Tree contemplation

[Chuck_P]

I contemplate a subject only from the standpoint of my visualization of the print with respect to the final distribution of tones in my minds eye------I firmly believe in trying to produce, visually, the "equivalent" of what was seen and felt about the subject when I found it.......yes, the old "equivalency" concept by Stieglitz. If I can do that, it is a success IMO. And yes, it points to the fundamental ideal behind the concept of the ZS which is visualization. I'm simply not cabable of contemplating a subject for the attachment of any kind of "meaning", nor do I want to be, I believe I would find that quite a stumbling block. There's a feeling I may have about a subject, I just strive to transfer that to the print.

 

[blansky]

Before you dismiss this as just so much hooey, consider that unless you are one of those fortunate persons who can take a flawless photograph by chance, understanding your subject is a vital step towards knowing how to photograph it.

Cheers,
Tom

What you call a flawless photograph by chance may in fact be a photograph made by a person that has worked through all the contemplation previously in his life and can now step up to the plate and make great photographs almost immediately.

The contemplation stage may in fact be sort of an amateur or learning process in the art of seeing, where a master may see it at a glance.

Moonrise over Hernandez was mentioned here and it is a great example of a master taking a photograph by seeing potential. The basic print is pretty mundane, but Adams saw the potential and the elements that he could enhance and turned into a work of art.

 

[DWThomas]

I like trees, but I may go a bit light on contemplation. What usually happens is I catch a view of a tree of some perhaps unusual shape or structure, under some particular lighting that draws my attention -- sometimes I may just be taking a walk without any photographic goal. When actually making a photo, I may spend some time adjusting the composition as it will appear in the frame, but generally that's a pretty quick process; I've "seen" the picture already.

 

[keithwms]

I honestly don't see the big deal about Hernandez. I assume that when I see the print in person I'll be more impressed. Many other Ansels that I prefer.

Anyway, now that I have created a thousand enemies for not towing the party line on Hernandez ....back to trees: I am very fond of them and have become friendly with quite a few. We spend quite a lot of time together and discuss reasons for being and so forth. One tree with which I have a special relationship is a very wise old ginkgo with a horse hitch in its base. This tree has seen many things. Here it is in full autumn glory:

(there was a url link here which no longer exists)

As you can see, this ginkgo is so grand, other trees bow to it and clouds position themselves favourably above

 

[Jeff Kubach]

Yes indeed until they take you away to a rubber room on the funny farm

They have a wing named after me over here!

Jeff

 

[Jim Jones]

A tree is a tree is a tree. A photo of a tree can be whatever the viewer wants it to be.

 

[Toffle]

What you call a flawless photograph by chance may in fact be a photograph made by a person that has worked through all the contemplation previously in his life and can now step up to the plate and make great photographs almost immediately.

The contemplation stage may in fact be sort of an amateur or learning process in the art of seeing, where a master may see it at a glance.

Moonrise over Hernandez was mentioned here and it is a great example of a master taking a photograph by seeing potential. The basic print is pretty mundane, but Adams saw the potential and the elements that he could enhance and turned into a work of art.

That is exactly what I originally wrote in my much longer post, which I edited out to make my point more concise. (Ya, I'm an optimist.. )

Hernandez is far more than just serendipity of being at the right place at the right time, and it is more than just realizing the potential in a negative. Adams was simply very well prepared to take advantage of the opportunity. I would bet dollars to donuts that many an aspiring photographer has tried to re-capture the magic of that moment. Some will have gotten wonderful photographs, some true art, and some merely snapshots. Contemplation today can lead to understandings that may influence your work many years down the road.

Clive has posed a very large question here. (It's one of his talents) There are a lot of books on the art of seeing, pre-visualization, photographic contemplation, etc. Some agree, and some disagree... (like here on our much-loved APUG) Good things to think about as we sort through our gear on the way to a photo outing... Which I'm doing right... now.

Cheers,
Tom

 

[ntenny]

i think it all depends ..
some people work better after contemplating
or studying, or having a deeper understanding of something
it is like making a portrait of an old friend or family member
as opposed to a stranger ...

some people work better by letting whatever it is they are photographing
hit them all at once.

I was going to say this, only I was going to use more words and not be as clear. So, um, yeah, what he said.

-NT

 

[Chuck_P]

A tree is a tree is a tree. A photo of a tree can be whatever the viewer wants it to be.

+1

 

[Vaughn]

A tree is a tree is a tree. A photo of a tree can be whatever the viewer wants it to be.

And a tree can be whatever the viewer wants it to be.

 

[RicD]

You think long you think wrong.
You over analyze you paralyze.

 

[billbretz]

I've nothing to offer the OP.

But this might be a good time to mention that Mitch Epstein just did a project on trees, showing later in NYC and excerpted in the New York Times Magazine and discussed here:

http://www.nytimes.com/2012/02/12/magazine/how-to-see-a-tree.html

and here:

http://6thfloor.blogs.nytimes.com/2012/02/11/mitch-epstein-tree-stalker/

8x10 b/w film, probably digital output. I generally am a fan of his work, but I can't say I am crazy about this group of images.

Anyway, some interesting talk in these links about photographing trees.

 

[Klainmeister]

"If a man knew enough he could write a whole book about the juniper tree. Not juniper trees in general but that one particular juniper tree which grows from a ledge of naked sandstone near the old entrance to Arches National Monument."

- Ed Abbey

 

[Hikari]

If you contemplate a tree for some time and be entranced by it, will you take a more meaningful photograph of that tree as opposed to if you just turn up and photograph it?

