WPC 1345 - Minimalism ANALYSIS: Nikkinu has graciously volunteered the WPC 1345 - Minimalism entry for critique and analysis to find out what they could have done to make it better. Be...

St3v3M Loc: 35,000 feet

Nikkinu has graciously volunteered the WPC 1345 - Minimalism entry for critique and analysis to find out what they could have done to make it better. Be nice, but be honest as this will help everyone with their craft. Thank you Nikkinu and thank you everyone!

from WPC 1345 - Minimalism RESULTS http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/photo_contest_ratings.jsp?pcnum=88

Do trees really grow on sandy beaches?

GWR100 Loc: England

Its a beautiful simple and well thought out image with a lot of potential.. That said, Firstly I would straighten the horizon, then I would take it back to a stark Mono image and really work on the amazing sky and all those contrasting shapes in the foreground. There are also some amazing tantalizing highlights on the tree which can be accentuated if the image is really toned right.

Geoff

St3v3M wrote:

Nikkinu has graciously volunteered the WPC 1345 - Minimalism entry for critique and analysis to find out what they could have done to make it better. Be nice, but be honest as this will help everyone with their craft. Thank you Nikkinu and thank you everyone!

from WPC 1345 - Minimalism RESULTS http://www.uglyhedgehog.com/photo_contest_ratings.jsp?pcnum=88

snails_pace Loc: Utah

How do you know that the picture actually shows the horizon? It may be the top of a sloped hill that is shown here. Further, forcing the line of the top of the sloping ground to be horizontal will about make the tree grow on its side.

GWR100 Loc: England

How do you know the tree was not growing at an angle???????????

snails_pace wrote:

How do you know that the picture actually shows the horizon? It may be the top of a sloped hill that is shown here. Further, forcing the line of the top of the sloping ground to be horizontal will about make the tree grow on its side.

snails_pace Loc: Utah

If someone 6 ft tall can see the horizon - like on a clear day, the horizon line is 3 miles away. Unless there is reason to believe the ground is totally without features for that distance, I defer to the photographer to orient the picture.

Even on the ocean shore, one could be seeing the top of a wave or swell and not the horizon. It helps to look at pictures of people surfing.

GWR100 Loc: England

If you care to enlarge the picture you will see a building on the far shore line. I cant for the of me understand why you gain pleasure from being confrontational. I will finish any further time wasting on your stupid remarks on that note.

snails_pace wrote:

If someone 6 ft tall can see the horizon - like on a clear day, the horizon line is 3 miles away. Unless there is reason to believe the ground is totally without features for that distance, I defer to the photographer to orient the picture.

Even on the ocean shore, one could be seeing the top of a wave or swell and not the horizon. It helps to look at pictures of people surfing.

Dewar Loc: Summer in MN & Winter in FL

Here is my personal opinion. I realize it may not be everyone's. First, the horizon bisects the picture. The foreground is too busy, taking your eye away from the rest of the picture. When the tree bisects the horizon, both lose something and the lost portion is right in the middle of the picture. Sorry, it just doesn't work for me.

Nikkinu Loc: Portland, Oregon

I took the photo with a point and shoot on a walk on the beach with my family and my kids found a big stick and we stuck it in the ground and it looked like a tree growing in the sand... I accept all the criticism and am aware of several photography "wrongs" but I just thought it was a cool photo.

llindstrand Loc: Seattle Metro

Nikkinu wrote:

I took the photo with a point and shoot on a walk on the beach with my family and my kids found a big stick and we stuck it in the ground and it looked like a tree growing in the sand... I accept all the criticism and am aware of several photography "wrongs" but I just thought it was a cool photo.

I am one who normally has problems with sloping horizons; however, for some reason in this image, it doesn't bother me. Looking at the perspective that you have looking down the beach it is possible to have the line slope away from you. It is possible to straighten up that line as well as the tree in Smart Photo Editor. I tried this and I think I like it a little better. As far as business in the foreground--that is normal on a well used beach and doesn't detract from the image.

I tried some other editing programs on it and they change the colors a little but not drastically enough to say one is better than the original. It is your picture and you're the one who has to be happy with it.
Swede

Whuff Loc: Marshalltown, Iowa

I'm just wondering. Did the OP want analysis as it relates to the minimalism challenge?

Nikkinu Loc: Portland, Oregon

I did not ask for my photo to be analyzed but I welcomed it when I received an email telling me it was chosen for analyzing.

architect Loc: Chattanooga

snails_pace wrote:

How do you know that the picture actually shows the horizon? It may be the top of a sloped hill that is shown here. Further, forcing the line of the top of the sloping ground to be horizontal will about make the tree grow on its side.

The horizon appears to be a water feature, either a very large lake or a sea. It will always be level. There is no large wave to distort this. Because the horizon is near the middle, there will be no perspective distortion of the tree. If it leans, it leans. Sloped horizons in landscapes, when it is clear what they are, are a form of mannerism, or artsy-fartsy photography, or simply naitevity. Surfers in action can be an exception.