Luminous Landscape Forum
The Art of Photography => User Critiques => Topic started by: RSL on July 02, 2014, 01:02:37 pm
-
Here come the croppers.
-
Very creative composition. All the pieces, and the off-center balance, really work.
If anyone asks you to crop it, just crop a copy down to about an eighth of the image in the upper left corner and send that to them.
-
Here come the croppers.
Not me. Well, I suppose I might remove some of the space (not much) from the left, to emphasise the off-centre bird. Other than that, it's a lovely shot. And unlike your "horses", which I just don't understand, this one means something to me.
Jeremy
-
Nah. I wouldn't crop it, but I'd be awfully tempted to clone out that dark patch at the top of the frame, just to see.
Mike.
-
Nah. I wouldn't crop it, but I'd be awfully tempted to clone out that dark patch at the top of the frame, just to see.
Really? I think it's really important that it's there.
Jeremy
-
Really? I think it's really important that it's there.
Jeremy
I agree. I think this would make a very good large print. Serene, but not boring.
William
-
Don't touch it!
-
I like it as it is, no crop & no dark patch removal (it would make the frame empty)…
Well done!
-
In 90% of all bird shots I've either shot myself, or admired from others the water droplets from the birds' feet add focal interest. In this case because they are not contrasted enough from the background, I find them distracting...other than that, whoohoo, lovely composition.
-
Any views on a high key monochrome version, Russ? I think it might work.
Jeremy
-
Actually, I tried that, Jeremy. Here's the result. I don't like it as well as the color version. A great blue has some really subtle, beautiful colors on his body. Oh, and here's the picture from the second shutter trip. Don't know that I'm thrilled about that one. For those who are wondering why I didn't swing the camera farther right: There are some trailers on the shore over to the right and I didn't want them in the shot. I rarely center a subject, but this is one time it seemed reasonable.
-
I prefer your 2009 image, titled "Great Blue Ascending" and I'll stick my neck and be unpopular and state I would crop this current image - but hey we have different opinions - that may be healthy.
Mal
-
Russ, for me the left third of the picture needs to go! At first I thought the dark patch at the top was an intrusion, but I agree it balances the picture, but the left side adds nothing and just puts the bird unnecessarily central.
Jim
-
If a magazine wanted to buy it for a front page - and why not - then there would be enough room for text?
-
Actually, I tried that, Jeremy. Here's the result. I don't like it as well as the color version. A great blue has some really subtle, beautiful colors on his body. Oh, and here's the picture from the second shutter trip. Don't know that I'm thrilled about that one. For those who are wondering why I didn't swing the camera farther right: There are some trailers on the shore over to the right and I didn't want them in the shot. I rarely center a subject, but this is one time it seemed reasonable.
I agree that the b&w is not as good. I'd not realised how much I liked the golden glow in the lower right until it wasn't there any more. I still think cropping a bit off the left improves it but I'm prepared to accept that I won't convince you!
I'd be happy to have taken the second shot, but it's not as good as the first.
Jeremy
-
Russ, for me the left third of the picture needs to go! At first I thought the dark patch at the top was an intrusion, but I agree it balances the picture, but the left side adds nothing and just puts the bird unnecessarily central.
Jim
+1
-
Meh. No hand of man ;)
-
... There are some trailers on the shore over to the right and I didn't want them in the shot...
Russ not willing to include hand of man ??? ;D
-
Like I said, "Here come the croppers." I'm glad you guys didn't let me down.
-
You certainly baited the thread with your comment, "Here come the croppers." If this photo had been posted by anyone else without the "croppers" comment - yes, you would have received a slough (slew?) of critiques suggesting cropping. But you are Russ, and everyone who reads & posts regularly knows you're attitude about cropping, and, with your photography, you have demonstrated a level of ability that would preclude many from taking issue with this photo. I can hear them now, "yup, this needs cropping, but, hey, it's Russ. He knows what he's doing."
Well, thank goodness someone had the fortitude to stand up to you - thank you Jim Pascoe and a +1 to you, too, Slobodan and Jeremy.
Yes, the photo "needs" cropping to fall within the "rules" of "good" composition. And, yes, there are times to break those "rules". In fact, purposely breaking those rules, like you've done, sets up a purposeful tension, a dissonance that creates a kind of dialogue with the viewer, with the viewer thinking, "Gee, this really should be cropped. But the photographer didn't. Either he really knows what he's doing or he's a rank beginner who desperately needs some lessons in composition." and the photographer simply replying with the photo "as is".
