daldds Loc: NYC

I was taught that some type of object is usually necessary in landscape scenes to show scale, especially when trying to show vastness or size.
This image was taken (quickly) from a golf course set amidst the stunning vistas of the marshes in St Simons Island in GA. I would've liked to have taken the time to look for a better angle, to walk around a little, but I was not allowed to dawdle. My golf buddies are royal pains sometimes.
Would it be improved if I had found something of known size in the immediate foreground?
Any thoughts on the subject are welcome, encouraged actually.

(Download)

BassmanBruce Loc: Middle of the Mitten

It’s a pretty appealing picture to me as it is.
My golf buddies are the same as yours, oh well.

JD750 Loc: SoCal

I thought the Palm tree was the foreground object. LOL. Foreground objects can help to add depth.
The palm and distant trees have an odd blue halo around them?

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Sometimes...

"It depends..."
on the subject and the photographer's desire.

I like the shot.
It wouldn't have the "vastness" look if the tree was up close.

Retired CPO Loc: Travel full time in an RV

My ex-golf buddies were like that! I think the photo would look more balanced if you had walked forward and to your right a bit and placed the tree closer to the camera, then pivoted to your left a bit to get the distant trees as back ground. Just a thought.
And tell your golf buddies to urinate up a rope!! But that's just me!!

UTMike Loc: South Jordan, UT

I like the result, David. There could be something else in the photo, but what you have is familiar to me for that area and I really enjoy it.

fantom Loc: Colorado

I assume your pals wanted your help finding their balls in that mess??

But, nice pic tho.

Cany143 Loc: SE Utah

Nobody --neither my 5rd grade art teacher, my HS Art instructor (whose name was Mr. Morrell), nor any of the PhD festooned professors who let me run --or 'art'-- rampant in any of the classes I had in college/university-- ever made the requirement that it was necessary to include an object --be that to visually suggest scale or anything else-- unless whatever was included signified something that was thematically, organically, or was in some way relevant within-- a landscape. What I do (vaguely, though not in words, per se, but in the principles that had been taught) remember --and which I still sometimes/often employ-- is that even though a 'foreground' is relative to some extent, FOREground is that which exists between you and, say, 6 feet from you, that MIDDLEground extends some 20-30 feet further, and that BACKground is whatever is beyond that 30-40 feet. Obviously, each of these approximate distances may be RELATIVE to what all may be included in a so-called landscape, at least in the sense that it's not uncommon to see a 'foreground' in an image that isn't actually a FOREground, but is instead a 'CLOSESTground' as seen in the image, but may in fact be a considerable distance from the first-person's (the on-scene photographer's, or painter's, or 'artist's' actual, standing) point of view.

So, "necessary"? Not, necessarily. The hearing of which --that word 'necessary'-- prompts me to remember that I was also taught (in University classes in Aesthetics and Philosophy) that while 'Logic' in its manifold forms will be 'required' for argument, qualifiers such as 'necessary conditions' and 'sufficient conditions' must be considered before pronouncing a premise true/viable/workable/or even germane.

So, no, having some sort of something 'up close' is not 'necessary'. But having some sort of something 'up close' may well serve as a visually useful compositional, thematic, or potentially intellectually or emotionally positive element so long as it somehow serves the whole of the image.

SX2002 Loc: Adelaide, South Australia

It's a nice shot as is...according to a photography course I did some years ago, every photo should have something in it to first attract your eye...this object is called a "punctum"...the tree works well in your shot...

deanfl Loc: Georgia

I think the photo is appealing as shot. It contains an element of minimalism and it follows the rule of thirds which trumps the lack of a foreground object.

fantom Loc: Colorado

HUH???

Gatorcoach Loc: New Jersey

Golfers play golf for a variety of reasons; competition, exercise, camaraderie, a few hours away from home, etc. I don't know many that go out to be delayed by one of their "buddies" wandering around delaying them taking pictures. To me they are the POAs in the same class as the ball hunters who spend inordinate times searching for theirs and other balls in the woods - every hole.
Maybe you are the POA.

raymondh Loc: Walker, MI

The tree seems a little far into the scene to be a ‘true’ foreground object but it does a lot to make this shot.

mvetrano2 Loc: Commack, NY

It is very nice the way it is, nothing more needed.

ecobin Loc: Paoli, PA

My eyes gravitate to the clouds which are very nice. The rest is really dead space in my opinion and of no interest unless you know the area. The tree is not in the foreground and too small to be the subject.