In training

seastack · May 6, 2012

Wow, both of those are really good! Minor nits: the white line in the background is a little distracting on the first one. And is the square crop on the second really necessary?

TonyCooper · May 6, 2012

seastack wrote: »

Wow, both of those are really good! Minor nits: the white line in the background is a little distracting on the first one. And is the square crop on the second really necessary?

Thanks. The white line is the ring rope. I really didn't want
to ask the guy to pose. I held up the camera and kinda signaled
"Is it OK to take your photo?" and he went straight to this.

That's the second comment in the last week about a square
crop. It totally baffles me that this would be brought up.

I crop to include what I want in the image and to exclude what
I don't want. If that means a rectangle or a square, so be it.
What's left after the crop is what counts.

If there's a reason for the objection to a square crop, I wish
someone would explain it to me. I'm gonna start watching to
see if anyone else posts anything but 2:3 rectangles.

bdcolen · May 6, 2012

The square crop is perfect, Tony. Two nice images, though the ring rope is a llittle distracting. You might try burning down the background a bit. Btw - is he really boxing with studs in his lips? Wow.

bdcolen · May 6, 2012

TonyCooper wrote: »

Thanks. The white line is the ring rope. I really didn't want
to ask the guy to pose. I held up the camera and kinda signaled
"Is it OK to take your photo?" and he went straight to this.

That's the second comment in the last week about a square
crop. It totally baffles me that this would be brought up.

I crop to include what I want in the image and to exclude what
I don't want. If that means a rectangle or a square, so be it.
What's left after the crop is what counts.

If there's a reason for the objection to a square crop, I wish
someone would explain it to me. I'm gonna start watching to
see if anyone else posts anything but 2:3 rectangles.

Btw - more and more of us are shooting 4:3, and or cameras that give us format options, including 1:1

TonyCooper · May 6, 2012

bdcolen wrote: »

The square crop is perfect, Tony. Two nice images, though the ring rope is a llittle distracting. You might try burning down the background a bit. Btw - is he really boxing with studs in his lips? Wow.

No sparring that night. All that was going on was some heavy
bag and speed bag work. Just the one guy was in the ring shadow
boxing. At this place, they only spar one night a week, and this
wasn't the night.

Thanks for the comment. Someday I'll learn to use the dodge and
burn tools.

seastack · May 6, 2012

TonyCooper wrote: »

If there's a reason for the objection to a square crop, I wish
someone would explain it to me. I'm gonna start watching to
see if anyone else posts anything but 2:3 rectangles.

Tony, it may be just me!

Okay, so since you asked, I'll try to explain. I think because I come from a journalism background and do some documentary work, I'm biased against excessive cropping. There is also a school of thought against any cropping at all (to which I don't generally subscribe) or, especially, taking a 2:3 and making it a square. Some purists will look down on this, and sometimes judges in contests as well. I do try to get it right in the frame when I take the pic ... it's a bit of a challenge to myself. But this is not always possible. So sometimes I do crop photos. Bottom line, do what feels right for you. I wouldn't worry too much about other people's hangups.

Did I mention those are really good!

thoth · May 6, 2012

Ditto on the accolades, Tony. I love the square crop and use it frequently. Keep it up!

Yaflyyadie · May 6, 2012

Crop what you crop, leave what you want.
If you are happy, so be it.
I like both pictures and also agree with bdcolen about the rope, but once more, if you like it, fine with me.
Good job.!
Y

michswiss · May 7, 2012

I like the shots.

An observation on the square crop and cropping in general. I've noticed a tendency by many to suggest cropping to the edges of what they perceive as the primary subject or to get rid of distractions in the final image. I also think there are instances where the crop posted (I'm assuming they are crops) are too tight, removing potentially additive elements or negative space to a shot.

The vast majority of us shoot with cameras with 3:2 aspect ratio sensors. A square image is almost certainly a crop, except when you can force the camera into that mode at capture. I guess the request to see the rest of the image might have been a reaction to the "tightness" of the version posted. Is there, or are there additive elements? Seeing more of the empty ring to the left or more of the people / blobs on the right would be interesting to me at least. Only you know which way you took it and what's there.

I like to work with square and 5:4 sometimes and try to compose accordingly. I'll post something I think is similar in "tightness" to your shot along with uncropped version for comment.

rainbow · May 7, 2012

I like both of them. The first has his eyes reflecting his intensity. I also like the processing in the first. The near parallel postures in the second one work very well.

torags · May 7, 2012

I like #1. The symmetry works with the square crop.

I'm in your camp regarding crops; the critical mass of the subject (s) determines the crop.

That said, my recollection is that Polaroid was the only cam that had square images.

Russ or bd could educate me if there were more.

My nit with #2, is that you have a blurred body occupying more image RE than the in focus subject and it's in front of.

In training

Comments