Unless you know what you are doing and know your way around a camera's settings and have a decent light source odds are you will burn out the image trying to tell the camera that the background is not important.

I was offering an easy method that anybody can use almost anywhere, the only parameter is the time of day.

I think there are times when a white background is appropriate. To me, it is easier to see the branch structure, especially when a tree has been defoliated. This can be helpful if you're looking for advice on how to develop the structure and is why I chose to use a white background for my ficus thread (http://bonsainut.com/forums/showthread.php?11407-Willow-leaf-ficus-with-deadwood) I don't expect you to look at it, it's in the tropical section

Also, many of the photos of the Japanese shows in International Bonsai are taken against a white (or light) background and they look pretty good. But you're right, your method is easier and is good for getting an overview, especially for trees with lots of foliage. I will be trying it. For a white background you'll probably need to manually set the exposure (something that isn't possible with all cameras) and most likely will need to manipulate the image afterwards.

Bottom line is that people in general need to take more care when they take photos - get them from the right angle (not from above) and with a plain background, however it's achieved.

Chris

 

[Vance Wood]

I think there are times when a white background is appropriate. To me, it is easier to see the branch structure, especially when a tree has been defoliated. This can be helpful if you're looking for advice on how to develop the structure and is why I chose to use a white background for my ficus thread (http://bonsainut.com/forums/showthread.php?11407-Willow-leaf-ficus-with-deadwood) I don't expect you to look at it, it's in the tropical section

Also, many of the photos of the Japanese shows in International Bonsai are taken against a white (or light) background and they look pretty good. But you're right, your method is easier and is good for getting an overview, especially for trees with lots of foliage. I will be trying it. For a white background you'll probably need to manually set the exposure (something that isn't possible with all cameras) and most likely will need to manipulate the image afterwards.

Bottom line is that people in general need to take more care when they take photos - get them from the right angle (not from above) and with a plain background, however it's achieved.

Chris

It isn't more care it is the realization that they should and can take reasonable care with positive results. As to the remark about the tree in the indoor forum and the reason the remark was made should show you something; I don't let what goes on somewhere else in this site to spill over in other places. So who is responsible for the veiled dig and spill over?

I thought you may be mature enough to understand this.

 

[Paradox]

I prefer a mid tone background. Not too dark and not too light. I often photograph against my house which is stained a reddish redwood color. I find it provides a nice contrast to the green foliage.

 

[wireme]

Fore, I think you might be getting a hint to take a better pic of you tree... I would like to see it in better detail too. I'm curious about Fred's comment calling them a high elevation species. In my parts they grow from valley bottom to a max of about 5000ft how high do they grow as you go south?

 

[Vance Wood]

I prefer a mid tone background. Not too dark and not too light. I often photograph against my house which is stained a reddish redwood color. I find it provides a nice contrast to the green foliage.

As long as the background has no details to get in the way of the importance of the tree.

 

[Paradox]

As long as the background has no details to get in the way of the importance of the tree.

Not really, its tongue and groove siding, no real texture or intricate patterns to crowd the picture.

 

[Vance Wood]

Not really, its tongue and groove siding, no real texture or intricate patterns to crowd the picture.

True; point taken. However; I think you may change your mind if you try this method. If I had to submit a photograph to a third party for consideration I would not go for a background with vertical lines in it.

 

[Victrinia Ridgeway]

The only problem with night flash photography is it flattens the tree. The first two photos had better depth, and with the bokeh effect I didn't have trouble with discerning the tree. I agree of course that not having so much green in the background is better... but losing all the depth might be as bad. It's six of one, half a dozen of another. But for pure analysis... flash photography is excellent. For capturing the soul of the tree... not so much.

Just my two cents in this totally hijacked thread. lol

Warmly,

Victrinia

 

[Paradox]

Obviously if I was submitting the photo to a contest, calander, print media or anything official, I would probably choose a different background.

So far, I only take pictures for initial documentation, annual progress photos or to post here for ideas. The siding is better than my fence and neighbors back yard which my earlier photos have in the background and is probably more distracting.

