There is an old saying, "You can't see the forest for the trees." In this case, we want to see the forest "or" the trees. They are usually just background landscaping, but in this contest we are looking for interesting photos taken of the forest. No humans, animals, birds or flowers allowed. (It is ok, if flowers or birds are somewhere small in the scene, but they can not be the focus of your photo.)
Contest Moderator: We seem to be getting quite a few single trees, or photos where the focus is on one tree. I believe we need to be able to see that we are looking at a forest. ( 5 years and 2580 days ago )
BeSea: The description does say "the forest "or" the trees", so wouldn't single trees be allowed as well as the forest? ( 5 years and 2580 days ago )
kyricom: Except "trees" in the theme is in the plural ( 5 years and 2580 days ago )
BeSea: It would have been grammatically incorrect to say "the forest or the tree" in the description, so that argument is not a valid one. ( 5 years and 2580 days ago )
Wayne Cheah: Can you have a "forest" without "trees"? If the argument is that a single tree is on theme as well, then we are effectively having two contests here. One where we show a "forest", (meaning more than one tree), and another where we could show only one tree, and in the latter scenario, a two-tree photo would, technically, be off-theme. ( 5 years and 2580 days ago )
kyricom: It's not grammatically incorrect, BeSea, as I was referring to the second sentence of the theme, not the first. The first sentence obviously refers to more than one tree as the word "tree" is referring to the referent "forest." A forest, by definition, is more than one tree. The second sentence, which is the one which gives us the actual direction for our entries, referring to the original first sentence, delineates the componants of that first sentence. Both elements (in the first sentence) point to the same referent - the forest. It seems to say we could have larger landscape shots (showing an entire "forest), or more close-up shots from within a forest, which would still need to be more than one tree (to qualify as being in a forest). But either way, it seems to be saying that the focus of the shot should be on trees (plural) and not on a single tree, or something else that happens to have some foliage in the background. ( 5 years and 2580 days ago )
photogirl723: Sounds like you are all having trouble seeing the forest for the trees. ( 5 years and 2579 days ago )
Wayne Cheah: photogirl723....as we are talking about "seeing" the forest...., and grammatical syntax here, your comment should start with "Looks like...." ( 5 years and 2579 days ago )
BeSea: I still say that the word "or" changes the goal to an either/or meaning, but I'm willing to concede because those big words scare me. ( 5 years and 2579 days ago )
Wayne Cheah: My take of "or" in this contest is not to offer a legalistic choice-option, but that you can do one of two things. You can "either" take a photo of a general wide-angle view of the forest without singling out a particular tree, "or" you can single out a particular tree as your point of interest provided that tree remains within the situational context of the background forest. Sorry about the big words. ( 5 years and 2579 days ago )
FallingHorse: Man - take som photos already ( 5 years and 2571 days ago )
Howdie stranger! If you want to participate in this contest, just:
What a great depth of field !!! Nice shot !
Thanks!!
A beautiful photograph
thank you!
Fantastic
thank you!
Looks like an oil painting to me. Is this a photo?
Yes, it is a photograph. You can look at the hi-res and see for yourself
Made me feel in the forest now ...
Congrats on 1st place, well deserved.
Howdie stranger!
If you want to rate this picture or participate in this contest, just:
LOGIN HERE or REGISTER FOR FREE