So, this begs the question, are rank beginners who don't know how to compose simply skipping the seemingly unnecessary learning and getting right to the free-thinking "art" of it? Or, should more experienced photographers stop hiding behind their flaunting of the "rules" and realize that sometimes photos need cropping? Or should we be free to do what ever the heck we want with no room for criticism because we are free to do what we want and that's our "style"? Or...
Besides, when camera formats were decided all those years ago, who knew the world doesn't always appear in a nice, neat 3:2 (or 1:1 or 4:3 or 4:5 or 1.6235:1) ratio?
Personally, I'd crop this to 1:1 cropping (yup, I said it) from the left side as suggested. But, it's not my photo, it's Russ's.
(Edited for spelling and adding Jeremy to the list of croppers.)
-
Well, thank goodness someone had the fortitude to stand up to you - thank you Jim Pascoe and a +1 to you, too, Slobodan.
Hey, what about me? I'm hurt :(
Jeremy
-
Hey, what about me? I'm hurt :(
Jeremy
Done! Sorry about that, Jeremy.
-
... Yes, the photo "needs" cropping to fall within the "rules" of "good" composition. And, yes, there are times to break those "rules"...
... So, this begs the question, are rank beginners who don't know how to compose simply skipping the seemingly unnecessary learning and getting right to the free-thinking "art" of it?...
Hehe... This reminds me of a discussion we had a couple of years ago on this forum, where a member known as "popnfresh" said the following:
"... People like to say that rules are meant to be broken, but I say that rules are meant to keep the clueless from looking like idiots. Only break a rule when you're good enough to know what you're doing."
-
You certainly baited the thread with your comment, "Here come the croppers." If this photo had been posted by anyone else without the "croppers" comment - yes, you would have received a slough (slew?) of critiques suggesting cropping. But you are Russ, and everyone who reads & posts regularly knows you're attitude about cropping, and, with your photography, you have demonstrated a level of ability that would preclude many from taking issue with this photo. I can hear them now, "yup, this needs cropping, but, hey, it's Russ. He knows what he's doing."
Well, thank goodness someone had the fortitude to stand up to you - thank you Jim Pascoe and a +1 to you, too, Slobodan and Jeremy.
Yes, the photo "needs" cropping to fall within the "rules" of "good" composition. And, yes, there are times to break those "rules". In fact, purposely breaking those rules, like you've done, sets up a purposeful tension, a dissonance that creates a kind of dialogue with the viewer, with the viewer thinking, "Gee, this really should be cropped. But the photographer didn't. Either he really knows what he's doing or he's a rank beginner who desperately needs some lessons in composition." and the photographer simply replying with the photo "as is".
So, this begs the question, are rank beginners who don't know how to compose simply skipping the seemingly unnecessary learning and getting right to the free-thinking "art" of it? Or, should more experienced photographers stop hiding behind their flaunting of the "rules" and realize that sometimes photos need cropping? Or should we be free to do what ever the heck we want with no room for criticism because we are free to do what we want and that's our "style"? Or...
Besides, when camera formats were decided all those years ago, who knew the world doesn't always appear in a nice, neat 3:2 (or 1:1 or 4:3 or 4:5 or 1.6235:1) ratio?
Personally, I'd crop this to 1:1 cropping (yup, I said it) from the left side as suggested. But, it's not my photo, it's Russ's.
(Edited for spelling and adding Jeremy to the list of croppers.)
Thanks, Terry. I see you edited it for spelling, but you need to do some more editing. You did something that jars me every time I see it. The phrase "begs the question" refers to a question that contains an unsupported assertion. To say something like, "It begs the question, 'why didn't he?'" simply isn't correct English. The textbook example of begging the question is the sentence, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" That sentence begs the question big time.
But aside from that aside, which many people would call trivial but shouldn't, I'm happy with your fortitude. You're doing the kind of critique I look for on LuLa but almost never find.
But you, Mal, Jim and Slobodan are wrong. Eric, Jeremy, Mike, William, Seamus, and Francois are right. (Sorry about the water droplets, Chris. I probably could Photoshop in some more contrasty ones.)(And, Mal, I prefer "Great Blue Ascending" too, but I didn't think it was a contest.)
I explained why I shot this picture with the bird in the center of the frame. Since I was trying to avoid the double-wide trailers off to the right it was pure (lucky) chance that I shot it this way. I had intended to crop it. But looking at the result, I realized that bird has to be exactly where he is: right in the center of the frame. You can screw around with crops all you want, but I suspect you'll come to the same conclusion once you see the result.
