Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: jeremypayne on October 24, 2010, 06:30:53 pm
-
Saturday evening ... nice light as the sun set and the moon rose full.
-
Nicely done! I like the 3rd best for the composition and the soft warm tone...
Mike.
-
I like the first, but believe it would be stronger with a little bit cropped off from the bottom:
The upper part of the trees has most contrast against the sky, while the reflections of them
have more contrast against the sky at their bottom. Cropping off the upper part of the reflected trees
(the bottom of the image) would save the best from both, the trees and their reflections.
I personally feel it that the reflection does not necessarily need to be "complete" to be strong.
On the other hand - the second image, which shows only the reflections is beautifully detailed,
though a bit cluttered with the stuff on the water surface.
Maybe one would need to see a big print of the first image to judge better.
I'd also change the toning a bit, especially midtone contrast.
But I suspect, that the web presentation of this image doesn't really work, most likely as opposed to a bigger print, because of all the detail.
So - this critique probably is not at all valid against a print.
The third image is a beautiful minimalistic shot. I like it.
-
Ah, yes... The croppers strike again.
Jeremy, As Mike said not long ago, everybody gets to have his own opinion. In my NSHO both B&W's are good and #1 is stunning. Great job on the mid-tones. I'm not that thrilled about #3, mainly because of the color, but then, when I do B&W I always make everything as neutral as possible. Don't you dare crop the near edge of that pond in #1. It's essential to the composition. Not long ago there were complaints because I chopped off the feet of a hobo. Chopping off those grasses would be far worse than chopping off feet.
My only beef with #2 is the OOF grasses in the foreground. I tried to download the image and get Bridge to tell me what aperture you used, but that didn't work. I know a lot of people have been scared away from using small apertures by an overemphasis on loss of sharpness through diffraction. Fact is, that kind of loss is easily recoverable with Photoshop, or, even more easily with Nik's Sharpener Pro. The other problem with a small hole is a slow shutter speed, but it seems to me we once had a side-discussion about tripods. I'd be willing to bet you were shooting off a tripod, so shutter speed shouldn't have been an issue unless the wind was blowing. But from the look of the water I'd be willing to bet the wind was calm.
I'm not a landscape fan, but these, and a lot of the ones Timo Löfgren posts are exceptions.
-
Oh yeah the croppers ... our cheap weapon is surprise ....
The punishment and excercise for RSL will be to take his favorite most beautiful 10 images and crop them with the honest intent to improve them. ;)
Concerning #1 I don't see the bottom grass line as the graphical boundary of the image. Sure - symmetry has its value, but for me in this special case the lower part of the reflection doesn't add to the image. Its a repetition of what can be seen above cluttered with some junk on the water. To me the graphical boundary is below the light band of the reflected sky. I'd crop somewhere below it and include a part of the darker grey zone below about as tall as the lighter band on the right side of the image. Of course this is subjective and not a proven academic concept of croppage. And the disclaimer concerning a reduced web version still remains.
-
Chris,
(1) There's absolutely no way anyone could improve any of my best images with cropping or with any other manipulation. Now, there are two ways you can take that. Take your pick. ;D
(2) Repetition is a powerful compositional element. Finding good repetition is a rare thing. Unless my eyes deceive me that "junk" on the water is leaves.
(3) You're right on about the degradation in a web image. It's really impossible to judge the quality of an image like these three from Jeremy with anything less than an 11 x 14 well-printed print. But I think you can make at least an off-the-cuff determination about tonal distribution, which looks good to me.
(4) I was never aware that there's an "academic concept of croppage." Where can I read about this?
-
Glad I could contribute to ongoing discussion on the philosophy of cropping! There is some back story I can share that may shed some additional light ...
Normally, I shoot my verticals with a 4x5 aspect ratio in mind. (In general, I find 3x2 to work well horizontally, but I find it too "tall" for my vertical compositions.)