 

[fore]

fore, i think you might be getting a hint to take a better pic of you tree... I would like to see it in better detail too. I'm curious about fred's comment calling them a high elevation species. In my parts they grow from valley bottom to a max of about 5000ft how high do they grow as you go south?

lol!!! Apparently hehe

 

[fore]

The only problem with night flash photography is it flattens the tree. The first two photos had better depth, and with the bokeh effect I didn't have trouble with discerning the tree. I agree of course that not having so much green in the background is better... but losing all the depth might be as bad. It's six of one, half a dozen of another. But for pure analysis... flash photography is excellent. For capturing the soul of the tree... not so much.

Just my two cents in this totally hijacked thread. lol

Warmly,

Victrinia

Not hijacked at all Victrinia, obv. something you all want me to do and I will by stop using my iphone and break out the Canon 5D. Besides, I got a new 50mm f1.4 lens I've been playing with for the last week.

And besides Victrinia, I too am happy to have you back on the forum. (hence why I asked you to be a friend on facebook not too long ago lol) But it's great to see you, Will and Eric back posting trees and commenting again. I missed you all

Chris

 

[Victrinia Ridgeway]

The 50mm 1.4f is my favorite lens. Once you put it on, you'll never go back...lol I almost never take it off. Moving yourself becomes second nature, telephoto is a crutch that comes with a price on quality... though it has it's uses.

Now that I know what gear you have... my expectations are high. Don't disappoint! lol I'll go find your friend request and acknowledge it. I have a lot of them, and usually end up doing them in batches of 100...lol I'm not even kidding.

V

 

[coh]

The only problem with night flash photography is it flattens the tree. The first two photos had better depth, and with the bokeh effect I didn't have trouble with discerning the tree. I agree of course that not having so much green in the background is better... but losing all the depth might be as bad. It's six of one, half a dozen of another. But for pure analysis... flash photography is excellent. For capturing the soul of the tree... not so much.

Just my two cents in this totally hijacked thread. lol

Warmly,

Victrinia

Agree with the above.

I tested the suggested approach this evening. Unfortunately I probably waited too late, as it was almost completely dark when I started. I'll try to get it tested earlier at some point. It took some fiddling to determine the right settings on my camera, as well as the distance. Camera had trouble focusing at times, resulting in some blurry images. Other images were under-exposed. But the method did produce a couple of pretty good images, such as this one which is unaltered except for cropping:



Good for an overview but the frontal flash does eliminate some of the depth.

Maybe it's time for another "photographing your trees" thread, as opposed to continuing to clutter up this one?

Chris

 

[Vance Wood]

The only problem with night flash photography is it flattens the tree. The first two photos had better depth, and with the bokeh effect I didn't have trouble with discerning the tree. I agree of course that not having so much green in the background is better... but losing all the depth might be as bad. It's six of one, half a dozen of another. But for pure analysis... flash photography is excellent. For capturing the soul of the tree... not so much.

Just my two cents in this totally hijacked thread. lol

Warmly,

Victrinia

The only useful thing Karl Marx every said: No good deed goes unpunished.

All I was trying to do was to offer Fore, or anyone else for that matter, an easy way to get a decent usable photograph without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. Since then I have had the response that my method causes the image to be flat? This is a two dimensional medium is it not? You loose some detail? But where are the alternatives? If you have a better way and a quicker way for members of this forum to get a good picture of their trees please-----post it, don't waste time telling everybody what's wrong with mine.

I feel fortunate that I don't have the hubris to think I know everything, I know I don't, but for those out there who have better ideas post them!

 

[Vance Wood]

Not meaning to be confrontational, I really am interested in different ways to photograph a bonsai, but you guys don't seem to be breaking down the doors to provide a better method than I have presented.

 

[coh]

Vance,

I wonder if you'd be willing to post your method in a thread specifically devoted to bonsai photos? Perhaps there it would get more response, and in addition, people would be more likely to find it in the future. I've revived an older thread (http://bonsainut.com/forums/showthread.php?4162-Bonsai-photos) that might work. Or, perhaps you could start a thread on the topic. I think it would benefit many.

Chris

 

[Victrinia Ridgeway]

The only useful thing Karl Marx every said: No good deed goes unpunished.

All I was trying to do was to offer Fore, or anyone else for that matter, an easy way to get a decent usable photograph without having to jump through a bunch of hoops. Since then I have had the response that my method causes the image to be flat? This is a two dimensional medium is it not? You loose some detail? But where are the alternatives? If you have a better way and a quicker way for members of this forum to get a good picture of their trees please-----post it, don't waste time telling everybody what's wrong with mine.

I feel fortunate that I don't have the hubris to think I know everything, I know I don't, but for those out there who have better ideas post them!