As far as the "rules" of "good" composition are concerned, this IS one of those times you mention when they need to be broken. And there always are two kinds of rank beginners. I saw that for ten years in my wife's gallery as people would bring in artwork they wanted to sell or put on consignment. One kind of rank beginner is trying hard to learn the "rules of good composition." The other kind won't even try. The winner is the guy who occupies a space between the other two. He's learning the craft, but not just by memorizing rules. He's learning by studying the work of the masters, and one of the things he learns from the masters is that when you think the rules ought to be broken, that's the time to break them and then decide whether or not you were right. If you were wrong you dump the result. If you were right, well, that's called "art."
-
Thanks, Terry. I see you edited it for spelling, but you need to do some more editing. You did something that jars me every time I see it. The phrase "begs the question" refers to a question that contains an unsupported assertion. To say something like, "It begs the question, 'why didn't he?'" simply isn't correct English. The textbook example of begging the question is the sentence, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" That sentence begs the question big time.
But aside from that aside, which many people would call trivial but shouldn't, I'm happy with your fortitude. You're doing the kind of critique I look for on LuLa but almost never find.
But you, Mal, Jim and Slobodan are wrong. Eric, Jeremy, Mike, William, Seamus, and Francois are right. (Sorry about the water droplets, Chris. I probably could Photoshop in some more contrasty ones.)(And, Mal, I prefer "Great Blue Ascending" too, but I didn't think it was a contest.)
I explained why I shot this picture with the bird in the center of the frame. Since I was trying to avoid the double-wide trailers off to the right it was pure (lucky) chance that I shot it this way. I had intended to crop it. But looking at the result, I realized that bird has to be exactly where he is: right in the center of the frame. You can screw around with crops all you want, but I suspect you'll come to the same conclusion once you see the result.
As far as the "rules" of "good" composition are concerned, this IS one of those times you mention when they need to be broken. And there always are two kinds of rank beginners. I saw that for ten years in my wife's gallery as people would bring in artwork they wanted to sell or put on consignment. One kind of rank beginner is trying hard to learn the "rules of good composition." The other kind won't even try. The winner is the guy who occupies a space between the other two. He's learning the craft, but not just by memorizing rules. He's learning by studying the work of the masters, and one of the things he learns from the masters is that when you think the rules ought to be broken, that's the time to break them and then decide whether or not you were right. If you were wrong you dump the result. If you were right, well, that's called "art."
Well said, Russ.
-
Hehe... This reminds me of a discussion we had a couple of years ago on this forum, where a member known as "popnfresh" said the following:
"... People like to say that rules are meant to be broken, but I say that rules are meant to keep the clueless from looking like idiots. Only break a rule when you're good enough to know what you're doing."
Russ is good enough to know what he's doing.
I rest my case (without begging any questions).
-
Russ is good enough to know what he's doing.
Indeed. That is why we will continue to agree to respectfully disagree (on cropping and bunch of other things).
By the way, my post was not meant to be a direct comment on Russ, just a general note on rules.
-
Terry
Well said - of course if you post an image in the "User Critiques" section you are asking for comment.
Hopefully no sacred cows in this paddock.
Mal
-
The dark patch is what the bird is looking at.. with its cartoon-like eye...
Great humoristic photo.
-
You did something that jars me every time I see it. The phrase "begs the question" refers to a question that contains an unsupported assertion. To say something like, "It begs the question, 'why didn't he?'" simply isn't correct English.
Simply consult a dictionary and see that Terry's usage has become accepted as correct English (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/beg-the-question?q=beg+the+question).
The textbook example of begging the question is the sentence, "Have you stopped beating your wife?" That sentence begs the question big time.
"Have you stopped beating your wife?" is the textbook example of a loaded question (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/loaded-question), not of begging the question (https://yourlogicalfallacyis.com/begging-the-question).
As far as the "rules" of "good" composition are concerned, this IS one of those times you mention when they need to be broken.
And thirdly, the code is more what you'd call "guidelines" than actual rules -- Terry would crop to 1:1 from the left side, fine; Russ wouldn't, fine.
-
Simply consult a dictionary and see that Terry's usage has become accepted as correct English (http://dictionary.cambridge.org/us/dictionary/british/beg-the-question?q=beg+the+question).
"Accepted" by whom? Certainly not by anybody with a basic understanding of the language.
Isaac, you need to get out with a camera and show us that when you pontificate on photography you have at least a tenuous grasp of the subject.
-
"Accepted" by whom? Certainly not by anybody with a basic understanding of the language.
- otoh lexicographers based on a corpus of written and spoken English totalling several billion words (http://www.cambridge.org/us/cambridgeenglish/about-cambridge-english/cambridge-english-corpus)
- otoh Russ
Authoritative versus Authoritarian.
-
Bye, Isaac.