Luminous Landscape Forum
Equipment & Techniques => Landscape & Nature Photography => Topic started by: Chris Kern on April 08, 2021, 06:21:22 pm
-
A monochrome reprocessing of a 2019 image.
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51103260799_96b74f1a62_c_d.jpg)
-
Well captured moment.
It might benefit from a more elongated crop, say 16:9, removing the top ¼ or so. Its busyness competes with the bird. Me thinks.
-
It might benefit from a more elongated crop, say 16:9, removing the top ¼ or so. Its busyness competes with the bird. Me thinks.
I had the same idea. Tried it and didn't like it at the time. But after reading your comment, I've taken a second look and I think you may be right.
-
Not an aspect ratio I have used very often, but 16:10 seems to work well:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/51103260799_18a90b1ecd_c_d.jpg).
-
Hmmmm. Maybe still not narrow enough ?
Is the image about the water texture with the bird as an accent or is it about the bird action with the water as a background ?
-
Is the image about the water texture with the bird as an accent or is it about the bird action with the water as a background ?
Interesting question. Ten years ago, Michael Reichmann published an essay on cropping that has always stuck with me. He argued that some photographs—the best ones, he thought—"demand to be a certain shape."
My feeling is that cropping isn’t something that we do to an image. It does it itself – demanding to be constrained in certain ways. Sometimes there’s more than one way, but it eventually becomes obvious what the photograph itself wants. This isn’t metaphor. The best photographs demand to be a certain shape. The rest make no such requests, and that’s what separates the winners from the also-rans.
—Michael Reichmann, Understanding the Art of Cropping (https://luminous-landscape.com/understanding-the-art-of-cropping/), March, 2011
I think this one of mine falls into Michael's second category of "also-rans." It works with several different crops, depending on where you want to place the emphasis, but none of them immediately strikes you as being the perfect way to frame the image.
-
I prefer Slobodan's original suggestion. The rocks at the top are a distraction, even in the 16:10 version.
-
I like it as it is. Slobodan's crop suggestion probably improves it but the bird is the main element (for me) and it is very strong and my eyes don't seem to roam around too much.
Bravo.
-
I like it as it is. . . . the bird is the main element (for me) and it is very strong and my eyes don't seem to roam around too much.
Bravo.
Thanks. In the end, a very prosaic consideration argues for the original crop: I want to print it on 17x22-inch paper stock (approximately A2) and use an existing metal frame of that size, and the original crop fits that aspect ratio best.
-
Yes. It's best not to buy a car that won't fit in your garage. ;)
-
Yes. It's best not to buy a car that won't fit in your garage. ;)
Excellent analogy, I love it!
-
Here's another shot from the Great Falls National Park where the water definitely is not the subject of the image:
(https://live.staticflickr.com/65535/25691339847_8cc8f8e2d1_c_d.jpg)
-
Different animal but very nice too!
Well done.
-
i cannot see any bird... it finally has flown...
-
i cannot see any bird... it finally has flown...
Lost the feathers in the tumultuous waters…