Straighten Trees ?

[Terry Breedlove]

Ok easy on me new LF shooter here I am trying to learn how to make the trees stand a little straighter in my shots. Here in this photo you can see by the level that I am actually not quite level reason being that I am trying to include more of the river. I have the 90 mm on here and it gives me a great view of the trees and the river. I gave a little front rise to straighten them. I had a difficult time getting the middle and the top in focus with the bottom. Thinking that maybe I should have made the front and the back level with the trees and that would have helped. Does that sound correct ? Was just testing yesterday when I shot these with the iPhone but tomorrow I go back for real and really need some good advice how to do this.

 

[Vaughn]

Level the camera. Keep the back of the camera parallel to the objects you wish to keep straight (trees, buildings, power poles). Use front rise/fall to compose vertically, use some shift to compose horizontally if needed. Use front tilt if needed to place the PoF (plane of focus) where you want it (front lens will not affect the straightness of the trees).

That's the basics. Best thing to do is get behind the camera and move everything around -- and see how it changes the image on the GG! You can also sometimes 'straighten' trees that are not straight!

Just reread your post. I think I covered everything. In your particular shot, keep the camera level and the back of the camera straight up. But look at the tress and at your GG -- the trees may not actually be standing straight, but you get to decide how straight they are by tilting the back of the camera until you see the trees in the position you want them to be.

With the camera level, you can lower the front lens until you get the creek in (or you run out of coverage with your lens). If you don't have enough fall, you may need to point the camera down, adjust the rise/fall, and tilt the back backwards until the trees stand as you wish them to.

Finish by fine-tuning the focus -- which might entail some lens tilt.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Oh great answer thank you. Hopefully I get something. Great to show tomorrow .

 

[Vaughn]

PS -- beautiful camera!

 

[wiltw]

Trees do NOT all rise straight up, they do not even rise at a consistent angle from tree to tree, as seen here...

 

[Sirius Glass]

Trees do NOT all rise straight up, they do not even rise at a consistent angle from tree to tree, as seen here...

Exactly. One self proclaimed expert nature photographer at work complained that my photograph of Half Dome had the trees leaning and that something was wrong with the lens. I pointed out that two trees near each other tilted in different ways. Then I pointed out that Yosemite had a major flood of the Merced river and the flood caused some trees to tilt and other to fall. He never talked about photography at work again.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Trees do NOT all rise straight up, they do not even rise at a consistent angle from tree to tree, as seen here...

Really well good to know thank you. Luckily for me I am not trying to correct what mother nature has given us but instead what the camera and lens has.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Oh by the way it also happens to buildings and fences and walls etc. That is why the view cameras has so many movements right. To correct things that the camera and lens can put out of shape. Things like straight lines (trees in this case) converging where in nature they are not. Look it up.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

PS -- beautiful camera!

Thank you had some interesting conversations with hikers asking about the camera and commenting on how cool it was. One guy and his son a Japanese duo walked by and the old man looked at my camera as he went by and in heavy Japanese accent said Chamonix

 

[Terry Breedlove]

So here is a perfect example. I took this yesterday with the iPhone as I was scouting the location. In the real world these Trees do not converge inwards like they are here in this photo. When I go back to shoot I just want to make sure I can keep things as straight as they actually are in real life. Not wanting or expecting to be able to straighten what is not straight in nature. Converted these to grey scale for quicker loading.

 

[MattKing]

I think what the others are trying to say is that forest scenes are difficult ones to use the convergence controls on, because it is very common to encounter non-vertical trees. When one is working under the dark-cloth and viewing the world upside down and reversed, it is very easy to lose orientation and end up trying to straighten that which wasn't meant to be straight in the first place.

 

[Vaughn]

IMO, the photographer decides which way the trees will go! It is the photographer's image -- not nature's. Nature doesn't care! Our own eyes do the same when we look up at trees and buildings (but some built-in corrections going on in our brains). If one gets things perfectly straight in the camera when it is obvious that the camera angle is very low, the photo might actually look a little unreal...it is not what we see with our eyes (even tho man or nature made them straight).

