Photographing woods

[andreios]

Dear friends,
some months ago we've moved to area sort of surrounded by woods, mostly young-ish pine woods. As I walk through them quite often (and drive through them daily) I always wonder how to approach them to make pictures.. Until now I've had only VERY few passable negatives... I always feel rather special whenever I am surrounded by trees and I would like to capture something of this on my film.

So I wonder, whether you have any advice or your own experience.. Or whether you could name some photographers doing making images of such kind of "ordinary" forests, whether they are considered masters like J.Sexton or just "some blokes in the blogosphere"... In a word I am looking for some inspiration...

Of course I am aware of the looong "post your trees" thread - I browse through it pretty often, but I am thinking more about regular rather monotonous woods than some extraordinary interesting and often solitary trees or spectatular places like redwood forests..

Thank you..

[lenser]

Composition is only part of the scheme. Pick your favorite spots and spend some serious time just sitting in a camp chair and watching how light sculpts each scene at different times of day. Make notes on where and the best times. It is is three dimensional quality of how light reveals the shapes that will tell you when to be back with your camera to make the really successful images.

[Thad Gerheim]

Take a piece of mat board or paper and cut out a 4x5 hole in it. Then you can view and compose what will be on your negative as you walk around. Holding it at various distances from your eyes will give you different lense options.

Good Luck!

[DrTang]

I'd walk around with a pocket digi camera at various times and conditions and just snap a lot of pix. A lot

you probably won't get anything great..but if you look carefully..you will see how the 3d turns into 2d and where and when it's best to bring out the big camera for a try

[David Aimone]

I'd agree that light is always important, but even more so to define the spaces between the trees...

here's one with back lighting (non-LF, so I'll just post a link):
http://farm7.staticflickr.com/6047/6320649850_71f9ec2701_z.jpg


Composition is only part of the scheme. Pick your favorite spots and spend some serious time just sitting in a camp chair and watching how light sculpts each scene at different times of day. Make notes on where and the best times. It is is three dimensional quality of how light reveals the shapes that will tell you when to be back with your camera to make the really successful images.

[Vaughn]

Windless overcast days are nice to work with. It is like having a big softbox overhead.

[Brian C. Miller]

Color or B&W? I'm presuming B&W for the moment. In the shade or sunlit? Your film choice will also affect things.

Recently I developed some Fuji Acros and inadvertently pushed it a bit much while doing some testing, and the pine needles wound up looking like I had used Kodak HIR. There was no filter used on the lens at the time. Another time I photographed pine trees in the shade using Konica IR, and they just give an amazing super pop, with everything looking white!

So try something different. Try shooting wide open, try focusing on a patch of bark, try holding the camera and walking forward. Somebody posted a series in the image section of a friend dressed up as Death, and the ones where the 8x10 camera was hand-held and panned were very interesting.

[jp]

It's a good scene for intimate landscapes and macros as well. For the intimate landscape sort of thing, borrow some Eliot Porter books (particularly the Maine images). He was a master in working in tight woods rather than grand landscapes. There are many more modern or abstract compositions doable if you want to diverge from his style.

I would agree with the others to check the places out in different light and figure out how to make 3d into a 2d image. I close one eye and move around in the scene to see things in 2d before setting up a camera.

Thin depth of field is another option, somewhat related to macro by style. Here is one (not mine) that I really like. http://www.flickr.com/photos/cr2512/4340540489/in/faves-13759696@N02/ With thin DOF, you'll start seeing 2d scenes in 2d planes rather than 3d. Here's one I did with thin DOF to contrast new and old in the wood http://jason.philbrook.us/~jp/scans/2012/img513.jpg

[atlcruiser]

Woods can be tough. My problem is that i "see" too much and can not seem to decide what to put on film!

One thing really helped me:
I went out and took 6-10 of the best woods photos I could. Basically found scenes and tried to compose in what looked best through the GG. This was on 810 so it was very fun to do :)

I went through and developed as normal then scanned into LR3. I set the basic issues such as exposure and contrast then I locked the aspect ration and started playing with each image. This allowed me to recompose within what i already had and to explore new relationships within the existing photo.

Without fail I found a better photo in what i had already shot. This process of review was followed by going back out and trying again. it did not take me too long to start getting the feel for what I liked and to learn to "see" the woods a bit better.

I have used this same process with other subjects with good result.

have fun...go make photographs

[Greg Miller]

I agree with Vaughn about taking advantage of bright overcast days.

The chaos of dense forests can be difficult to translate from 3D to 2D. I like to walk around with one eye closed so that IO start seeing in 2D.