All three of these images were shot with the intention of making a 4x5 crop .... BUT ... as I was working on the 3rd image - - I realized that the full frame was a better composition than the crop I had intended. The other two were heading for the bin until I un-did the 4x5 crop on them as well ... and I had a new found appreciation for them.
Couple other comments ...
Image #3 is actually a color image ... not a toned B&W. That's the orange glow of the full harvest moon reflecting on the pond. I used a Daylight WB and a Kodachrome inspired camera profile that I made myself.
The OOF grass in the foreground is a bit of a signature element ... some people hate it ... but I can't help it. I was shooting at F14.
Later when I get home, I will repost the full-reflection shot (#2) in color ... I'm on the fence about whether to pursue it as a monochrome or color.
Thanks, all!
-
Glad I could contribute to ongoing discussion on the philosophy of cropping! There is some back story I can share that may shed some additional light ...
Normally, I shoot my verticals with a 4x5 aspect ratio in mind. (In general, I find 3x2 to work well horizontally, but I find it too "tall" for my vertical compositions.)
All three of these images were shot with the intention of making a 4x5 crop .... BUT ... as I was working on the 3rd image - - I realized that the full frame was a better composition than the crop I had intended. The other two were heading for the bin until I un-did the 4x5 crop on them as well ... and I had a new found appreciation for them.
Couple other comments ...
Image #3 is actually a color image ... not a toned B&W. That's the orange glow of the full harvest moon reflecting on the pond. I used a Daylight WB and a Kodachrome inspired camera profile that I made myself.
The OOF grass in the foreground is a bit of a signature element ... some people hate it ... but I can't help it. I was shooting at F14.
Later when I get home, I will repost the full-reflection shot (#2) in color ... I'm on the fence about whether to pursue it as a monochrome or color.
Thanks, all!
What your post acually proves, Jeremey, is that you subconsciously DO frame according to the format of the camera in use; you might well intend to do something else, later, but the original shot is, nonetheless, framed to make best use of the full frame... which is where we all came in.
;-)
Rob C
-
Rob, Exactly. Anyone who's used a camera much does exactly that. I keep hearing about how the aspect ratio of the camera sometimes makes good composition impossible, but that's crap. You compose on the canvas in front of you.
-
Not me.
I often see the image completely different and frame with the intention of later cropping.
I prefer not to crop if possible, but when in doubt I take all I will need later and crop away what disturbs the image later.
-
Not me.
I often see the image completely different and frame with the intention of later cropping.
I prefer not to crop if possible, but when in doubt I take all I will need later and crop away what disturbs the image later.
Chris, you've just agreed with not cropping being the better option! There's little more to add.
Took a look at your site: some nice images there - you obviously do see what you want before you click.
I had an old neighbour here in Spain who lives in Koesterbergstrasse in Hamburg; she loves golf. And, oddly enough, football, not that I imagine she ever played the latter. But you never know.
Rob C
-
Maybe I'm ready to formulate a prototype of a philosophy of cropping now:
1. Cropping is no crime, though both words begin with "cr.."
2. Cropping only from parallel sides of the image, which simply changes the aspect ratio
is generally allowed and should not be frowned upon, since it only overcomes the limitations of a given format.
3. Cropping from orthogonal sides of the image is a sign of poor framing and should be avoided with very few exceptions,
like lack of a telephoto lens without possibility to go nearer to the motive.
4. Cropping is not chopping .....
Cheers
~Chris
-
Here's #2 in color.
-
By virtue of the fact everyone "prefers" not to crop, everyone essentially concedes the fact that cropping is inferior to not cropping.
Having to crop is essentially an admission of a poor original composition; in fact, it's a correction of an original, flawed composition. There is no escaping this.
Yet still, as with other forms of correction, an image that is cropped to a point where it ultimately reveals the subject in the best possible way remains a better final product than the original, flawed capture.
Jack
-
Jeremy
I like your pictures very much. Including #3, although colour is not normally my thing, so I won't attempt to critique that one, because I know damn all about colour photography. My other thoughts are -
* Both the B/W frames have a lovely feel, but personally I would have pushed the contrast a little further on both of them. I know that by doing so one would lose some of the tonal subtlety and fine gradations in the highlights, but if I were printing them I would go for just a little more "pop".
