harpofreely
Well-known
These two shots are from last night's "session" (a fancy way of saying, stuck in the front yard with my kids) with my fresh-from-eBay Canon FDn 135mm f2. Both shots crop my boys' arms/hands - one of the few "rules" that, to my eye, is rarely broken to good effect.
My feeling is that this one works, and the fingerless right hand is not a problem...
...and this one does not, and the chop at the wrist is a fatal flaw:
Any thoughts or comments appreciated - and I have a thick skin.
Thanks,
My feeling is that this one works, and the fingerless right hand is not a problem...
...and this one does not, and the chop at the wrist is a fatal flaw:
Any thoughts or comments appreciated - and I have a thick skin.
Thanks,
SimonSawSunlight
Simon Fabel
i don't believe in an actual rule about cropping anything. it works in a good picture, it doesn't work in a bad picture.
i think it works in the first picture, the second one is generally less interesting to a person with no connection to the kid, whether it has cropped limbs or not.
i think it works in the first picture, the second one is generally less interesting to a person with no connection to the kid, whether it has cropped limbs or not.
Ko.Fe.
Lenses 35/21 Gears 46/20
I would crop both of them even more. Both at the bottom, top one almost to the square.
BillBingham2
Registered User
I love the band-aid on the top one, but the blue background does work for me. When I tweak it into B&W it looks much better.
The bottom one looks like the focus is on the shoulder, not the eye(s). If the shoulder was the point of interest of the photo, then it's right, I just don't get the picture.
You results speak well of the lens (and you), good work.
B2 (;->
The bottom one looks like the focus is on the shoulder, not the eye(s). If the shoulder was the point of interest of the photo, then it's right, I just don't get the picture.
You results speak well of the lens (and you), good work.
B2 (;->
CK Dexter Haven
Well-known
The old 'journalism rule' i was taught as a high-schooler was Never crop at a joint.
Sounds like a good standard, but i'm sure one could find all manner of exceptions. As above, the first shot doesn't bother me. The second kinda does.
Sounds like a good standard, but i'm sure one could find all manner of exceptions. As above, the first shot doesn't bother me. The second kinda does.
kermaier
Well-known
Shot #1, I think would be better with both hands visible, but it's still good, because the main interest is in the child's interaction with the viewer (originally just the photographer, but now it's us, as well).
Shot #2, I think the picture fails for other technical reasons before you get to the cropped arm (underexposure of the face, missed focus and insufficient DoF). However, the cropped arm, to my mind, indicates why the picture is a miss: Any interest that someone who wasn't there might have will be in the child's facial expression -- and that only can be read via the interaction with whatever he's reaching for, which is what really needs to be in the picture for it to succeed.
Shot #2, I think the picture fails for other technical reasons before you get to the cropped arm (underexposure of the face, missed focus and insufficient DoF). However, the cropped arm, to my mind, indicates why the picture is a miss: Any interest that someone who wasn't there might have will be in the child's facial expression -- and that only can be read via the interaction with whatever he's reaching for, which is what really needs to be in the picture for it to succeed.
semi-ambivalent
Little to say
Yes, usually. That's where the pro-ness kicks in.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Easter_(Patti_Smith_Group_album)
No pro here,
s-a
daveleo
what?
harpofreely
Well-known
Thanks to all who have replied - this has been very helpful. Day to day, Im basically shooting into a vacuum, so I'm really enjoying all these observations and will make use of them.
If anyone is up for another round, how well do these shots address the failings of #2?
Thanks again,
If anyone is up for another round, how well do these shots address the failings of #2?
Thanks again,
BillBingham2
Registered User
Really like #2.
#1 I want to see more face, but that's my style. #2 shows me emotion, great cropping too.
I'd try to shoot #1 from the other side (arm goes to the background rather than being big and upfront) not sure of the lighting though.
You're very lucky to have such wonderful subjects.
B2
#1 I want to see more face, but that's my style. #2 shows me emotion, great cropping too.
I'd try to shoot #1 from the other side (arm goes to the background rather than being big and upfront) not sure of the lighting though.
You're very lucky to have such wonderful subjects.
B2
DougFord
on the good foot
The first set - first photo - love the expression, dislike the photo from a compositional standpoint. I would practice this perspective till I got a good one.
Second photo - round file
Second photo - round file
Dwig
Well-known
I like #1 reasonably well as is. #2, on the other hand is awkward. The arm seems somewhat odd and, being so bright, calls undo attention to itself. It needs to be a secondary item with the face being the main focus.
I've attached an adjusted version with the arm and a bit of the shoulder darkened. The helps, but the arm is still somewhat distracting.
I've attached an adjusted version with the arm and a bit of the shoulder darkened. The helps, but the arm is still somewhat distracting.
Attachments
jcrutcher
Veteran
In the first round I like #1 with more cropping. Not fond of #2 it doesn't tell you anything. Second round .#2 I like very much, the color the pose plus it's interesting. It's film? What type? #1 I agree shot from the other side would have been better.
Bill Clark
Veteran
What do you think of your photographs? If they look good to you then they are just fine.
What type of people photographs do you want to make?
See my portrait here? That is the type of portrait I make. Do you like this style?
What type of people photographs do you want to make?
See my portrait here? That is the type of portrait I make. Do you like this style?
Oscuro
He's French, I'm Italian.
