I know your question wasn't for me, Gianluca, and I am not qualified to give advice on the subject so I won't, but whenever I see a tree isolated in the landscape I always want to photograph it.I always find it difficult to take photos of trees, and I am always dissatisfied with the result. I would like to shoot them in all their majesty, but they are usually too big, they are backlit, and the result does not do justice to the subject. Then I try to shoot details (the roots, the trunk, the branches, the leaves), but I am even more frustrated because I would like to reproduce the whole tree and portray the emotion it causes in me.
Do you have any advice for me on how to photograph a tree without taking anything away from it?
Indeed, very pretty, Gord. Is there any such thing as an ugly tree?We have different oak species here that like to grow pretty straight up...not nearly as photogenic. But they can still look pretty in the autumn in the fog...even this baby one
The "ugliest" ones are the most interesting. They also look a lot better than we do after death.Is there any such thing as an ugly tree?
Sadly indeed.Sadly, dead or dying ash trees here are becoming an ever more common site. There"s a beautiful ancient ash across the lane from us, still thriving. All fingers and toes crossed it remains that way..
Sadly indeed.
Ash is going to all but disappear from the UK landscape. I have overseen a large scale (county sized) survey to determine the rate at which they have succumbed to infection from Ash Dieback disease and the result was well over 90%. Some are resistant but that figure is low.