You turn up in a war and contemplate it for some time and be entranced by it, will you take a more meaningful photograph of that war as opposed to if you just turn up and photograph it?

The answer is time has nothing to do with it. Neither whether you are entranced by it as well--those are personal feelings and just having them does not give them to the image and turning those feelings into concepts does not help.

It simply comes down to whether the photograph is good or not. How you get there does not, to use a popular term, "inform" the image.

 

[Hikari]

"If a man knew enough he could write a whole book about the juniper tree. Not juniper trees in general but that one particular juniper tree which grows from a ledge of naked sandstone near the old entrance to Arches National Monument."

- Ed Abbey

I know, writers say the darnedest things. Unfortunately for photographers, they have to be grounded in reality.

 

[Vaughn]

I know, writers say the darnedest things. Unfortunately for photographers, they have to be grounded in reality.

Really, why? What is reality? Is your reality the same as mine? IMO, no.

I have a close friend who experiences an array of color that no one else can see under certain circumstances. Her brain interprets some stimuli as color (a rare but documented occurance in humans). When I stand amongst the redwoods, I experience a visual vibration of their trunks. That is my reality, is it also yours?

Eliot Porter's use of color in the dye transfers of Glenn Canyon always disturbed me -- to me they were not the "real" colors. Yet to him they were.

Vaughn

 

[Bill Burk]

I'll walk around a tree that strikes me. Or I'll climb a hill nearby for a better vantage point. I climbed a tree near the Alonzo Stagg redwood to get close to the bark. The little extra effort helps, as far as satisfying myself.

Once I visited Mike Law, author of "To Find The Largest Tree." You should see the maps wallpapered on the wall of his cabin. He drew circles in pencil around every Giant Sequoia grove he surveyed. I joked with a friend that I could work from these maps and make it a project to photograph every single Giant Sequoia. My friend encouraged me that it could be done, since they only grow in known groves along a 200 mile stretch of California.

Not long ago, James Balog came out with his book which treats the subject thoroughly. Balog also felt the frustration that often you cannot see a whole tree, so he climbed and rappelled to paint the Stagg tree with hundreds of shots that he stitched together. There, in the middle of the sequence, I could see he got a view similar to mine. He completed an image for me, where I could only capture a fragment.

 

[ntenny]

(wrt the Ed Abbey quote about the juniper tree)

I know, writers say the darnedest things. Unfortunately for photographers, they have to be grounded in reality.

Can you elaborate? I'm not sure what conflict you perceive between Abbey's sentiment and "reality".

Now, I'm not sure what the quote would say if he'd been talking about photography instead of writing, but I can imagine a couple of possibilities. For instance, some people would argue that a single "right" photograph of a juniper tree can contain an enormous wealth of ideas all by itself, and I'd tend to think they have a point. I'm thinking you disagree but I'd be interested to know in more detail why.

-NT

 

[Toffle]

What a wonderful twist to the discussion - reality. Thank you Hikari.

I recently visited Clyde Butcher's gallery in Venice, FL. (Wonderful place, and wonderful people. Stop by and visit; they'll give you a tour of his very impressive darkroom.) One print shows a beautiful, tranquil stand of trees in the south Florida swamp. It is an absolutely stunning (and huge) print. The caption beside the print describes the difficulty in obtaining the shot, as Clyde and his camera were precariously perched on the edge of a busy four-lane highway. The print shows no clue of that reality. I remember thinking at the time what an interesting juxtaposition it would have been to have taken the photograph from the far side of the highway, with the speeding traffic against the timeless backdrop of the swamp. Which photograph would have more accurately reflected the reality?

As photographers, we choose our reality. It is a matter of our experience and training (and intuition) to compose a shot to include or exclude certain elements, or to manipulate lighting and depth of field to bring emphasis to where we want it to be. We can choose to give hints as to what exists outside the edges of the photograph, or intentionally conceal that reality. Similarly, we can choose to take a photograph in a way that suggests what is taking place before or after the shutter is clicked... or not at all.

Somewhere in between this all is the reality that we, as photographers, choose for our audience to see.

"Reality, what a concept." - Robin Williams

 

[cliveh]

What a wonderful twist to the discussion - reality. Thank you Hikari.

I recently visited Clyde Butcher's gallery in Venice, FL. (Wonderful place, and wonderful people. Stop by and visit; they'll give you a tour of his very impressive darkroom.) One print shows a beautiful, tranquil stand of trees in the south Florida swamp. It is an absolutely stunning (and huge) print. The caption beside the print describes the difficulty in obtaining the shot, as Clyde and his camera were precariously perched on the edge of a busy four-lane highway. The print shows no clue of that reality. I remember thinking at the time what an interesting juxtaposition it would have been to have taken the photograph from the far side of the highway, with the speeding traffic against the timeless backdrop of the swamp. Which photograph would have more accurately reflected the reality?

As photographers, we choose our reality. It is a matter of our experience and training (and intuition) to compose a shot to include or exclude certain elements, or to manipulate lighting and depth of field to bring emphasis to where we want it to be. We can choose to give hints as to what exists outside the edges of the photograph, or intentionally conceal that reality. Similarly, we can choose to take a photograph in a way that suggests what is taking place before or after the shutter is clicked... or not at all.

Somewhere in between this all is the reality that we, as photographers, choose for our audience to see.

"Reality, what a concept." - Robin Williams

Very well put and thats why it is such a complex medium.