* The OOF grass in the foreground of #2 is for me very distracting, because it is so prominent. I think you can get away with the odd leaf or two, but not as much as that. Surely you could just have walked forward and trampled it down a bit before you took the shot?
John
-
Normally, I shoot my verticals with a 4x5 aspect ratio in mind. (In general, I find 3x2 to work well horizontally, but I find it too "tall" for my vertical compositions.)
Jeremy, Though I'm not sure, it seems to me in one of our discussions you mentioned that you were shooting with a D3. If so, you can set the camera up for a 4 x 5 AR, though you're throwing away some pixels if you do that.
-
Yet still, as with other forms of correction, an image that is cropped to a point where it ultimately reveals the subject in the best possible way remains a better final product than the original, flawed capture.
In other words, if you've screwed up see if you can fix it. Couldn't agree more, Jack. But it strikes me that any photographer serious about his craft would try to learn not to screw up.
-
In other words, if you've screwed up see if you can fix it. Couldn't agree more, Jack. But it strikes me that any photographer serious about his craft would try to learn not to screw up.
I agree, especially in landscape, architecture, or any other genre where you theoretically have some time to compose your shot.
However, say I see a brief glimpse of a wild animal and capture it in perfect focus, color, etc. ... but because of the fleeting moment I didn't quite place him as well as I might have ... or if I didn't get quite close enough to fill the frame ... I will crop the photo and keep the amended work.
Of course I will look for a better opportunity down the road, where I can compose exactly to my liking, but if I never get that opportunity again I will still enjoy what I was able to grab ...
With landscape or architecture (etc.), however, I would just trash the shot and try again.
Jack
-
For many situation the given aspect ratio, be it 1x1, 2x3, 3x4 or 4x5 simply is not optimal.
Therefore cropping is valid.
I do not compose through a frame.
I compose before I take the camera in my hand.
When I finally take the image I try to capture what I have composed beforehand in my mind.
What is superfluous because of the given camera aspect ratio I crop away then afterwards.
If I feel a 2x3 frame is as valid as a 3x4 frame for a given subject and I have a 2x3 camera, of course I compose 2x3.
But If I feel it is not and the 3x4 is better, I take the image such, that I can crop it to 3x4 later.
Its just that simple.
-
Here's #2 in color.
Definitely not an improvement: it's much better in b&w.
Jeremy
-
However, say I see a brief glimpse of a wild animal and capture it in perfect focus, color, etc. ... but because of the fleeting moment I didn't quite place him as well as I might have ... or if I didn't get quite close enough to fill the frame ... I will crop the photo and keep the amended work.
Jack
Jack, I certainly can't disagree. The same thing's true of street photography. You can't exactly plunk down a tripod and set your camera on mirror-up. On the other hand, I think that with enough practice you can learn to frame very quickly. Here are a couple examples of the kind of "wild animal" shot you're talking about. Neither of these is cropped. In the spirit of full disclosure I do have to admit I've missed a lot of these, but they all were clean misses. None of them were situations where cropping would have helped.
-
Jack, I certainly can't disagree. The same thing's true of street photography. You can't exactly plunk down a tripod and set your camera on mirror-up.
I can see how that would hold true also ...
On the other hand, I think that with enough practice you can learn to frame very quickly.
Agreed. More than that, just as the true pro in nature photography will learn all the nuances of his environment well enough to position himself to get a good shot ... even before his intended subjects arrive ... I would imagine this would also be true of a street photographer. Thus, rather than being "surprised" by the moment, they are prepared for it.
Here are a couple examples of the kind of "wild animal" shot you're talking about. Neither of these is cropped. In the spirit of full disclosure I do have to admit I've missed a lot of these, but they all were clean misses. None of them were situations where cropping would have helped.
