Shooting Tree Trunk Boles - advice & discussion, please

[xpatUSA]

After shooting captive subjects like watches and eBay trinkets for 5+ years, I'm gradually moving out into the Real World where life ain't quite so easy. Trouble is, for me, the Real World hereabouts is a piece of feature-less Texas woodland, mostly overgrown with Yaupon Holly - more of a weed here than a garden feature.

So, I've decided to try some Eastern Red Cedar tree boles which can have a bit of interest and texture. There's one fairly close to the cabin, which I've snapped FYI:



Trunk is about 2' diameter at the base and the upper bole about 2' above grade. Site is littered with leaves and fairly overgrown. I'm looking for a sharp, dramatic shot, where the trunk is the dominant feature. Looking for discussion about the following:

Site clearance.

Yes, or no? If yes, clear everything Zen-garden style (except the Saw Palmettos) or leave something?

Lighting.

The trunk is always in shadow and, as a result, can lack contrast. The shot above has fill-flash (GN.11) from the cam. Was thinking of aiming a couple of EF-500s at it, triggered from the camera flash (if that will work). Positioning of such additional lighting?

Perspective.

Shoot close or far? If neither, how far?

Angle.

From the side, above, or from grade level?

Clean-up.

The cream-color stuff is resin which get washed down the trunk in heavy rain and then dries in situ. The bark peels naturally in strips as it ages. So I'll be leaving both as-is. Any small twigs or branches would be removed. At that level they're all dead anyway.

Here's the upper bole a bit mo' closer:



There's a twig to remove and note too dark a shadow from the flash, re: lighting mentioned above.

All comments welcome - thanks for looking!

[tao2]

Hi Ted,

Ah enjoy photographing bits of trees.

Re. site clearance and "clean up" . Personally, not for me ...ever. Yer as well buying artificial trees and using them on astroturf with stadium lights. Just go and find another tree. Ah understand you're area-limited though, so - horses for courses... If ye do go down the clearance route, ah'd have a green (ish) background or other colours/ textures, even if they're always OOF.

Instead of flash (which ah think "steals" the textures) , rather the golden hour or early morning pastel sunlight (if ye get that in Texas)

This with DSLR + Tokina 19/35mm lens



This with Olympus 35RC + AgfaPLUS ISO 200 @1/30th (tae saturate the shot)



As for perspective, distance and angles, ah think that's down tae your personal taste and eye.

Up close (all on film)...





Farther...





Farthest...



Bits of trees...



Trees and trunks are excellent subjects for B+W.

DISCLAIMER :- No trees were hurt by flash in making these photos...

[flashback]

I agree with Robert, you need some unique lighting...if that will work. I've been in kind of the same place, seeing something and not being able to get a good angle on it. Not saying there's not a photo there but I think you're really going to have to get creative. The burls (back east those growths are called burls, I learned that a bole was the timber-valued part of the trunk) right on the ground look like nostrils, so maybe there's something there. Good luck and show us what you come up with.

[IzzieK]

When I saw your shot, I was thinking of "angles" -- shoot from another angle. Then shoot closer, fill that frame like you did the on the second shot. That is very nice. I like that one.

[xpatUSA]

Hi Ted,

Ah enjoy photographing bits of trees.

Re. site clearance and "clean up" . Personally, not for me ...ever. Yer as well buying artificial trees and using them on astroturf with stadium lights. Just go and find another tree. Ah understand you're area-limited though, so - horses for courses... If ye do go down the clearance route, ah'd have a green (ish) background or other colours/ textures, even if they're always OOF.

Instead of flash (which ah think "steals" the textures) , rather the golden hour or early morning pastel sunlight (if ye get that in Texas)

This with DSLR + Tokina 19/35mm lens



This with Olympus 35RC + AgfaPLUS ISO 200 @1/30th (tae saturate the shot)



As for perspective, distance and angles, ah think that's down tae your personal taste and eye.

