Coastal Redwood photo's of Ansel Adams

<p>Hi!<br /> For the third time, now, I shot Coastal Redwoods, this time for the first time in serious black and white. I want to image the way such a forest of giants feels to me. <br /> My big ideal in landscape photography is Ansel Adams and I'd very much like to see how he did Redwoods, but all I can find in an internet search are very standard horizontal shots of a row of trees. Is that really all he did? Or is there more, which I haven't found yet?<br /> Shooting Redwoods in a meaningful way is difficult, maybe he figured to transfer to a print the majesty of those trees was not possible, I don't know. <br /> Anything he wrote on Redwoods?<br /> Great Redwood shots from other people?<br /> I'd very much like to learn by looking at other's ways of imaging.<br /> I add two of my shots of last time, to show what I did. This is not a request for critique.<br /> Next year I'll try to get the size of the trees by putting in a properly dressed person.<br /> Thank you,</p>

<p>Dirk.</p><div></div>

<p>my second shot:<br>

Thanks!<br>

Dirk.</p><div></div>

<p>The problem to my mind is to convey to the viewers the immense size of the trees. I found my shots unimpressive in this regard. Do you feel yours succeeded?</p>

<p>No, i didn't succeed. What i did catch, I think, is the beauty of the forest.<br>

I intend, next year, to put a model in, properly dressed, so I'll shoot a frame of reference. But if I'll be able to make that look natural, i have no idea. <br>

My theory is that Ansel Adams also realized it is futile to try to photograph the size of these trees.</p>

<p>How about this one? It's by Michael Nichols of Natl Geographic and is available on an NPR website (http://www.npr.org/sections/pictureshow/2009/09/redwoods.html) </p>

<blockquote>

<p>so I'll shoot a frame of reference.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Yes, I don't think it is really possible to perceive the size without actually being there - it is good to know that, for this subject at least, there is no substitute for personal experience.</p>

<p>i have to agree.. Trees are very difficult to get right. <br>

Its hard to show their size.. how do you show that they are 100 ft tall vs 10?<br>

How do you show that THIS tree is special, and different than the one in your yard?<br>

-And how do you do that without cluttering the scene with people or houses?</p><div></div>

Thumbing through the book "Ansel Adams 400 Photographs", I find four photographs of redwood trees with "Redwood" or

"Redwoods" in the title on pages 289, 396, 397, and 399. There are other photographs in the book where redwoods are not

mentioned by name but are included in the composition. So, yes, he did photograph redwoods and did a masterful job in

portraying their size and beauty. I especially like one titled "Redwoods, Bull Creek Flat, Northern California", 1960.

You can view "Redwoods, Bull Creek Flar" at shopanseladams.com by searching for the title.

<p>Thanks, Glenn. By the way, it's shop.anseladams.com and <a href="http://shop.anseladams.com/v/vspfiles/photos/1501046-2.jpg">HERE'S</a> a direct link to the photo.</p>

<p>IMO, it's good photo which uses the redwoods effectively, creates a nice mood, etc. but doesn't do what people seem to be after, which is suggest the size and majesty of these trees. For me, it captures part of the feel of a redwood forest or grove but not really the scale or size. I don't do much landscape photography, but maybe one wouldn't have to get the entire tree in the frame to accomplish this . . . and part of it would be working with metaphor as opposed to trying to be literal. Texture and color are very important to these trees as is the light that often accompanies them, which Adams has a way with. For scale, even snapshots from Muir woods do that when you put a kid against a trunk or root system. A series might be one way to approach it.</p>

<p>Here's one that's kind of cool . . .</p>

<p>http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2014/06/30/article-2675758-1F498DF600000578-917_964x1368.jpg</p>