TRUNK/TREE RATIO

[Mitchell]

Just bringing it back to perspective again, take a photo of a tree from 1km away, then from as close as you can go with out losing sight of the top of the tree and you will notice that the ratios will be different. Sorry but I say perspective first, proportion second. JMHO.

I find your comment a lil' hard to comprehend as with others. I see what you are getting at and have heard a similar statement made many times before.
The ratio of the tree is always the same, no matter where you look from, your perspective changes the appearance, it does not change the trees ratio.

I say if 1:4 floats your boat, go squat in front of the bonsai. If you want a tree that is a true replication of the original, represent it as it is in nature. If the bonsai then looks wrong to you, it is your learned experience that is corrupting your brain into thinking it is wrong. It is indeed right, learn to comprehend that and you may see it in the same light as it was in nature.

While we are at it, since ratio seems so important to us all, how can we possibly even grasp it correctly if no set viewing position is nominated?
How far away from the bonsai do we view, the barricade chain? What if there is no chain, do I set the distance myself? How tall /short should we be? If I jump will it make a difference? If I squat does the image /ratio change once again?

I would love to be the owner of a display when I view a bonsai.
I start at 1.8m back, veiw for a few minutes, then squat, yes I squat. Then I move off center, left and right, repeating the squating process. I then move in to 1m, repeat whole process. Move into 30cm, repeat whole process.

These proceeding can go over and over, till I am satisfied I have viewed it thoroughly.

I then step back again and correlate all the views and different ratios of the tree to form a minds eye view of the tree. That in turn is then compared to a standard view of it.

This process allows me to appreciate the "true" ratio of the tree, not something written on paper but a comprehensive 4D (?) perspective.

[Jarrod]

Mitchell, when you are standing very close to a tree, you can't see the true "top" of the tree. This is perspective. Thus the height of the tree appears to be significantly shorter. Thus height to trunk width ratio changes. Try it mate and you will see. Or don't, not too fussed really.

Peace brothers.

[Mitchell]

Mitchell, when you are standing very close to a tree, you can't see the true "top" of the tree. This is perspective. Thus the height of the tree appears to be significantly shorter. Thus height to trunk width ratio changes. Try it mate and you will see. Or don't, not too fussed really.

Peace brothers.

Not sure if you are following. I was adding further explanation to my previous post as you wrote this. I am more than aware the ratio appears to change, but that is due to perspective. The ratio of the tree itself doesn't change, the image you are viewing of it does.

For some reason, some people seem to be stuck on a tangent, that the trees ratio is variable. It is not, a ratio may appear to change due to your perspective, yet it is away the same. The ratio width to height, of a physical object is a rule, it never changes unless we are re-writting the laws of physical matter.

[Bretts]

It's a matter of perspective from the Eye Mitchell not that the actual dimensions are changing.
Have you read this?
http://www.bonsai4me.com/AdvTech/ATbonsaiviews.htm

[Jarrod]

My statement stands, perspective is king. People who want 1:4 are generally trying to give the viewer the perspective of standing at the foot of a very old large tree. People who use higher ratios, 1:6-1:8 are often trying to give the perspective of viewing a tree at a distance.

I understand that the ratio, when the tree is actaully measured, doesn't change mate, but the way the the viewer perceives it does. I am not against you mate, just trying to say that these images that people are showing are variable, depending the distance the photo was taken.

Will not reply to this thread again, agree about tangents mate.

Oh and FYI some of these images are taken from an elevated position making my point even more valid.

[Mitchell]

My statement stands, perspective is king. People who want 1:4 are generally trying to give the viewer the perspective of standing at the foot of a very old large tree. People who use higher ratios, 1:6-1:8 are often trying to give the perspective of viewing a tree at a distance.

I understand that the ratio, when the tree is actaully measured, doesn't change mate, but the way the the viewer perceives it does. I am not against you mate, just trying to say that these images that people are showing are variable, depending the distance the photo was taken.

Will not reply to this thread again, agree about tangents mate.

Oh and FYI some of these images are taken from an elevated position making my point even more valid.

I didn't think I was dis-agreeing with you either, in-fact after reading your last post we are probably on the same plain of thought. I just have trouble writing what I am trying to get across.

[Mitchell]

It's a matter of perspective from the Eye Mitchell not that the actual dimensions are changing.
Have you read this?
http://www.bonsai4me.com/AdvTech/ATbonsaiviews.htm

Was reading that article last night.

