Deadwood, Rubbing Branches and Weak Unions: Warning Signs to Photograph

Start wide, then close. One shot of the whole tree from far enough back that the crown is visible against the sky, one of the base and the ground around it, then close shots of whatever caught your eye. The wide shot is the one people skip and the one an assessor most wants, because it shows proportion, lean, crown balance and what is underneath.

Photograph the ground, not just the angle. Two shots from opposite sides at ground level, showing the soil where the trunk enters it — cracked or raised soil on one side and a low mound on the other is what distinguishes a tree that moved from one that has always leaned. A photograph of the trunk against the sky tells almost nobody anything.

Two stems of similar size meeting in a tight V with a dark seam running down between them, and often no raised ridge of wood at the join. That seam is included bark — the two stems pressed together as they grew, with no wood connecting them. Photograph it straight on and from slightly below, because the angle of the join is the whole point.

Where it is over something, yes, and photograph it in context rather than isolated. A dead limb has a size, a height and something underneath it, and all three determine whether it matters. A close-up of bare branches against the sky gives an assessor no way to judge either its size or its consequence.

Photograph it before it deteriorates, because brackets are seasonal and often gone within weeks. Get the shape, the upper surface, the underside if you can do so safely, and its exact position relative to the root collar. Which fungus it is matters enormously — some decay only dead heartwood, others attack the roots where failure is sudden — and identification depends on those details.

From a position where both branches are visible along their length, ideally showing the wear point where the bark has been abraded. Crossing branches are a minor defect on their own; they matter when the rubbing has worn through to wood and created an entry point, or when one is being levered by the other in wind.

The full length of it, plus a reference for scale — a hand nearby, a tape, anything of known size. And note whether it moves: a crack that visibly opens and closes as the tree sways in wind is a very different matter from a static one, and that is something only you standing there can observe. Write it down with the photograph.

Anything suspended in the canopy, anything within reach of a conductor, a tree bearing on a structure, and the ground beneath a lifted root plate. Every one of those is exactly where a photograph is tempting and exactly where people are hurt. A wide shot from thirty yards away is more useful than a close-up nobody should have taken.

Six to ten, chosen rather than a hundred taken at random. Whole tree, base and surrounding ground, the specific defect close up, the defect in context showing what is beneath it, and the access route from the street to the tree. That last one is the one that surprises people and the one that most affects what a crew brings.

Yes, and it changes the estimate more than the tree photograph does. Show the gate with something for scale, the passage between house and fence, any steps or turns, the driveway surface, and the distance from where a truck could park to the tree. Turning up with the wrong machine costs a whole visit.

When you noticed the change, what the weather was doing, what has been done to the tree before and by whom, and any digging, grading, trenching or paving near the roots in the last decade. That last one is the cause most often missed, because it happened years ago and left no trace above ground — and only you can report it.

They screen well and they decide nothing. Photographs are excellent for triage — establishing urgency, identifying what equipment is needed, ruling out a utility problem — and they cannot show internal decay, root condition, or how sound the wood is where it matters. A final method and price needs someone standing at the tree.