should this be square cropped?

[RoB_m]

i've got a debate going. i think this would look much better with a square crop, centering the mountain, but some others [whom i have less creative confidence in:p] like the original BECAUSE it is off center. to me there's nothing on the right of the frame that is worth keeping.

what do you think? this?
http://www.bluestarsway.net/photography/bwnevada.jpg

or this?
http://rexthewonderhorse.com/rob/bwnevadatweak.jpg

[Radtech1]

I like the square crop. Go for it. HOWEVER, in a case of "you can't see the moon when the sun is out" you may have gotten so distracted on the crop issue, you missed the fact that it needs to be roatated. 1 to 2 deg Clockwise ought to do it.

Rad

[RoB_m]

i noticed the rotation issue. very sublte, it was. it's not my shot so i'm not wasting more time editting it. i made the crop to prove a point and i'm just posting here in an attempt to save my sanity.

[whowie]

Both are nice images (crops). The wide shot emphasizes the expanse of the landscape and the sky and the square crop draws attention to the height of the mountains. I like 'em both for different reasons.

[dphoto]

Hey RoB_m,

I agree a lot with what whowie said. That being said, I tend to like the square crop a little better. If I were you, I might also try cropping out a little more of the sky. It might give the mountain range an even grander appearance.

Overall, nice shot! Where is this mountain range, BTW? Is that part of the Sierras? Just curious. :D

-Deva

[RoB_m]

it was taken from a plane, somewhere near las vegas, but not by me.
very un-sierra-like landscape :]

[dphoto]

Hey RoB_m,

Well, it certainly doesn't look like the western sierras to me, but it does look a little familiar. The last time I flew over the sierras, I was amazed at some of the vast "openings" amid the mountains, so I was just wondering. Then again, it was on that same flight that I was on my way to Las Vegas, so go figure. :D

Nice shot nonetheless!
-Deva

[blinking8s]

rotate...no square

[Moppie]

If you compare the lower slopes of the mountian in both images, the second one, with the square crop, has more contrast and darker shadows.

If you look at only the mountian, and exclude the surounding background the second one deffintly has more impact.

I believe the differnce in the two photos may came not from thier differnt cropping, but from thier differnt contrast and levels.

[dsze]

I recently met up with a photographer from Sydney who had a professor who was absolutely against ANY cropping. ...said that photos are taken in a certain format and that format is known before the photographer took the shot...such that cropping it afterward destroys the "art."

-not saying that I agree with this prof., just trying to add some fuel for thought & discussion.

-daniel

[RoB_m]

I recently met up with a photographer from Sydney who had a professor who was absolutely against ANY cropping. ...said that photos are taken in a certain format and that format is known before the photographer took the shot...such that cropping it afterward destroys the "art."

-not saying that I agree with this prof., just trying to add some fuel for thought & discussion.

-daniel

what if we don't have access to a medium format camera, but want the dimensions? would he tell me to go out and buy a mamiya or else i'm not worthy of square images?

there's always some purist/extremeists like that. i see where they're coming from but there's also similar people that are against any kind of post processing. we all have our own ways of working and if they want to limit the way they work to try and challenge themselves, so be it.

[RoB_m]

If you compare the lower slopes of the mountian in both images, the second one, with the square crop, has more contrast and darker shadows.

If you look at only the mountian, and exclude the surounding background the second one deffintly has more impact.

I believe the differnce in the two photos may came not from thier differnt cropping, but from thier differnt contrast and levels.

i changed the contrast to my liking when making the square image. the first image was how my acquantence showed it to me.

[RoB_m]

Hey RoB_m,

Well, it certainly doesn't look like the western sierras to me, but it does look a little familiar. The last time I flew over the sierras, I was amazed at some of the vast "openings" amid the mountains, so I was just wondering. Then again, it was on that same flight that I was on my way to Las Vegas, so go figure. :D

Nice shot nonetheless!
-Deva

hey, no worries, i'm no geography expert either, but i do take a lot of landscape photography. hehe
i did just take a class on western geography, studying the different areas of the west and their diversity, so that stuff is fresh in the mind.
:wink:

[dsze]

Yeah, I'm not saying that I agree with that prof's cropping philosophy, but it does make you think about cropping a little doesn't it? Sure we all have our own ways of getting the job done, but its the philosophy of the purist/extremist that drives us to either perfect it or drives us to disprove it, right? :)

-daniel

[Don Ellis]

i've got a debate going. i think this would look much better with a square crop,

We won't know whether it looks better with a square crop until it's cropped square. :wink:

Don

[dsze]

....I think I forgot to mention that it is a nice photo BTW. Love the textures, square or not.

-daniel

[flowe]

... a professor who was absolutely against ANY cropping. ...said that photos are taken in a certain format and that format is known before the photographer took the shot...such that cropping it afterward destroys the "art."
This professor apparently owns ultimate intelligence enabling him to instantly assess all contributing aspects right through to the final picture. To me, photography not only is a technical process and as such requiring time, but a mental one too. So the content of a digital camera appears to me as only the raw material of a picture.

I think that editing and cropping are integral parts of the artistic process, which is entirely up to the artist. As cameras, screens and papers all have different and rather random aspect ratios, there is not even a logical technical priority. I see only one viable criterion for the aspect ratio: the content and layout of the picture itself. This still permits different and often surprising variations - again part of the artistic imagination and expression.

I even maintain that this should have priority over the printing paper aspect ratios. Any image editor I know allows to print any odd aspect ratio, fitting the picture to the narrower dimension and centering in the other direction with white space. This makes for pleasant changes and may provoke interesting discussions - and thereby enhance creativity and social interaction.

Comments please?

[dsze]

flowe,

I happen to agree with you. This is a good discussion however. This professor, I believe, was a lady who is quite well known in Sydney.

One point of hers MIGHT be that a painter does not start with a certain size canvas, finish the painting and then decided, "hey this would look better if I just cut off that edge that I didn't paint very well."

-then I suppose we get into the debate about photography being a completely seperate and different art form than painting or anything else and so those theories/philosophies don't apply.

-daniel

[smudge]

I prefer it uncropped, mainly because it gives the mountain a perspective against its surroundings. He's more impressive because his neighbours aren't.

As for the professor, thats a tough one. I agree that the artist must be able to see the picture, whether its pre shot or after in the digital lab is irrelevant, he still has to have the vision to create the finished article.

So does it therefore follow that capturing a still image from a movie is equally acceptable. A high res movie camera recording a party all day, you go home watch and freeze frame to get the exact shot you want, without once having checked the viewer all day.

I did this once at a kids party, although the quality wasn't good, poor camera, I liked the results. The people forgot the camera was there and there were some very candid scenes. :wink: