AusBonsai

I wonder if we took the 1:4 ratio into nature, how many trees would fall well outside this criterior?


Sorry, just thinking out loud.

A couple of us looked ito this a bit Mitchell in the Understanding Design Principles
viewtopic.php?f=96&t=807&hilit

I think it is understandable that to represent a tree in miniature some design principles don't directly related to natural trees. Yet it seems from a few comparisons the ratio rule does.
It was suggested that gum trees where different being taller but I did not find that to be true!

Pup has posted a picture of a great Melaleuca in this thread a bit back and when checking the ratio of that I think I found it to be about 1:7.7

Mitchell wrote:I wonder if we took the 1:4 ratio into nature, how many trees would fall well outside this criterior?


Sorry, just thinking out loud.

You would be hard pressed to find a tree in nature that conforms to 1:6 let alone 1:4... unless I am looking in the wrong places at the wrong trees...

The again, once a tree is mature, it is actually senescent & should be removed (if you beleive gardening australia & the idiots that advise our local, state & federal governments on the state of public asset trees)

And I just said that tree was ugly.. sorry I should clarify.. I LOVE UGLY I have just done a deal to buy 3 purely because they are ugly, unwanted, the sort that most here wouldn't even consider fit for kindling to keep there trees warm....and thats another part of why I love them.. coz noone else does.

Matt

Bretts wrote:A couple of us looked ito this a bit Mitchell in the Understanding Design Principles
viewtopic.php?f=96&t=807&hilit

I think it is understandable that to represent a tree in miniature some design principles don't directly related to natural trees. Yet it seems from a few comparisons the ratio rule does.
It was suggested that gum trees where different being taller but I did not find that to be true!

Pup has posted a picture of a great Melaleuca in this thread a bit back and when checking the ratio of that I think I found it to be about 1:7.7

Read the other thread... Not sure I am following. You seem to state a Gum may be "14:1 A very tipical gum of some age."
So are you saying they apply in nature to the 1:4 rule there abouts or not? "but I did not find that to be true!"

Hey Matt you did not have to look far these are from the thread I linked just above
1:4.2
1:5.5

If you read the thread as stated I did not go out of my way to find trees that fit the ratio. These where just trees that I found appealing on a trip south of Sydney. I did not even know the ratio before I posted them for us to analyze if the ratio fit natural trees so I was surprised as anyone how ell they fit the ratio rule. I found it very interesting.

Hope this explains what I think Mitchell
I think we will find Gums in almost all the ranges of the ratio rule. The 1:5 gum pictured in the other thread is the lowest ratio I could find but I reckon there will be lower than that. I think the ratio rule however you like to use it relates to gums the same way it relates to other trees.
The interesting thing is since another member read that thread they PM'd me that the 1:11 gum is an ex forest tree that has filled out some since land clearing.

Brett where are you measuring the trees.. the first one yes is about 1:4 but again varies by where you measure.. the second one I cant get near the 1:5.5 more like 1:6.5-7

Bretts wrote:
If you read the thread as stated I did not go out of my way to find trees that fit the ratio. These where just trees that I found appealing on a trip south of Sydney. I did not even know the ratio before I posted them for us to analyze if the ratio fit natural trees so I was surprised as anyone how ell they fit the ratio rule. I found it very interesting.

So you were just, illustrating both ends of the spectrum? Those that apply and those that don't?

In my suburban bushland, I find the rule 1:50 applicable to many of the redgums...
As far a my photographic brain works, therefore to replicate it, it should be 1:50 in pot.

Hi Matt I just posted the measurements that Steven came up with back in the thread as I remembered they where much the same as what I got. I was just checking them again and I was more worried about the fig as my first measurement came out at about 1:5 but on second appraisal only slightly lower on the trunk I got the 4.2 as Steven did. So I was expecting to get this question on that tree
The second one we measured at soil level and I found that was an easy choice. I was happy with that as this is about where I usually measure a bonsai except the roots on this tree where not exposed. I can see Pup's Mela at the top of the screen as I type this and see the soil level point I would measure just like I did with this tree!

Brett you are absolutely right, good bonsai have harmony and balance between their trunks and their hight no matter what the ratio.

what are you fellows trying to prove. that the ratio rule doesn't apply to very many trees? I thought I already told you that

Sounds like we are on the same page now Chris Edit maybe not

Mitchell
So you were just, illustrating both ends of the spectrum? Those that apply and those that don't?

Illustrating all of the spectrum I would say but not necessarily those that do and don't apply! Finding pictures of full old trees on google can be difficult. Maybe more so with Gums. Maybe this is because they are often in forests and I can attest to how hard it is to take a full picture in that instance.
The two larger Gums in that thread are pictures that I have taken locally. I could not find a better full sized tree on google the only full size ones are the younger trees such as you speak off but I would say at the moment I have not seen any 1;50 but then again I have not looked for the highest ratio.

This picture illustrates some of what I mean The best guess I can get on the young forest gum in the back ground is about 1:15 but what I would love is a full picture of the ancient gum in the foreground to get the dimensions of that.

Here's a few, to whack a ruler on. Not old and i'm sure they may thicken up.

that last tree is a perfect example why the ratio rule does not apply, it has perfect taper from the base to the apex. a great formal upright image. if you could create that image in bonsai you'd be a true master.

and by the way the ratio on the gums above is between 1:15 and 1:40 pretty wide range considering they are all gums

Ok time to come back to this one, hang about.

Damn back again

Firstly this thread was not for the purpose of discussing bunjin. Secondly as demonstrated by the trees posted here there are many styles and specie's that fit this approxoimate dimension.Even more so if you are challenged to open and expand to it. Thirdly Proportion before perspective please.
Now are you guys for real showing me some sappling gum and telling me this is acceptable because it has taper? Are you actually telling me that if we can rip this image off we can get Australian bonsai on the world stage? Are you guys actually telling me that one of the most prominent artists in europe, who has studied under the most influential master of all times,(KIMURA) and still stays in touch with him on a regular basis to chew the fat. Are you guys telling me he has got it wrong? Because if that is what you are telling me then any one of you nay sayers, take ya pick im not fussed. Need to put on the table, a tree that you have done, that contradicts the philosophies, directions and progressive thinking that this man has so genuinely felt responsible to pass on to us. Because we invited him here to do so. This elusive tree that you guys are imagining is sitting in your back yard, on your benches, thats is going to get us, australian bonsai on the world stage. Im ready for it, cause if you can produce it I will follow you to the end of the bonsai universe.

How dare we disrespect this man, How dare we question his experience, feeling and understanding for Bonsai philosophy. We then must have wasted all that time preparing for the 2010 AABC convention and all of us wasted our time and money because we know better. Fashion??? Yes fashion is progressive, fashion is the cutting edge. Art needs to make the fashion cut in order to be recoganised. if its fashion is cutting edge enough it will be remembered and immortalised. do not underestimate fashion for one second. Australia has come along way in the fashion stakes but obviously still needs time.

How dare we treat Salvatore Liporace with contempt. The guys with the best trees in sydney should have been the first to offer them up for some serious restyle. The value of their trees would have tripled and then would have truly been on their way to greatness. After all he has worked on some of the most significant trees in japan and the world! Not some young sapling gum. So please fellas do me a favour and lets get serious about getting Australia on the world stage. If you cant contribute something fedinkum to that cause, as i said earlier my kitchen's too hot for you.