Asher Kelman's Photography As Art Series

[Rachel Foster]

First article: cropping.

The examples shown (Chas's reflections and Tim's knot) are a wonderful example of how leaving some mystery in an image gives it (in Asher's words) a magical quality. This is something I often struggle with. I almost always either crop too severely or too little. When I see it done right, as in the examples in the articles, it seems obvious. Then, when I sit down to crop my own images, I'm lost.

What is involved in this process of knowing when/how to crop? For example, I look at a recent image I captured and it has some quality to it I really like. But I question if others will see in it what I see because of lack of referents. In fact, I'm almost certain that I see something here others will not.

This is a fish in Lake Michigan at dawn. I know that and realize that colors my perception. How does one learn to "see" without the additional knowledge that came from "being there?"

 

[Tim Ashley]

Hi Rachel,

I think you need to think about two related elements: cropping, and composition. You can compose without cropping (in camera) but you can't crop without re-composing. So every crop involves decisions about composition BUT also about content.

If you think your compositional skills need a nudge, try using Lightroom's crop tool. It allows you to see a number of overlay options (View>Crop Guide Overlay) such as thirds, trinagles, golden section, golden spiral). These are useful tools to help you develop a style of distributing mass and colour in your images and experimenting with them should be an interesting experience.

When it comes to the content decisions of crops you need to consider two things: firstly, is the image part of a series in which other images will contribute towards the meaning of the whole? A crop that makes content ambiguous or hard to decipher can be very successful if other images in the series provide contextual support. Secondly, if the image is a solo effort and has to make its own way in the world as far as the clues it gives viewers as to how it should be seen, then make that ambiguity work positively. Confusing may be powerful if done well, but it is not the same thing as intriguing!

Lastly - always always try to imagine seeing the images in the total absence of all the non-visual contextual information you had when you took it. That's how we see it. It may be the surface of the moon taken at earthrise by you in a spacesuit on the lunar surface but if it looks like a dusty floor and we know nothing of context, then a dusty floor it is!

Best

Tim

 

[Rachel Foster]

I have Lightroom but have not yet learned the ins and outs. That sounds like a terrific way to "see" the different styles, and might be a big help.

Thanks!

I've tended to approach images as standing solo rather than a series. The idea is intriguing and is somewhat exciting.