Any advice on shooting up trees, please . .

[xpatUSA]

. . apart from firearm or drug cracks . . .

While somewhat lacking in awesome scenery and interesting subjects, I am not short of trees - so I thought of tree shots as a theme. Today's go was less than inspiring:



Shot just after noon, sun 50- 60 degs altitude, camera about 2ft maybe 3 from the trunk. Pardon my messing with the sky color. Quite disappointing. Not happy with right hand part at all and it's not like the trunk is lacking in texture but it really doesn't show at all well.

Maybe there's a better time of day? Better settings than f/16, 14mm (MFT)? Best point of focus? Blue sky or overcast?

[William W]

Hi Ted,

I've had a few (actually I think two) attempts at this and I have failed. I have little idea what to do.

If it is OK with you (?) I will have another attempt over the next couple of days and post a result or two on this thread: maybe we can both learn from comparatives, or at least you'll know what not to do. My last attempt was early morning and hard side lighting in B&W. . . no idea where those negatives are, I probably killed them, as they were all terrible.

WW

[JohnRostron]

My recollection is that the best shots up trees are when I shot from within a group, so that I got several converging verticals. I would agree that a single tree just doesn't cut It!

John

[xpatUSA]

If it is OK with you (?) I will have another attempt over the next couple of days and post a result or two on this thread: maybe we can both learn from comparatives, or at least you'll know what not to do.

Absolutely OK with me, Bill, thanks for your interest.

I shot with the Panasonic because of it's fully articulating LCD and only have the kit zoom, the 14-45mm, which may not be the finest in avoiding flare or glare.

[xpatUSA]

My recollection is that the best shots up trees are when I shot from within a group, so that I got several converging verticals.

Thanks, John, kind of like the classic Redwood tree shots, I imagine. I've got lots of groups to look at here but also lots of undergrowth . .

I would agree that a single tree just doesn't cut it!

Some of the trees around here have interesting burrs and other oddities on them so there might be a shot or two there.

Took this a while back, for example:



No C&C needed for that please, it was a test shot for best angle.

[William W]

OK. Ta. Will do.

As a background:

My thinking has always been to use a Wide to Ultra Wide Lens. A Normal Lens maybe. Cannot see any value in using a Telephoto Lens.

Apropos Lighting (remembering I failed twice) My first thought is that hard(ish) lighting is necessary to attaine effective Modelling.

The main issue I came up against was, my having a great amount of experience in Portrait Genre, the "Sky" whilst when outdoors mostly always formed part of my background, the "sky" was very rarely the "only" background - AND - I could always use the horizon as a divider.

On the other hand, when looking upwards into a tree, the "Sky" as the background is more like a "Studio Backdrop", or at least that's how I approached this exercise the twice before.

The first time I tried this was for a camera club's weekly assignment around the mid 1980's.

What your Opening Post has done is stimulated me to review those planing thoughts of mine: perhaps they are the wrong starting point.

I'll make every effort to achieve something in the next few days that is worthwhile for consideration and discussion.

WW

[Dave Humphries]

Perhaps try a different composition? (see 'tall' below)

Here are a couple I shot back in 2012; tall and stumpy, I think both were shot at 29mm FFE, but on a point and shoot (Canon S100).

DoF can be an issue, as you have already discovered (you shot at f/16).

My 'tall' shot had several other trees surrounding it which only spoiled the view, so a lot of time was spent cloning them out for a clean blue sky, their shape didn't lend to John's suggestion of converging verticals.

Dave

[NorthernFocus]

Nothing useful to add. Trees tend to stump me too

[pnodrog]

Nothing useful to add. Trees tend to stump me too

It's good you twigged to it. You can root around and find other subjects to branch out to...

[Stagecoach]

Beware of the birds

[xpatUSA]

Today, at about 2 hours before noon, I observed a partially overcast sky and the trunk of the tree partially sunlit on the side. So I went out for quick lighting test, this time armed with SD1 Merrill and the 17-70mm.

First, the mandatory 'before' shot as in the OP:



Then today's shot:



Two mistakes immediately made:

Standing while pointing the heavy camera upward was not fixed by the Optical Stabilization but was indeed fixed by planting one elbow on the tree-trunk.

At 17mm zoom, leaving my newly acquired screw-in hood attached to the 2mm thick UV/IR cut filter*** got me some severe vignettes in the corners. Fixed later by cropping in post.

