Results 1 to 5 of 5

Thread: Two very different "lone trees"

  1. #1

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    19,064

    Two very different "lone trees"

    These images were captured when my wife and I recently vacationed in Sedona, Arizona. Each photo is accompanied by an explanation, one of which explains why the photographer (me) should have been better.


    Photo #1
    This tree, which seems to be growing out of red rock, is about 6 - 9 inches (15 - 22cm) high. Yet it's proportions including the scaling on the bark seem exactly the same to my untrained eye as the fully developed trees that are 6 - 9 feet (2 -3 meters) high and larger. It's in the wild, so it presumably hasn't been shaped and trained by a horticulturist.

    Two very different "lone trees"


    Photo #2
    This tree is also growing out of red rock. To fully appreciate how alone it is, refer to my wife's photo displayed below it. The same tree is shown in her photo near the top of the rock formation on the left.

    Two very different "lone trees"


    Notice that my wife did a far better job of making her photo than I did of making mine. You may not be able to tell at the size displayed here, but only the front part of the tree in my photo is in focus; the trunk and rear part are a little beyond the depth of field. That's for two reasons: I wasn't familiar enough with the depth of field when using my relatively new 300mm lens (mounted on a camera with a crop factor of 1.5) and when shooting such large objects at such great distances. Indeed, I'm not even used to having to judge such great distances. Considering both factors, you would think I would have checked the tree rather than just the rock formation for sharpness in my LCD. It's apparent that I didn't. Otherwise, I would have seen the problem and used a smaller aperture than my setting at f/8. There is absolutely no excuse for that kind of mistake for someone of my experience.

    Photo #3 as a reference pertaining to Photo #2
    Two very different "lone trees"

  2. #2
    Cantab's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    Canada (west coast)
    Posts
    1,275
    Real Name
    Bruce

    Re: Two very different "lone trees"

    Quote Originally Posted by Mike Buckley

    Considering both factors, you would think I would have checked the tree rather than just the rock formation for sharpness in my LCD. It's apparent that I didn't. Otherwise, I would have seen the problem and used a smaller aperture than my setting at f/8. There is absolutely no excuse for that kind of mistake for someone of my experience.
    You'll just have to go back and redo the picture! The "bonsai" tree is quite something. Thanks for sharing the photos.
    Last edited by Dave Humphries; 28th April 2013 at 10:51 PM.

  3. #3
    mknittle's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jan 2012
    Location
    auburn california
    Posts
    2,327
    Real Name
    mark

    Re: Two very different "lone trees"

    The tree in the first image is likely much older that one would think Members of our Bonsai club have collected trees around that size that are well over 100 years old.

    Nice images Mike.

  4. #4

    Join Date
    May 2012
    Location
    northern Virginia suburb of Washington, DC
    Posts
    19,064

    Re: Two very different "lone trees"

    Thank you to Bruce and Mark!

  5. #5
    Brownbear's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2011
    Location
    British Columbia, Canada
    Posts
    7,244
    Real Name
    Christina

    Re: Two very different "lone trees"

    Your photo of the tree is stunning! (and your wife's photo is beautiful, too) Thank you for sharing the details and thought process. And it is nice to know you're human and forget to check things once in a while

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •