Cropping advice

[Erik DeBill]

Usually, people post a picture and ask for comments or criticism. I thought I'd try something different.

The following is the full frame version of a picture I took last weekend. It was a young cattle egret on the side the road (literally within a foot of the asphalt) that didn't mind as I rolled up right beside it in my car and took several pictures. Even stuck around as I backed up to follow it as it moved down the road.

It's not the greatest picture, but for some reason I find the pose somewhat evocative. The framing obviously rather sucks. The bird was as large in the frame as I could manage with my 20d + 100-400 shooting from the driver's seat out the passenger side window. Likewise, I couldn't go any lower to get the feet without moving the car back a ways (window edge would block it).

My question is: How would you crop this? I'll refrain from showing what I came up with so as not to taint the results.

Other suggestions and comments are, of course, welcome.

 

[Don Cohen]

Hi Erik,

Thanks for posting.

This is a challenge in terms of cropping. The cut-off legs are somewhat of a problem. as you know. Here's one version:

To my eye, with the body/head larger in the frame, it attracts the eye a bit away from the cut-off legs which are thus de-emphasized. The diagonal flow also seems to be strengthened.

Your thoughts?

 

[Nikolai Sklobovsky]

Erik,

Here's my attempt:

Sorry, could not help it adding some curves in LAB

HTH

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Another attemp from me. Tried a lot of combinations, this one I liked the most. It's in square format for a change ;-). The empty area above the bird adds depth, at least that's how I feel about it.

(if the picture does not show, then try this link: http://photo-i.brabantsewal.com/opf/crop.htm)

Regards,

Cem

 

[Harvey Moore]

My Take, diagonals with beak pointing to lower left and "Shoulder " pointing to upper right

 

[Erik DeBill]

To my eye, with the body/head larger in the frame, it attracts the eye a bit away from the cut-off legs which are thus de-emphasized. The diagonal flow also seems to be strengthened.

Your thoughts?

Yours is almost exactly what I ended up with myself. Mine was a little looser around the subject, and yours ended up with a bit more impact. Being smaller, yours managed to get the bird more centered in the frame, which helps the balance.

 

[Erik DeBill]

Erik,

Here's my attempt:

Sorry, could not help it adding some curves in LAB

HTH

Your curves made the lighting a lot more dramatic, and I can actually see some of the faint brownish colors that these cattle egrets have. I hadn't even realized I'd lost them in mine.

There isn't much room around the subject, though, and this cropping feels a little cramped to me.

 

[Erik DeBill]

Another attemp from me. Tried a lot of combinations, this one I liked the most. It's in square format for a change ;-). The empty area above the bird adds depth, at least that's how I feel about it.

(if the picture does not show, then try this link: http://photo-i.brabantsewal.com/opf/crop.htm)

Regards,

Cem

I'd never even considered going square with it, so it's cool to see it work so well that way. I think this would have been absolutely perfect if I'd managed to get a bit more of the bird's legs, so the body was just a little higher in the frame.

 

[Erik DeBill]

My Take, diagonals with beak pointing to lower left and "Shoulder " pointing to upper right

I think this is my favorite of all these different crops. It feels very sinous and there's a kind of tension to it.

I do believe that a print with this cropping is going to end up on my office wall very soon

 

[Erik DeBill]

I'd just like to thank everybody that offered suggestions. I learned something from every one of them, and I really do appreciate it.


Erik

 

[Cem_Usakligil]

Erik,

Thanks for your kind words, I too learn something new each day (luckily). Besides, it was a joy to work on a common problem with such excellent peers.

Before Asher busts us here, I've just added a copyright sign with your name to my crop exercise (you may have to refresh this page in your browser to see the difference). LOL

Cheers,

Cem



Thanks so much Cem!

I appreciate so much you doing that. We need to train everyone not to even think of not adding the ©

So I'm happy.

Asher

 

[Erik DeBill]

I appreciate so much you doing that. We need to train everyone not to even think of not adding the ©

So I'm happy.

Asher

I tend to skip it, since I try to do everything possible in the raw conversion program, and adding text requires an additional step (in other software). I admit I'm lazy. I guess it's time to come up with the arguments for Image Magick to add a copyright notice, so I can just script it.

 

[Dierk Haasis]

Just to say, I like Harvey's crop the best as it makes actual use of the cut feet in the original. He went in closer, counter-acting them by cropping even closer. Making use of a panoramic crop [which I use very often since turning digital] focusses the viewer on the upper part, the neck, of the egret. Well spotted and done.

Does tie very well into another post in another thread about rules, analyses and mistakes becoming creativity: Harvey 'got closer' and he cut off parts he shouldn't have according to classical rules. What looked like a mistake in the original became a defining formalism in the crop. Proofs my rule - it's only wrong as long as it does not look quite right; amplify the mistake and you get a Wow-image! Don't try to hide mistakes, slightly converging buildings look wrong, they give people an uneasy feeling, tilt your camera strongly and you have a winner.

 

[Erik DeBill]

Just to say, I like Harvey's crop the best as it makes actual use of the cut feet in the original. He went in closer, counter-acting them by cropping even closer. Making use of a panoramic crop [which I use very often since turning digital] focusses the viewer on the upper part, the neck, of the egret. Well spotted and done.

Maybe this should turn into the rule "If you can't get ALL of the subject in the frame, move in and highlight the part that really interests you"?

 

[Dierk Haasis]

Isn't it more universal to rule: 'Know what interests you and show it.'?

 

[Don Lashier]

Maybe this should turn into the rule "If you can't get ALL of the subject in the frame, move in and highlight the part that really interests you"?

Often it works to intentionally not get all the subject in the frame - it lends a mystery and less formality, and can enhance the abstract compositional aspects. The problem with the original in this thread was the imbalance which Harvey brilliantly recognized.

- DL

 

[Alain Briot]