"Even on a fairly uniform trunk, seen from below the perspective will create the illusion of taper."

So we are talking illusions, if your exact replication of the original does not create the same illusion of taper, thus ratio it was not replicated as the original / correctly.
But here we are again, at only some masters could pull it off convincingly.

I think the point I am getting at is, we at the moment seem to be wrapped up in what ratio is correct. The answer that keeps swimming in my head is, replicate the original in its entirety, if it fails to give you the same illusions as the orignal something is wrong. An exact replication will have the same illusions no matter what scale it is on, small / stout, tall / lean.


If you take any tree in nature, shrink its exact measurements down in scale to fit a pot, it will indeed look like a real tree to scale. Applying set ratios to that only gives you something your brain thinks is right, it is not, your scale version is correct.
I don't see how a set ratio helps the matter, when there are so many other variables which inturn effect it, like viewing position. Why not just replicate the original and let the user find the perspective they find reasonable.

I think i'm just thinking out loud now, I'll confine the rest to off forum.

[Bretts]

Thinking is good Mitchell I think it is important to note here that Bonsai is an illusion. We are trying to make a small tree in a pot look big that is why the design principles are not always true to nature. Although we can reduce the size of the leaves to a large degree in bonsai cultivation they will never be as small as the scale of the tree. The rules are a bunch of tricks that we use to create the illusion of a large tree in miniature.
I was taught there is no right ratio. But as I think the article states you need to understand the ratio of your tree to keep the same story going through the hole composition. A low ratio tree will generally have thicker branches than a higher ratio tree. The branches will also tend to swoop down more from weight instead of still searching upwards for the light. This will then again be influenced the species of tree you are trying to replicate.
The near and far concept was a new angle for me last year and I am still trying to integrate this into my understanding.

Like is there any point in doing a far view of a very old masculine tree? The natural fig tree of 1:4 that I posted it is an old masculine tree. It seems silly to represent this tree from a far. I am still some what confused by this notion. The only way I can make sense of it at the moment is by using one way but not the other. I have not found a way for both ways to make sense at the same time but on their own they make perfect sense!
Now I am thinking out load again

Edit ah hang on . Maybe a stout natural tree at 1:6 from a far stays at about the 1:6 in bonsai but if we do a near view it may drop to 1:5. Now that is starting to make sense

Thanks Mitchell like they say in teaching you learn just as much

[dayne]

what were saying is a smaller stouter tree with a thick trunk is more powerfull and convincing i cant be bothered reading all these posts every day to much i read this i read that
just show me the trees and prove us wrong wheres the powerfull gums at 1:20 theres plenty of evidence to support us but know one is showing up their trees to prove us wrong reminds me of my club everyone wants to cut branches off my trees and tell me what to do but never brought in a tree mmmm wonder if they even have any
some are talkers and readers some just do it

[anttal63]

OK lets follow the bouncing ball

Never could believe the things you do to me,
Never could believe the way you are.
Every day I bless the day that you got through to me,
'Cause baby, I believe that you're a star.

Everyone's a winner, baby, that's the truth (yes, the truth)
Making love to you is such a thrill.
Everyone's a winner, baby, that's no lie (yes, no lie)
You never fail to satisfy (satisfy)

<instrumental>

Never could explain just what was happening to me,
Just one touch of you and I'm a flame.
Baby, it's amazing just how wonderful it is
That the things we like to do are just the same.

Everyone's a winner, baby, that's the truth (yes, the truth)
Making love to you is such a thrill.
Everyone's a winner, baby, that's no lie (yes, no lie)
You never fail to satisfy (satisfy)

<instrumental>

Let's do it again.

Everyone's a winner, baby, that's the truth (yes, the truth)
Making love to you is such a thrill.
Everyone's a winner, baby, that's no lie (yes, no lie)
You never fail to satisfy (satisfy)

[gargar]

I dont think we copy nature, we intrerpret if you will. I love the analogy of bonsai being like a caricature of a persons face. We accentuate and exaggerate the features we wish to stand out to capture the esscence of the subject. We may reduce, simplify or diminish other features. In bonsai too we enhance some areas(nebari,trunk) and diminish others(amount of branches, foliage) to create a caricature of an old tree. Most of the trees in nature that knock my socks off, may not look that good if i got out my shrinking ray gun and reduced them to bonsai size. I've also be taught that they would be too busy if we put every single branch on there. So we try to capture the esscence, the flavour, the feeling be it native or exotic. yes the feeling of some trees are lighter, taller and thinner especially natives sometimes. I just dont think it always translates that well to a bonsai. If it is an image that inspires and you want to capture it, i still think an artistic impression of it is your best shot. Dont keep the branches that fight the design, enhance those that complement it.

