Bonsai that look good in photos vs real life - Thoughts?

Ply

Mame
Messages
210
Reaction score
222
Location
Netherlands
USDA Zone
8a
Not often I'm taking pictures of bonsai, but whenever I do I always feel they look different to real life. Your eye seems drawn to other parts of the tree, certain areas feel emptier, certain more cluttered. It's never really the same as the real life version, at least to me.

In a bonsai podcast the other day I heard a bonsai pro, can't recall who, mention the phenomenon of trees being styled specifically for pictures/social media usage.

It makes me wonder; do some trees look better in pictures than others? And what makes a bonsai look good in pictures, versus real life?
 
@Fidur can probably speech more about this. I believe he has experience with professional photos. I am only a casual user of cameras.

Yes they appear to look different in person then as capture with a camera.

Depending on the lens and lighting used to capture the image, the depth that is felt when looking at the image can vary significantly. In at lot of casual photos, the trees appear flatter without much depth. The lighting can also throw shadows in different directions, obscuring branches that might otherwise be seen with overhead or natural lighting in play.

Some trees are designed to take advantage of these aspects to look better on camera then they do in real life, either consciously or not. Someone who only really looks at their trees through pictures would lean this way as they would probably be aiming to present their tree to others and want it to look it's best.
 
No matter how much I try I can´t make justice to my trees. They always look to me better in real life than in pictures.
I just try to get the best I know, and that means to be careful so the background doesn´t distract, to use an apropiate light (wich means early in the morning or late in the afternoon, and never under the sun) and try to get the trunk lines of the tree. But if a tree of mine is not good, I hardly can get a pic of it that makes it better.
I aim for any cheap way to show them in 3D....
 
Last edited:
I take so many photos of my trees that I often think I’m more of a photographer who grows my own subjects.

Usually, photos show very critically because they flatten the trees. I use photos to style, because they give a very harsh look at areas that need to be addressed. Here is one example from my recent J maple pruning/wiring. I got it to this point, took a photo and then marked up next steps.
IMG_0552.jpeg
 
Let's be clear. A pic can enhace a tree, but only if the tree deserves it.

Yesterday I built a dawn redwood forest, and took this pic of it

IMG20260218160341 (1).jpg

Later, I enhaced it, by a correct framing and parameters

IMG20260218160352.jpg

And you can go a little further, using software:

transparent-Photoroom (13).jpg

I think the third pic describes better my work than the first, and I don´t feel like I'm cheating if I publish it.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ply
I often hear that images can help reveal issues with our trees, but it feels wrong to me to optimize for a 2D representation of our trees. Most images lose all feel of stereoscopic depth and distort proportions. If we tune the tree for a flattened representation, I worry that this will not necessarily translate to the real world.

Just a thought though, I do not have enough experience with tree photography to really say for sure.
 
  • Like
Reactions: Ply
I take so many photos of my trees that I often think I’m more of a photographer who grows my own subjects.

Usually, photos show very critically because they flatten the trees. I use photos to style, because they give a very harsh look at areas that need to be addressed. Here is one example from my recent J maple pruning/wiring. I got it to this point, took a photo and then marked up next steps.
I use photos in my styling process. The two dimensional image can reveal faults that are less obvious in three dimensions.

That's interesting, I'll take photo's during the next styling of a tree, see how it goes.

Do you feel that by styling a tree to look better in photo's it also looks better in real life/3D? Or do you ever tweak a branch and feel it improved the photo, but not the real life version?
 
I often hear that images can help reveal issues with our trees, but it feels wrong to me to optimize for a 2D representation of our trees. Most images lose all feel of stereoscopic depth and distort proportions. If we tune the tree for a flattened representation, I worry that this will not necessarily translate to the real world.
I guess that's what I'm wondering:

Do photo's give a harsh critical look of our trees, and will a better tree in a photo result in a better 3D tree as well, or are the two largely seperated. And is there a tradeoff? Will a better looking in 2D (photo's) results in a less good looking tree in 3D, and vise versa.
 
I get styling ideas for all my trees in pictures before I pick up any wire. I am not yet skilled enough to visualize multiple changes to a real tree and hold that in my mind while I fiddle with things. That picture is invaluable.

Screenshot 2026-02-19 104614.jpg

As for real life vs picture perceptions of tree, I actually enjoy the occasions when a tree looks ugly from most angles until you walk around, crouch down and everything CLICKS into place and it looks awesome.
 
That's interesting, I'll take photo's during the next styling of a tree, see how it goes.

Do you feel that by styling a tree to look better in photo's it also looks better in real life/3D? Or do you ever tweak a branch and feel it improved the photo, but not the real life version?
Definitely improves the look IRL.
 
Replicating what we see in reality with a photo is very difficult. Our eyes react much differently to the light, color, depth, and perspective of a real-world object than they do to a photo on a screen or a print. So I’ll focus more on how to take appealing photos. With a little setup and a few inexpensive materials, anyone can take nice photos of their trees at home, even if they have limited space.

The two primary issues that people run into tend to be lighting and background. Understanding photography concepts, exposure, composition, etc, and having a good-quality camera will help, but let’s focus on the first two.