In post, I discovered plenty of lateral CA from the Sigma 17-70mm 'C' model lens. It does seem that wider angles are needed for this kind of shot so, next time, it will be the trusty 8-16mm (with it's hood removed!).

As to lighting, I'm leaning towards more diffuse light, perhaps a totally but uniformly overcast sky. Or from the sunny side but with cloud cover over the sun and a blue sky overhead.

So many variables, so little time . . .

*** I shoot the Sigma SD1 Merrill with it's dustcover/hot mirror removed for IR shooting and, for visible light shots, I'm trying out a 2mm Schott BG38 UV/IR blocking filter.

[Dave Humphries]

The trunk has far more texture now it is lit, unlike most of the 'before' trunk, which was shaded.

[Pippan]

. . apart from firearm or drug cracks . . .

While somewhat lacking in awesome scenery and interesting subjects, I am not short of trees - so I thought of tree shots as a theme. Today's go was less than inspiring:



Shot just after noon, sun 50- 60 degs altitude, camera about 2ft maybe 3 from the trunk. Pardon my messing with the sky color. Quite disappointing. Not happy with right hand part at all and it's not like the trunk is lacking in texture but it really doesn't show at all well.

Maybe there's a better time of day? Better settings than f/16, 14mm (MFT)? Best point of focus? Blue sky or overcast?

It's not what you're asking about so apologies but what's with the purple sky? Is it bleed from chromatic aberration into clipped/'recovered' highlights? What raw converter/editor did you use?

[Stagecoach]

Getting better Ted.

I suspect low side lighting for the trunk texture and not too bright a sky to reduce dynamic range are the aims. I have a very tall coconut palm in the yard and you have prompted me to have a go also.

[xpatUSA]

It's not what you're asking about so apologies but what's with the purple sky?

Yes, I said "Pardon my messing with the sky color."

Here in the States, "messing with" means "playing with" rather than messing up. The sky started originally with both a luminance gradient and a slight color gradient - neither of which were particularly relevant to the task in hand so I played with the sky color in RawTherapee's HSV Equalizer. There, it is possible to change a particular hue or hues independently of other hues in the image.

Is it bleed from chromatic aberration into clipped/'recovered' highlights?

No, deliberate adjustments, I'm afraid.

What raw converter/editor did you use?

RawTherapee.

Hope this answers your puzzlement . .

[Pippan]

Yes, I said "Pardon my messing with the sky color."

Here in the States, "messing with" means "playing with" rather than messing up. The sky started originally with both a luminance gradient and a slight color gradient - neither of which were particularly relevant to the task in hand so I played with the sky color in RawTherapee's HSV Equalizer. There, it is possible to change a particular hue or hues independently of other hues in the image.



No, deliberate adjustments, I'm afraid.



RawTherapee.

Hope this answers your puzzlement . .

No worries, thanks for that. I asked because I use Photo Ninja and it has a brilliant clipped highlight recovery mechanism but occasionally I get skies that look like that due to bleed from CA into clipped highlights, or some other weird colour from a nearby patch of that colour. But I'm getting better at not clipping highlights I should have read your OP more closely.

[IzzieK]

The second one is getting better. I think I might try this "Look Up!" kind of shot in my backyard...we have a lot of trees over there...and it is quite shady there too. Give it another try on another hour zone...

[xpatUSA]

The second one is getting better. I think I might try this "Look Up!" kind of shot in my backyard...we have a lot of trees over there...and it is quite shady there too. Give it another try on another hour zone...

Thanks Izzie!

Allow me to present yesterday's failure, taken with the mighty Sigma 8-16mm (hood off):



I think it's called "lens flare" or summat.

Funny colors because the camera is set up for IR (no "hot mirror" UV/IR cut filter) and the Schott BG38 won't fit on the Sigma 8-16mm.

Funny curve on that sunray - more Sigma magic - I always thought that light travels in straight lines . . .

[NorthernFocus]

I'm still trying to figure out why you'd point a camera up a tree without a critter up there

[Cantab]

Thanks Izzie!

Allow me to present yesterday's failure, taken with the mighty Sigma 8-16mm (hood off):



I think it's called "lens flare" or summat.

Funny colors because the camera is set up for IR (no "hot mirror" UV/IR cut filter) and the Schott BG38 won't fit on the Sigma 8-16mm.

Funny curve on that sunray - more Sigma magic - I always thought that light travels in straight lines . . .

Now there's an interesting photo!