I like the first image quite a bit, and there is enough interesting detail in the wings, the light, and other elements of the capture to make me very forgiving of some of the secondary (and less interesting) elements of the watery background. Cropped, I would think it would be even more compelling.
The second image is just okay. It's a bit too close, and the background too ordinary, to inspire me a lot ... so I agree, no cropping would help this image become extraordinary.
However, with the first image, while not perfect it still demands that someone stop and look at it longer than usual ... and I would imagine more people would be inclined to "chimp" over it (ooh!-ooh!) than not :)
Jack
.
-
Jack, That's an interesting response. How would you crop #1? The sunspot and the rays that bounce out from it need space. The only thing I can see that might improve it would be to clone out the bright spots to the right of the bird's beak. Maybe I could just crop off his head. That would turn it into sort of an abstraction. What I was after in #2 was the bird rising out of the water without any distractions. That's exactly what I got. But I'm not all that interested in birds either. I only shoot them when I'm in Florida and haven't gone into one of the nearby towns where there are people to shoot.
-
Jack, That's an interesting response. How would you crop #1? The sunspot and the rays that bounce out from it need space. The only thing I can see that might improve it would be to clone out the bright spots to the right of the bird's beak. Maybe I could just crop off his head. That would turn it into sort of an abstraction.
I'd probably crop it like this:
(http://www.johnkoerner.org/Samples/egret.jpg)
Admittedly, it is easy to find flaws, but the strength of the image is the wings and the transparency that the sunlight brings to them. They're like a magnet to the eyes. Try as I might to look for flaws, my eyes always seem to be drawn back to the shadows and light surrounding the wings and body.
What hurts the image most, to me, is the debris on the water and the shadows of the trees by its head.
What I was after in #2 was the bird rising out of the water without any distractions. That's exactly what I got. But I'm not all that interested in birds either. I only shoot them when I'm in Florida and haven't gone into one of the nearby towns where there are people to shoot.
#2 is the cleaner shot, no doubt, but there is nothing particularly riveting about it. It's a nice shot, but it's a bit too close ... the water which forms the background is blank uninteresting, and the pose of the bird is not as dynamic as in the first photo (nor is the light either).
So it may be the cleaner shot, but it's not as captivating, not to me anyway.
Jack
.
-
Jeremy, Though I'm not sure, it seems to me in one of our discussions you mentioned that you were shooting with a D3. If so, you can set the camera up for a 4 x 5 AR, though you're throwing away some pixels if you do that.
I've got a D700, so I can't do that like the D3 does.
Here's the original, intended crop for the first image.
-
Here's the original, intended crop for the first image.
This is quite exactly how I would have cropped it.
I find it much stronger like this.
-
No way.
-
Have to agree with Russ; squaring it up like that has taken away any drama that the quiet picture was capable of offering.
It's the fact that, visually, vertical 1x1.5 formats are difficult to fill that makes good ones come to life. Your last shot just turns it into a still pond; the full shot brought visual excitement to the same situation. It's also a problem I eventually associated with 6x7, but, perversely, not with 6x6.
Rob C
-
What hurts the image most, to me, is the debris on the water and the shadows of the trees by its head.
Jack, Again, as Mike once said, we all get to have our opinion. My opinion is that the crop doesn't improve the picture, but, that's my opinion. I agree about the debris and shadows, but with this kind of photography you take what's there. The sunspot was the clincher to me and I got lucky enough to be able to get that guy just as he passed the sunspot. It's conceivable that extensive work in Photoshop might get rid of the shadows and debris, but would it be worth the trouble? The picture is striking because of the sunspot and the backlight through the wings, but it's not one of my favorites, mainly because I'm not that interested in birds.
So it may be the cleaner shot, but it's not as captivating, not to me anyway.
I don't think I'd use the word "captivating" with reference to that picture either. But I do like the detail in the bird. My point was that with enough practice you can learn to frame quickly.
-
I've got a D700, so I can't do that like the D3 does.
Here's the original, intended crop for the first image.
I very much enjoy the image in the original crop and prefer it to the full frame. Bruce