Up close (all on film)...





Farther...





Farthest...



Bits of trees...



Trees and trunks are excellent subjects for B+W.

DISCLAIMER :- No trees were hurt by flash in making these photos...

Thanks Boab,

Wayul, 'em dang trees are so tawul thet no sernlaht gits dayawn ter the trernk . . . ;-)

But seriously the trees are up to 100ft tall, so there are areas that are in darkness at the golden hour

Not good when you're planning to shoot with a Sigma SD14 . .

I got the rest of your comments; however the example images were loading much too slow over my rural satellite link, but looked like some nice shots (top parts anyway). Must take a look around the rest of the property, probably have to take the machete (yes, I do need it).

[xpatUSA]

When I saw your shot, I was thinking of "angles" -- shoot from another angle. Then shoot closer, fill that frame like you did the on the second shot. That is very nice. I like that one.

Yes, the images in the OP were just snaps of the tree, not intended as THE shots for comment. Any suggestions as to angle are welcome; currently, I'm think of shooting from the left foreground. Since the shot is toward the south, I'm talking about pointing the camera approx south-west. Closer is good thinking though, because I will be wanting to separate the main subject from the background. DOF will no doubt rear it's ugly head . . .

[xpatUSA]

I agree with Robert, you need some unique lighting...if that will work. I've been in kind of the same place, seeing something and not being able to get a good angle on it. Not saying there's not a photo there but I think you're really going to have to get creative. The burls (back east those growths are called burls, I learned that a bole was the timber-valued part of the trunk) right on the ground look like nostrils, so maybe there's something there. Good luck and show us what you come up with.

Yep, they are indeed burls, my mistake

[csa mt]

Hi Ted, I hope you don't mind, but simply cropping makes your photo more appealing to me.



Also, I never would disturb native "landscapes" for a photo. The most I would do is bend a branch, grass, etc., then let them go back to their original position, after the photo.

[xpatUSA]

Hi Ted, I hope you don't mind, but simply cropping makes your photo more appealing to me.



Also, I never would disturb native "landscapes" for a photo. The most I would do is bend a branch, grass, etc., then let them go back to their original position, after the photo.

Thanks for the crop. The image was intended only to show the tree surroundings not as THE final shot, but I do intend to fill the frame more. As to clearing the "native landscape", the tree is on my 10ac property and I regard stuff that gets in the way as litter (except the Palmettos) so, currently, my intention is to at least clear obscuring vegetation and background vegetation that won't blur in the final shot. Here in southeast Texas, the stuff grows back all too quickly

Thanks for your comments,

[chauncey]

Were I facing your dilemma...I would shoot them at night using a tripod with a remote shutter.
Pre-focus that camera and use a small flashlight for lighting. Could be dramatic...

[xpatUSA]

When I saw your shot, I was thinking of "angles" -- shoot from another angle. Then shoot closer, fill that frame like you did the on the second shot. That is very nice. I like that one.

Here's a couple of test snaps to evaluate angles and perspective:

From the East, no flash:



From the North, w/ flash:



Camera at ground level for both shots.

Images are shot at 1:1 aspect ratio, not cropped. WB was on auto, hence color differences.

Shooter continuously under attack from vegetation (quite distracting).

Comments are invited as to which is 'better' but only with regard to angle and perspective, please.

I'm thinking a bit more trunk showing above the upper burl? That would be a good thing because I'm maxed out on wide angle in those two shots (14mm, m4/3).

Might yet just remove loose twigs and Yaupon saplings . . .

[xpatUSA]

Were I facing your dilemma...I would shoot them at night using a tripod with a remote shutter.
Pre-focus that camera and use a small flashlight for lighting. Could be dramatic...

I do have a small LED worklamp, as it happens. Where would you place it relative to the camera - and at what angle to the tree relative to the line between the tree and the camera?