Re perspective: when you understand it and how your mind sees, it can be a useful tool for enhancing illusion. Groups especially.

This discussion has been great, a lot to think about. Some good thoughts from all areas.

on a personal note i have not cut my trees hard enough over the years so some of my current trees could be better. i have re styled 6 trees since coming back from AABC, with a tighter tree/trunk ratio and a few less branches. And they are more powerful, evocative trees for it. i took a lot from the weekend. Not rules, just concepts to think on.

[anttal63]

I dont think we copy nature, we intrerpret if you will. I love the analogy of bonsai being like a caricature of a persons face. We accentuate and exaggerate the features we wish to stand out to capture the esscence of the subject. We may reduce, simplify or diminish other features. In bonsai too we enhance some areas(nebari,trunk) and diminish others(amount of branches, foliage) to create a caricature of an old tree. Most of the trees in nature that knock my socks off, may not look that good if i got out my shrinking ray gun and reduced them to bonsai size. I've also be taught that they would be too busy if we put every single branch on there. So we try to capture the esscence, the flavour, the feeling be it native or exotic. yes the feeling of some trees are lighter, taller and thinner especially natives sometimes. I just dont think it always translates that well to a bonsai. If it is an image that inspires and you want to capture it, i still think an artistic impression of it is your best shot. Dont keep the branches that fight the design, enhance those that complement it.

Re perspective: when you understand it and how your mind sees, it can be a useful tool for enhancing illusion. Groups especially.

This discussion has been great, a lot to think about. Some good thoughts from all areas.

on a personal note i have not cut my trees hard enough over the years so some of my current trees could be better. i have re styled 6 trees since coming back from AABC, with a tighter tree/trunk ratio and a few less branches. And they are more powerful, evocative trees for it. i took a lot from the weekend. Not rules, just concepts to think on.

Beautifully said mate, i look forward to seeing what you have done. Yes its always the way, someone has to introduce the rules word It was always about a concept. One that is a proven formula since day dot. One that obviously works. One that will improve trees in Australia. Now lets focus back on the subject and get to work.

[MattA]

All this talk of ratios & perspective puts me in mind of the Parthenon, when they started a restoration project 30yrs ago they kept running into trouble.. until they actualy measured & checked... There are lots of ratios but almost no straight lines or right angles.

The height to width is 1:1.61 (the golden mean) the column's width to distance between centres 4:9 just 2 of many. But the floor rises up in the middle, the columns get narrower from midpoint up, even the lintels sag at the ends... why is all this so... VISUAL adjustments....

They didnt want a physically perfect building they wanted an optically perfect building, if we grew our bonsai to ratios & rules we may end up with physically 'perfect' trees but they would look so wrong, its the optical adjustments that create a truly realistic looking tree.

Matt

[Gerard]

We have learned that a young tree is slender and has a pointed apex, in bonsai we avoid this in order to make the tree look older.

An older tree might be 6:1 with a nice rounded top.

The lesson we have learned from Salvatore is how we might achieve an "ancient" looking tree by having a majestic trunk.

Personally I think we should mix it up as some species are not suited but we can achieve an ancient looking tree in Australia.
To claim others have better stock to work with is a poor excuse. We can achieve this in Aus in a few short years!

[Bretts]

what were saying is a smaller stouter tree with a thick trunk is more powerfull and convincing i cant be bothered reading all these posts every day to much i read this i read that
just show me the trees and prove us wrong wheres the powerfull gums at 1:20 theres plenty of evidence to support us but know one is showing up their trees to prove us wrong reminds me of my club everyone wants to cut branches off my trees and tell me what to do but never brought in a tree mmmm wonder if they even have any
some are talkers and readers some just do it

A stout tree with a thick trunk is masculine a tree over 1:6 becomes more graceful and feminine. Unless you try to understand what is being said there is little point in saying anymore.