One comment I've received several times is that I need to tighten up how I crop my images. So, what I've done here is taken the same image and cropped it several different ways so I can ask y'all: what makes one better than the other?
First: Storm Damage - What the Camera Saw
This is how I originally composed the image in the view finder. I was limited by where I was standing, focal length, etcetera, but also I was restricted by what I perceive as the rules of composition. Apparently, at some point the rule of thirds was seared (seared!) into my brain and I almost always place the object of interest 1/3 of the way into the frame, usually in such a way that the object appears to be moving (or just leading the eye) towards the center.
When I got home, I realized that I had way to much sky in the image, so I produced the version I posted to Photographica last night: Storm Damage
Note that the image still adheres to a 2x3 aspect ratio and, sure enough, the cabin is pushed out of the center towards the bottom and right.
For the next version, I abandoned the 2x3 aspect ratio and simply cut more sky out of the picutre: Storm Damage - Panoramic Cropping (I called it "panoramic" because of the shape of the image, not because it's a panorama). Shaping the image that way forced me to center the cabin vertically but, again, horizontally I pushed it to the right, towards the 1/3 line.
The final version returns to the 2x3 ratio, but crops almost everything but the cabin: Storm Damage - Tight Cropping
So, now let me ask all you wise photographers out there - which version do you prefer? Why?
Personally... I like what the camera saw. The other three are too tight and take the little building out of a space (one thing I will never forget from my photography teacher Norton). Plus, in the full version, the mountain on the left in a subtle way mirrors the shape of the roof and thus balances the frame (left and right).
If anything at all because the sky was kinda lifeless (although a beautiful blue), I would've added more ground than sky in the rule of thirds. Imagine the panorama sky line with the entirety of the first shot. To illustrate, just open the first one and take a sheet of paper and put it over most of the sky starting just above the highest puff of cloud and see if you like that.
Now, these are just my opinions. Others may see it differently.
(a tip, try shooting the sky line at the bottom 1/3 and the top 1/3 of the frame with subjects like these and compare when you get home. Sometimes the sky adds interest while at other times the ground does. Or at least, that's something I do).
- Film-Junkie 4 Life!
Please sign in to rate.
> a tip, try shooting the sky line at the bottom 1/3 and the top 1/3 of the frame with subjects like these and compare when you get home.
Thanks for the suggestion - I'll try that. And thanks for the opinions as well; my main goal here is to collect different ideas to help me create more compelling images.
- Confusing People Since 65
Please sign in to rate.
Please sign in to rate.
- ©kitzi
Please sign in to rate.
- Smile
Please sign in to rate.
I always try to fill the frame with whatever part of the scene is the most interesting. In this case, that would be the grass and the foreground. (If you would have had lots of clouds in the sky, then it would have been a different story). I like where you positioned the house in both the original and the pano shot. I think the pano shot works the best out of all of them, but in all of them, except for the last one, you are cutting the image in half with the horizon and the difference between the green trees and the blue sky is a drastic one, so I think I would have tried to position that line a little bit differently.
- f8 and be there...
Please sign in to rate.
Are you confused yet? I think Penny said it well . . . the cropping really depends on the picture. I usually like tight, with little dead space, and rule of thirds. But there ARE photos that look spectacular and dramatic when centered, or when dead backgrounds are left in for emphasis or perspective. When I look at my photos, I decide what the "point" of the photo is (sometimes more than a thing - perhaps a feeling too), and I will try to remove anything that doesn't add to, emphasize, or enhance that "main thing". Now, isn't this helpful???
In your set, I like the pano best - the original sky was excess and didn't add anything. The pano horizon is about at "thirds", with more ground than sky, and the cabin is off-center about right too. I think it is appealing. The tight crop is all centered cabin, and not as interesting visually.
- the EYES have it
Please sign in to rate.
Cratchet,
Thanks for the input and, no, I'm not really confused - I appreciate the variety of opinions here, and they've all given me things to think about the next time I take the camera out.
Actually all this is one of the things I love about digital cameras versus film - with film I would never have been able to experiment this way!
- Confusing People Since 65
Please sign in to rate.
Please sign in to rate.
Please sign in to rate.