In your last example, Terry, the converging trees give a strong feeling of height. Keep some of it at least (especially from such a low angle)!

PS -- just got a Chamonix 11x14 in the mail a couple days ago! (that's a size 13 boot!)

 

[Vaughn]

PS#2 -- and when one has trees like in your image -- front tilt will be just about worthless!

 

[wiltw]

So here is a perfect example. I took this yesterday with the iPhone as I was scouting the location. In the real world these Trees do not converge inwards like they are here in this photo. When I go back to shoot I just want to make sure I can keep things as straight as they actually are in real life. Not wanting or expecting to be able to straighten what is not straight in nature. Converted these to grey scale for quicker loading.

While I am driven to eliminate convergent verticals for architectural shots, somehow some of the majesty of the forest of redwoods is lost without the convergentlines which the brain has accepted as part of the awesome scene of the massive redwoods.

 

[Bill Burk]

I think all the right answers have been given here... I would consider first any advice from Vaughn, given his experience with Redwoods.

And all my other friends answering "trees aren't straight" are correct too. They go every which way.

So enjoy it. Trees are my favorite subject, second only to snow, water, rocks, ferns, moss, kids and things people do with them.

 

[Sirius Glass]

While I am driven to eliminate convergent verticals for architectural shots, somehow some of the majesty of the forest of redwoods is lost without the convergentlines which the brain has accepted as part of the awesome scene of the massive redwoods.

Some convergence is needed.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Oh my Vaughn an 11x14 Chamonix very very nice can't wait to see the shots.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

I know I can't make everything perfect and I am ok with that. I do like that corrected image above though. I just want things look to as close as I can get them to the actual thing.

 

[Terry Breedlove]

I have to admit a part if it is just the fun of actually using the camera and doing what I can to make a great print possible. I am learning

 

[jeffreyg]

Can anyone straighten this one? It was actually that shape ... no manipulation. Slightly cropped 2 1/4 x 2 1/4 Ilford Delta 400 straight (not straightened) print.

http://www.jeffreyglasser.com/

 

[Vaughn]

Just trying to keep things straight...

(5x7 negative, carbon print) -- it helped that this was photographed on top of a fallen redwood and the camera is about 20 feet above the forest floor!

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Jeff LOL

 

[Terry Breedlove]

Just trying to keep things straight...

(5x7 negative, carbon print) -- it helped that this was photographed on top of a fallen redwood and the camera is about 20 feet above the forest floor!

Beautifully shot. Our Forest are very similar and that is the type of shot I am looking for. I never got to go shoot today dealing with brain injury related things right now but soon.

 

[John Wiegerink]

IMO, the photographer decides which way the trees will go! It is the photographer's image -- not nature's. Nature doesn't care! Our own eyes do the same when we look up at trees and buildings (but some built-in corrections going on in our brains). If one gets things perfectly straight in the camera when it is obvious that the camera angle is very low, the photo might actually look a little unreal...it is not what we see with our eyes (even tho man or nature made them straight).

In your last example, Terry, the converging trees give a strong feeling of height. Keep some of it at least (especially from such a low angle)!

PS -- just got a Chamonix 11x14 in the mail a couple days ago! (that's a size 13 boot!)

I'll second that! How many pictures (non view camera) have we seen where somebody has taken a camera with wide lens, laid it on its back in the forest and shot a seen up through a group of trees tightly surrounding the camera. All trees converging toward the center of the shot can be absolutely stunning. Nature converges all the time............manmade straight lines don't. Your mind and eyes know that too!

 

[RalphLambrecht]

Trees do NOT all rise straight up, they do not even rise at a consistent angle from tree to tree, as seen here...

making things straight is a human thing.God doesn't do that. It's not divine.