"Endangered Species"

Barbara ann,

I don't personally find the right hand rock as objectionable. I may have decided at exposure to include more of the right hand rock and cropped in closer on the left side of the family.

Additionally, with that in mind, I would have moved the camera position to the right to shorten the apparent distance between the family and the rock.


This would have accomplished more of an asymetricaly balance to your image. The contrast between a solid inanimate object (RH rock) and the animate (family) would have been refreshing.

Additionally, the symbolism of the rock interspersed with the image of the family would have provided another level of meaning for your image.

This is an example of where we as photographers can learn from the examples of painters over recorded history. The matters of composition and symbolism were rife in the examples of painted masterpieces and we can utilize much of what they knew in our photographic images.

I don't think burning down the sand is critical...sand is acknowledged to be light in most cases. So long as texture is apparent in the tonal region of the sand, then that is all that would concern me.

Please understand that my thoughts above are only one interpertation of many that are available.

Good luck.

I'd be inclined to crop slightly from the left side rather than the right - up to the part of the rock that sticks up a little. That way, they are standing on a continuous line of dark rock. Also, now the family are more off centre and are balanced by the rock at the right edge. The top corners, especially the right top corner look like they might do with a bit of burning to reduce flare. I'd also lose some foreground - up to about 1/2 way to the bottom of the right hand rock.

Most important however is to straighten that horizon

Cheers, Bob.