[chauncey]

What I'm suggesting is to take many shots with the light held in different positions and choose
the best one, or, better yet...take the best ones>stack them as layers and blend them together
using masks with a brush.

With a subject like that...it's not going away...there's no hurry.

[dennybeall]

Light is the key. Also in close. Just because the tree is vertical doesn't mean you can't go horizontal or even shoot down. Gotta get the light from some angle that will create something interesting.
Personally, I'd look for another tree................but then I have zero artistic talent.

[IzzieK]

I like the second shot, Ted...it is warmer and the angle is much better than the first one. The first one, you need to clear some stuffs up front the tree first so it does not distract. Also in the second one the leaves from the other sapling sort of give an idea how much frighteningly huge the tree is. I do not know the word for it...sorry about your vegetation. I laughed at that word "vegetation" -- reminds me of the word my DIL use when my son is wearing a tank top shirt and she would ask to cover his "vegetation". But that is another story for another day...LOL...Anyway the first one the addition of another burl at the top is more like, it has space to breathe, the second one is a little bit too tight...

Maybe a night shot like what William suggested will keep the shot more concentrated on what you wanted to show. It will be more easier to pick and add an effect or something... Use a builder's light??? pretty much like vignette effect or something similar...just thinking out loud here...

[Shadowman]

I tend to go for closeup shots of subjects like this, I like to use flash because it can sometimes provide nice warm textures.

[NorthernFocus]

Ted, I've tried some similar stuff in the past. How you approach it depends somewhat on how you intend to present the subject. In this case you have multiple options. If you want to present them in context, then including some surroundings and enough of the tree to give a reference for size in important. On the other hand, if the burl itself, or more accurately characteristics/details of it, are the main subject, then you may want to treat it like a portrait. In which case minimizing any distractions is paramount.

Be careful out there. One of my earliest posts on CIC was of a similar subject. You can see it here

[xpatUSA]

What I'm suggesting is to take many shots with the light held in different positions and choose the best one, or . . .

Thanks, William.

. . . better yet...take the best ones>stack them as layers and blend them together
using masks with a brush.

None of my stuff does layers or masking, so that's out.

[Texas Dave]

Ted, I just got a deer lease over in Nacogdoches, Tx and I love all the youpon holly growing around the pines. Albeit, it is everywhere like a weed but I'm digging some up and bringing them back to my yard in the Corsicana area.

As far as your burls, I'm not seeing the "call to interest", that you're apparently seeing. I honestly think if I saw something in the burl, some shape or some type of distinction that the gnarly old knot was creating I think I'd have an opinion on where the lighting would go to accentuate the shape, face or whatever. Otherwise I suppose your shooting images for the 2015 book of hard knots and burls. I guess in other words, I don't know what you're after here.

Here is my only burl I've ever shot. It caught my eye because of it's "monkey face". I can only see the face for about 30 degrees from the direction of the photo. I want to shoot it at night and do some experimenting with light painting that Wyman Meinzer recently taught me a few months ago.

[xpatUSA]

As far as your burls, I'm not seeing the "call to interest", that you're apparently seeing. I honestly think if I saw something in the burl, some shape or some type of distinction that the gnarly old knot was creating I think I'd have an opinion on where the lighting would go to accentuate the shape, face or whatever. Otherwise I suppose your shooting images for the 2015 book of hard knots and burls. I guess in other words, I don't know what you're after here.

It's an odd story, really. The basis is that I've acquired a lot of knowledge through sitting at the computer too much but not so much practice. So now I'm seeking things to shoot on the property that are of interest to me, which is usually flowers and critturs. I like the burls but viewed as a grouping rather than individual entities, a distortion of a normally straight tree. Most of the Cedars have some in one form or another but usually not as prominent as in the OP. There's probably better subjects if only I could hack my way through the Yaupon jungle - it is really dense!



Too, the call to interest is less about the content than it is about the composition, lighting, etc.

Having said all that, the monkey face is most impressive. Shoot it and mount it, I'd say