For color work, take a look at Eliot Porter's and Robert Glenn Ketchum's photos of the forest of the eastern USA. They both were/are strong at creating order form chaos.

[MIke Sherck]

You're in Sudek's territory: you couldn't have a better mentor.

Mike

[andreios]

Dear friends, thank you very much for your input and let me apologize for opening the thread and letting it just lie - I followed your responses but was too busy to join the discussion.

As a father of 2 (and VERY soon 3) small children I can rarely choose my time to go out according to light and weather, so I have to take what is on hand when I am out with my camera(s).
There is something to figure about the 3D->2D vision, as some of you mention - will be trying to do this next time I'm out. But I find that while photographing woods, the secret lies even more in the intricate play of light than with other subjects - as is could be very well seen in J.Sudek's work, that Mike mentions.

[andreios]

It's a good scene for intimate landscapes and macros as well. For the intimate landscape sort of thing, borrow some Eliot Porter books (particularly the Maine images). He was a master in working in tight woods rather than grand landscapes. There are many more modern or abstract compositions doable if you want to diverge from his style.

I would agree with the others to check the places out in different light and figure out how to make 3d into a 2d image. I close one eye and move around in the scene to see things in 2d before setting up a camera.

Thin depth of field is another option, somewhat related to macro by style. Here is one (not mine) that I really like. http://www.flickr.com/photos/cr2512/4340540489/in/faves-13759696@N02/ With thin DOF, you'll start seeing 2d scenes in 2d planes rather than 3d. Here's one I did with thin DOF to contrast new and old in the wood http://jason.philbrook.us/~jp/scans/2012/img513.jpg

"Intimate landscape" - now that's an expression worth remembering.. And very nice photographs.. Thank you.
I'll look up Eliot Porter, though libraries here are very poor on photography books (other than Czech photographers').

[Bill_1856]

It is very, very difficult. If you can pull it off you may be the world's greatest photographer.

[bravo_]

Well i quite agree with this topic,
Thanks for starting a really nice topic here .

[Preston]

Andreios,

You will find many excellent examples of photographs of trees in this thread (http://www.largeformatphotography.info/forum/showthread.php?32514-post-your-trees!)right here at the LF Forum.

You might also take a look at the work of Harley Goldman (http://www.harleygoldman.com/) and Lon Everacker (http://www.lonoveracker.com/) for more ideas and inspiration. I like making photographs of trees, as well. You can see them here (http://www.gildedmoon.com/).


"I'd agree that light is always important, but even more so to define the spaces between the trees..."

The negative space, the spaces between the trees, is very important, and I totally agree with David's comment. The negative space will add materially to the perceived depth of the scene. Also, using a viewing card will be a great asset to your seeing how the elements of a scene interact with one another while also eliminating the distraction of adjacent areas.

Viewing images of forests, or forest details is helpful and inspirational, but nothing beats going out and keeping your eyes wide open to the possibilities all around you.

--P

[E. von Hoegh]

Windless overcast days are nice to work with. It is like having a big softbox overhead.

Yup. It's easier to add contrast than to remove contrast.

[andreios]

Friends, thank you for keeping this thread alive.. I am still very much concerned about this. As the weather is now a bit more reasonable here, I've done quite a lot of "looking" - (as far as looking-after those two pairs of small feet trying to jump into streams allows) - I have a small stack of 35mm and MF films waiting and am very curious about what shall I see on the contact sheets..

Preston, thank you for the links.. maybe I should really just stick to the viewing card - it would be quicker than finding time for darkroom.. :-)

[E. von Hoegh]

Andreios, some woods just don't lend themselves to being photographed. Too thick, too much underbrush, etc. But you can usually find something interesting by moving closer, say some rocks, a group of trees, a pattern of light, depends on your woods. Just spend time in the woods, you will find photos.

[andreios]

Just spend time in the woods, you will find photos.

This is perhaps the best advice one could obtain.. And does not limit itself on woods I presume.
Thank you.

[Chuck P.]

Here's an example I have. The shadow on the dead tree was placed on Zone IV, the sunlit highights fell on Zone IX, I gave N-1 development to TMX with d-76 1:1. A 23A red-orange filter was used, the basic exposure was determined at 4 sec at f/64, accounting for the filter factor it was adjusted to 10 sec at f/64, finally accounting for reciprocity, the final exposure was 25 sec at f/64.

[Michael Graves]

Deer Hollow, winter in Vermont.

[Brian Sims]

The chaos of dense forests can be difficult to translate from 3D to 2D. I like to walk around with one eye closed so that IO start seeing in 2D.