My friend...

I have meant no offense or challenge to your suggestion. If you took my comment as arrogant or know it all, I apologize for that, again - not my intention. For a novice photographer, it's a very good way to present a discernible image. I think I mentioned it was excellent from a analytically basis. It's not the detail that is lost, just the depth. And you know as well as I, that a photo can convey depth and the value of cross directional lighting to evoke the spirit of a tree can't be overstated.

There are two purposes for photos in this place... to be analyzed for suggestions... or to inspire. Night Flash photography accomplishes one, but not so much the other. That was the only thing I was contributing to the conversation. I am sorry that I wasn't very clear, and that in my casual wording I offended you, for I hold you in the highest regard.

I don't have so many friends who have known me since the beginning as to treat their feelings lightly, even if that ever crossed my mind. There aren't that many of us left around the US boards. I hope you'll accept my apology, and appreciation for your efforts to provide assistance to others. Though for that... it seems young fore was simply being lazy P lol) since he apparently has exactly the gear to do a more than passing job of taking good images.

Sincerely,

Victrinia

 

[Vance Wood]

My friend...

I have meant no offense or challenge to your suggestion. If you took my comment as arrogant or know it all, I apologize for that, again - not my intention. For a novice photographer, it's a very good way to present a discernible image. I think I mentioned it was excellent from a analytically basis. It's not the detail that is lost, just the depth. And you know as well as I, that a photo can convey depth and the value of cross directional lighting to evoke the spirit of a tree can't be overstated.

There are two purposes for photos in this place... to be analyzed for suggestions... or to inspire. Night Flash photography accomplishes one, but not so much the other. That was the only thing I was contributing to the conversation. I am sorry that I wasn't very clear, and that in my casual wording I offended you, for I hold you in the highest regard.

I don't have so many friends who have known me since the beginning as to treat their feelings lightly, even if that ever crossed my mind. There aren't that many of us left around the US boards. I hope you'll accept my apology, and appreciation for your efforts to provide assistance to others. Though for that... it seems young fore was simply being lazy P lol) since he apparently has exactly the gear to do a more than passing job of taking good images.

Sincerely,

Victrinia

No apology necessary, I was more concerned that you were going down a direction in your development that I have seen to be self destructive. I am so glad I was, and am mistaken. You have always meant a lot to me and have acted as my advocate when others wanted to throw me under the bus and run me over numerous times.

 

[Victrinia Ridgeway]

Oh Vance... There's not a chance of my ever being the cause of you being run over... at least not with intention. At times, as with the best of us, we may say something that translates poorly in text, and you are always welcome to ask me to clarify myself. And I do consider myself a friend and advocate of yours.

No space of time will ever change my regard for you. I don't put 'warmly' in the tag of my sign off often. I hope that it will always prompt you to read my words in the best of light.

Warmly,

Victrinia

 

[fore]

The 50mm 1.4f is my favorite lens. Once you put it on, you'll never go back...lol I almost never take it off. Moving yourself becomes second nature, telephoto is a crutch that comes with a price on quality... though it has it's uses.

Now that I know what gear you have... my expectations are high. Don't disappoint! lol I'll go find your friend request and acknowledge it. I have a lot of them, and usually end up doing them in batches of 100...lol I'm not even kidding.

....Though for that... it seems young fore was simply being lazy P lol) since he apparently has exactly the gear to do a more than passing job of taking good images.

V

You're exactly right, I was and have been lazy since I got the iphone lol But in my recent travels, I used my 5D to make RAW files, and then I got Adobe Lightroom. Love it, but am still trying to figure how to manage all my recent photos, as well as get all my old JPEG and some RAW files I in files, and in iPhoto...which I have no idea how to access the indiv. files yet. So I haven't had time to even process my recent trip photos yet, I haven't broken the 5D out much.

I'm happy to hear you like the 50/1.4 too! It's light, lets you get a bit more intimate with your subject, and think the bokeh is pretty decent. Much sharper than my older 28-105. I wished I'd had it on our trip as we were in many low light conditions. I'm sure it's going to get used a fair bit lol And I feel the same about telephotos, though I must admit, I do like my 70-200/2.8 L lens quite a bit, just a monster though lol

To be honest, I feel that I haven't taken my trees to the level of requiring me to photograph them well. But I'll try too photograph my trees better.

Chris