Background: The usual mistake is taking photos of your trees in situ; most people don’t have a nice, clean background. They may be in a backyard with a busy or messy view, on a plinth with many other trees visible, against an ugly wall, and so forth.

You can create a simple studio background setup with a pack of 24x36” black (or whatever color you want) foamcore panels. Simply build half of a box: a bottom, side, and back, and attach the parts with ductape or whatever you have on hand. If you have a very large tree to photograph, you might want to build something a bit bigger, or consider a cloth background, but 24x36” foamcore is easy to order from Amazon, art supply stores, etc. You can buy photo backdrop kits and save yourself the DIY work as well.

If you insist on or need to take your photos in situ, consider building a simple backdrop that you can place behind the tree instead. Foamcore or a sheet of cloth on a simple stand will work fine here, too.

Lighting: Lighting can make or break your photos. Bright, harsh outdoor lighting can create too much contrast between the highlights and shadows, unless you have an expensive camera with high dynamic range and can edit the photos from raw. Even then, taking a mid-day, sunny shot usually means a less-than-ideal light angle for the light and shadows.

Taking the tree indoors and using a basic lighting setup gives us control over the intensity and direction of the light. You don’t need expensive studio or modeling lights to do this; a simple, inexpensive adjustable arm Anglepoise-style light fixture from Amazon or Ikea will do it. You can also use a utility flashlight. Any light source that you can easily arrange near the tree will work. Two or three lights will give you even more control (look up “three-point lighting” if you want to dive deeper).

PXL_20250811_064954125 (1).jpg

When placing your light source, try to avoid facing the light head-on from the perspective of the camera (or using on-camera flash), as this will give a “deer in the headlights” look, flattening the subject and hiding the shadows. We want the light to sculpt the subject and the shadows to fall naturally. This usually means placing the light at the top-left or top-right at about 45 degrees on either axis. Not directly above, and not at 90 degrees to the side, but somewhere in between. The angle will vary depending on the forms of your tree, so experiment until you find something you like. Just keep in mind that light tends to look more natural when coming from above (light it from below if you're doing a horror shoot).

Light coming towards the camera, filtering through and showing the translucency of the leaves, can be effective too. In studio lighting terms, we usually call this a rim light, and it can be helpful to add this kind of effect with a secondary light source. Rim lights are good for highlighting the silhouette of your tree as well.

If you don’t have variable brightness lights, you can vary the intensity of the light by moving it further or closer to the subject. Usually, we would set up our key light - the main light source - first, and have it be relatively close to the subject. Then we can add a rim light or a fill light (to fill in any overly dark shadows), but place them further away, so they complement rather than fight with the key light. You can even adjust the color of the light by getting different Kelvin-rated bulbs. For example, a cool (~6000K) rim light and a warm key light (~3500K). When taking photos indoors, consider doing it at night, so you can control the ambient lighting. IE, turn off nearby lights, TVs, etc, or use a lamp on the other side of the room as a subtle fill light.

If you need to take photos outdoors, in natural light, consider taking them around the golden hour (roughly an hour after sunrise or before sunset), when the sun is low in the sky, and take into consideration how the tree is arranged in relation to the sun. Since we can’t move the sun, we usually have to move the tree to find a good light angle.

Nice framing, and using a good camera on a tripod, with a slightly longer lens (50-85mm or so) to compress the perspective, can help too. But the cameras in most phones today are so good, and often have multiple lenses, so a fancy, expensive camera isn’t a requirement.

Here are a couple of test photos I made when setting up my backdrop that demonstrate how simple pre-bonsai material and house plants can look nice with a bit of care and attention to your lighting, background, etc.

P8110649.jpg
P8110653.jpg
 
I often hear that images can help reveal issues with our trees, but it feels wrong to me to optimize for a 2D representation of our trees. Most images lose all feel of stereoscopic depth and distort proportions. If we tune the tree for a flattened representation, I worry that this will not necessarily translate to the real world.

Just a thought though, I do not have enough experience with tree photography to really say for sure.

Depth and perspective can be represented in photos, even without stereoscopic techniques, but it requires some understanding of lighting and photography concepts. A few things to consider:

1. You can control the perspective. How far or close you place the camera to the subject will alter the perspective in the final image. Using a wide-angle lens and getting very close will exaggerate the proportions (make them seem larger than life), while getting further away will flatten the perspective. If you're trying to create a natural representation of your tree, try placing the camera at the same distance and from the same angle that you would view the tree, and choosing an appropriate lens or zoom in/out to frame it accordingly. This should avoid excessive exaggeration or compression of the perspective.
2. Depth of field can help to communicate a sense of depth and distance by blurring elements that are further away from your subject. This isn't very useful if you're shooting with a studio-style backdrop, but it can be when shooting trees in situ. DOF can be hard to control with phone cameras, but if you have a DLSR or mirrorless camera with a relatively large sensor and a good lens, you'll have a nice range of control.
3. As I mentioned in the post above, using light to sculpt the forms of your subject will help to convey a sense of depth as well.

As Brian mentioned, I don't think optimizing for how a tree looks in a photo means sacrificing how it looks in person. Or at least it shouldn't. Not any more than optimizing for how a bonsai looks from the front (vs how it looks from other angles), at least.
 
Back
Top Bottom