Untitled

lensmole

TonyCooper

I like the processing. The foreground could be shortened considerably.

lensmole

Crop

TonyCooper wrote: »

I like the processing. The foreground could be shortened considerably.

Thanks for your input ! What do you think of this?

TonyCooper

Much better. What doesn't add, detracts.

lensmole

TonyCooper wrote: »

Much better. What doesn't add, detracts.

I don't mind it this gives it a lighter feeling and gives more stature to the clouds than the subject but it does loose depth, but overall I would have to agree . When viewed on a full screen their is a dramatic difference in the second one ,I feel that the second one takes attention away from the subject.

michswiss

Ok, not to be contrary, the first version is much better. Sure the couple might seem to be the subjects, but it's the hill leading to them that creates the drama and tells the story of struggle and accomplishment they have ahead of them. Don't crop it.

lizzard_nyc

michswiss wrote: »

Ok, not to be contrary, the first version is much better. Sure the couple might seem to be the subjects, but it's the hill leading to them that creates the drama and tells the story of struggle and accomplishment they have ahead of them. Don't crop it.

Agreed---I think it loses some of its majesticnes when cropped.

lensmole

michswiss wrote: »

Ok, not to be contrary, the first version is much better. Sure the couple might seem to be the subjects, but it's the hill leading to them that creates the drama and tells the story of struggle and accomplishment they have ahead of them. Don't crop it.

lizzard_nyc wrote: »

Agreed---I think it loses some of its majesticnes when cropped.

You both make good ,points and they are very helpful. It is my view that the subject is the most important part of any image and is deserving of as much attenion as the photographer can give it.
The second version emphasizes the the clouds more and takes attention away from the couple and this was not my intention when I first composed the image and pushed the shutter.

Thank you! both for your input.

TonyCooper

I like the crop better. The top can't be cropped without cutting off the
flagpole awkwardly, so the clouds take on maybe too much attention.

Maybe taking off less of the grassy area would be a better compromise.

The original had a bit too much of the three-band effect: clouds, people,
and grass all with equal emphasis. I like cropping to emphasize the
primary subject matter.

It doesn't particularly amaze, surprise, dismay, or please me that
different people see an image in a different way. The idea of a comment
about different views of how an image should be presented is to get
the photographer to see it from a different perspective and then pick
the perspective he/she likes the best.

Mike Bishop

I like the idea of cropping but I'd rather see some of the clouds cropped out and the poles cloned away and keep the hill.

lensmole

Mike Bishop wrote: »

I like the idea of cropping but I'd rather see some of the clouds cropped out and the poles cloned away and keep the hill.

Thanks for the idea.

michswiss

Just to add, the original shot is compositionally quite classic and consistent with the rule of thirds. Not that rules are to be paid attention to. Stop looking at it as a post on a website and begin to think how it would play on paper.

I should just come out and say, I like it.

lensmole

michswiss wrote: »

Just to add, the original shot is compositionally quite classic and consistent with the rule of thirds. Not that rules are to be paid attention to. Stop looking at it as a post on a website and begin to think how it would play on paper.

I should just come out and say, I like it.

Thank You very much !

I totally agree with you and Liz.The original is composed on the golden mean ratio.
The points you had Liz have made contribute a great deal to what I want to accomplish with this image.
I am a firm believer in never say never when it comes to breaking the rules of composition ,but I generally like to adhere to them . Thanks again for your input!

lensmole

michswiss wrote: »

Just to add, the original shot is compositionally quite classic and consistent with the rule of thirds. Not that rules are to be paid attention to. Stop looking at it as a post on a website and begin to think how it would play on paper.

I should just come out and say, I like it.

I just want to add that I never rely on standard print sizes for any composition.

michswiss

lensmole wrote: »

I just want to add that I never rely on standard print sizes for any composition.

Once you, and I really mean a capital you, understand a particular image, formats shouldn't matter. There will be practical issues though. Still, my point is that it's extremely easy to crop, crop, crop to what might be considered the main subject of a shot. Don't do that. As long as the bones are there, cropping is dependent on ultimate use.

lensmole

michswiss wrote: »

Once you, and I really mean a capital you, understand a particular image, formats shouldn't matter. There will be practical issues though. Still, my point is that it's extremely easy to crop, crop, crop to what might be considered the main subject of a shot. Don't do that. As long as the bones are there, cropping is dependent on ultimate use.

This is good to know ! Thanks!

RSL

michswiss wrote: »

Just to add, the original shot is compositionally quite classic and consistent with the rule of thirds. Not that rules are to be paid attention to. Stop looking at it as a post on a website and begin to think how it would play on paper.

I should just come out and say, I like it.

After a couple years on LuLa, Jennifer, you know where I stand on cropping: never crop unless there's some huge defect that has to be corrected with a crop.

But, let's talk about not paying attention to the rules of composition. I keep hearing from people who think they're "questioning authority" by explaining that they never pay attention to the rules. But if they produce good visual art: painting, prints, photography, you can look at any of the products they haven't culled and see one of two things: either the image follows the rules of composition or they've not only broken the rules, they've shattered them and the pieces are all over the floor. Picasso's a prime example, but there are many others.

A street photographer can't take out a ruler and measure to make sure he's following the rule of thirds. He can't even use one of those cute frame sets you can throw up on some DSLRs to make sure his subject is properly placed a third of the way from the edge of the scene. There isn't time for any of that. But a really good street photographer has looked at so many fine photographs, paintings, and prints, that he's internalized the rules of compositon. When he lifts the camera and looks through the viewfinder, all the rules are etched within his head. He grasps the whole scene at once, and, bang, the job's done. That kind of photographer can't violate the rules of composition unless he does it deliberately, and usually there's no time to do it deliberately. Cartier-Bresson is the classic example.

And, yes. Mole got it right in the viewfinder.