Greg makes a great point. I think the problem of photographing the forest is that it looks so cool in 3D. I am often disappointed by the 2D rendering. I now close one eye while hiking and it is surprising how many great 3D forest shots disapear as candidates for 2D. Now I try to find a subject in the forest instead of trying to make the forest the subject.

[rdenney]

I keep looking for single focal points in my woods, but often the texture is too thick for any one thing to declare itself.

I said this in another thread as a joke, but I mean it seriously, too: I look at the work of Eliot Porter. In 1991 or 1992, he collaborated with James Gleick on a words-and-pictures book called "Nature's Chaos" which hits this topic head-on. Much of Porter's work is of woods and underbrush that makes the texture the subject rather than some singular thing. It's pattern-as-subject, even when the pattern is random. This is certainly not a new concept in art.

When I was looking through the book, I was turning around the familiar phrase "can't see the forest for the trees" into: "Can't see the trees for the forest." I don't think I know what it means, though.

Rick "whose property includes about 3500 pine trees" Denney

[Ken Lee]

http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/w18.jpg


http://www.kenleegallery.com/images/forum/w17.jpg

Sometimes the woods are easier when you are inside looking out (first photo), or outside looking in (second photo).

It can give a point of reference, implied or explicit.

[Heroique]

“Can’t see the trees for the forest.” I don’t think I know what it means.

Can’t see the smaller concrete realities – like a marble-sized quartz pebble whose white surface sparkles through a bit of green moss – due to the distractions of an abstract concept, like “forest” or “woods.”

[Heroique]

Sometimes the woods are easier when you are inside looking out, or outside looking in.

Which image is the first kind, and is the other the second? ;^)

It’s easy to get lost in the woods.

[Ken Lee]

Sorry that it was unclear.

For the first image, the camera was inside the woods, looking out. There is a clearing in the distance, a snow-covered lake actually.

For the second image, the camera was in a field, pointed towards the edge of the woods. Outside, looking in.

[David Brunell]

Sorry that it was unclear.

For the first image, the camera was inside the woods, looking out. There is a clearing in the distance, a snow-covered lake actually.

For the second image, the camera was in a field, pointed towards the edge of the woods. Outside, looking in.

I really like the first image looking out Ken. We have plenty of woods here in Michigan.

[andreios]

Thank you all for your thoughts and examples!

[David Lobato]

All the above suggestions are excellent. I lived in a thick pine forest for several years and understand the difficulty of finding good compositions. What I did was observe and note scenes that show promise as you walk/drive/run/bike through your local area. Watch and wait for dramatic weather, clouds, fog, snow, frost, nightfall, sunrise/moonrise through the trees, flowers, mushrooms, and combinations of these things. Be persistent and work at it, disappointments will happen and then eventually you will start making good photos. I made a lot of mediocre negatives, and many excellent ones from my time there.

[jp]

I keep looking for single focal points in my woods, but often the texture is too thick for any one thing to declare itself.

I said this in another thread as a joke, but I mean it seriously, too: I look at the work of Eliot Porter. In 1991 or 1992, he collaborated with James Gleick on a words-and-pictures book called "Nature's Chaos" which hits this topic head-on. Much of Porter's work is of woods and underbrush that makes the texture the subject rather than some singular thing. It's pattern-as-subject, even when the pattern is random. This is certainly not a new concept in art.

When I was looking through the book, I was turning around the familiar phrase "can't see the forest for the trees" into: "Can't see the trees for the forest." I don't think I know what it means, though.

Rick "whose property includes about 3500 pine trees" Denney

That's a decent book. It's like the science geeks link to Porter, as "In Wildness" is the literary link to Porter via Thoreau.

Porter's summer world, which I suspect was a big part of his understanding of the woods and nature, was a very thickly wooded modest sized island. Literally. Great Spruce Head island (just north of North Haven ME) was the family getaway, and it's thick thick thick woods of limited size, but lots of biodiversity. Spend lots of time in those woods with no place to go, you start noticing the little details and colors like he did, rather than the grand vistas normally associated with landscape photography. Frequent repeated walks like Thoreau did also helped Thoreau in his time to notice the details in nature.

[rdenney]

That's a decent book. It's like the science geeks link to Porter, as "In Wildness" is the literary link to Porter via Thoreau.

Hey, I just look at the pictures...

(that was a joke.)

"In Wildness," especially in its first edition (only edition?) was very well printed and each plate was varnished to bring out the colors. They'd do that better nowadays, but the care to render the photos favorably was obvious. Not so much with "Nature's Chaos", which is more workaday process color. You have to decide you will see past that. It's a demonstration of how to find compositions when there seems to be no subject--the subject becomes the lack of subject. It stretches me, but not far enough yet.

Rick "who has seen Porter's dye transfer prints in person" Denney