Generally, and I must repeat the word generally, when the positive space (often and usually the physical subject) extends beyond the frame (in any form of visual art/expression not just photography), it causes tension.
This is for many reasons. One of the simplest is that we go from the concrete to the implied as the limb (or whatever is the positive space) "disappears" into thin air as it crosses the edge of the frame. Another reason it causes tension is it breaks up the negative space (sometimes but not always the non-subject/background/field) forcing us to consider the context of the subject each time we encounter the negative space (above the arm, below the arm, etc...)
Rules about cropping limbs are subsets of these observations which were derived long before photography existed.
Generally. Generally. Generally. Think in terms of tension and release - a subject well known to painters and musicians. Think in terms of antecedent phrase, consequent phrase, (musicians and writers).
It is wise, generally, if you wish to produce an aesthetically "pleasing" image to observe many strictures among which may be found rules about cropping limbs. But they are all based on larger ideas.
So, are you making Hallmark© cards? Then less tension is probably desirable. Maybe. Tension and release between the cover of the card and the inside image is very successful for them. So maybe again generally perhaps.
Are you trying to find a balance in tension and release in your image? Then regard framing that cuts/crops your subject as an opportunity.
The more truncated the subject (positive space) is and the more interrupted the background/field (negative space) is, the more tension you will create in your image.
The image of the young man at the easel with the brush is lovely because it captures gesture (the paintness of the paint, the articulation of the artist's brushstroke, the engagement of the painter with the painting), the subject (the young man) is not truncated and the background is not interrupted.
This leads us to various possible interpretations. For instance, the first image plays between the joy in the young man's expression and the tight cropping of the subject and the negative space interruption. A dynamic. This might make it successful. The second image takes us nowhere because there is only tension, and perhaps no payoff.
The image of the young artist at the canvas with a roller is my favorite (MY favorite) - it is interesting from a gesture (the act of rolling) but tension wins and the eye is not distracted from his engagement with the paint and roller and easel. There are no elements of distraction in the background and the negative space (the black background) is continuous but stark, a shadow, unknowable, a powerful contrast to the young man's concentration. I wish it was a stop or so cooler, but....
The image of the young man at the easel is a "Hallmark" restful, but with strong gesture, physical engagement of the subject and lighting that takes us to more or less the right places. The tension of the crop is balanced by the gesture of joy. They vibrate. It's nice. But not as powerful as the roller image.
This is all visual theory and you can find it in any art class. Painting is a good place for photographers to hone their visual literacy.
None of the components in this language is arbitrary. At its heart is long observation of human response dating back to the earliest of histories. No academic invented it. They stumbled across it. Discovered it. Then, becoming cognizant of it, applied it.
If you are aware of the nature of response to visual signals, you may ignore "rules" as the become irrelevant in the face of your awareness.
Now, Harpofreely, just how much tension, and how much release do you want?
This is for many reasons. One of the simplest is that we go from the concrete to the implied as the limb (or whatever is the positive space) "disappears" into thin air as it crosses the edge of the frame. Another reason it causes tension is it breaks up the negative space (sometimes but not always the non-subject/background/field) forcing us to consider the context of the subject each time we encounter the negative space (above the arm, below the arm, etc...)
Rules about cropping limbs are subsets of these observations which were derived long before photography existed.
Generally. Generally. Generally. Think in terms of tension and release - a subject well known to painters and musicians. Think in terms of antecedent phrase, consequent phrase, (musicians and writers).
It is wise, generally, if you wish to produce an aesthetically "pleasing" image to observe many strictures among which may be found rules about cropping limbs. But they are all based on larger ideas.
So, are you making Hallmark© cards? Then less tension is probably desirable. Maybe. Tension and release between the cover of the card and the inside image is very successful for them. So maybe again generally perhaps.
Are you trying to find a balance in tension and release in your image? Then regard framing that cuts/crops your subject as an opportunity.
The more truncated the subject (positive space) is and the more interrupted the background/field (negative space) is, the more tension you will create in your image.
The image of the young man at the easel with the brush is lovely because it captures gesture (the paintness of the paint, the articulation of the artist's brushstroke, the engagement of the painter with the painting), the subject (the young man) is not truncated and the background is not interrupted.
This leads us to various possible interpretations. For instance, the first image plays between the joy in the young man's expression and the tight cropping of the subject and the negative space interruption. A dynamic. This might make it successful. The second image takes us nowhere because there is only tension, and perhaps no payoff.
The image of the young artist at the canvas with a roller is my favorite (MY favorite) - it is interesting from a gesture (the act of rolling) but tension wins and the eye is not distracted from his engagement with the paint and roller and easel. There are no elements of distraction in the background and the negative space (the black background) is continuous but stark, a shadow, unknowable, a powerful contrast to the young man's concentration. I wish it was a stop or so cooler, but....
The image of the young man at the easel is a "Hallmark" restful, but with strong gesture, physical engagement of the subject and lighting that takes us to more or less the right places. The tension of the crop is balanced by the gesture of joy. They vibrate. It's nice. But not as powerful as the roller image.
This is all visual theory and you can find it in any art class. Painting is a good place for photographers to hone their visual literacy.
None of the components in this language is arbitrary. At its heart is long observation of human response dating back to the earliest of histories. No academic invented it. They stumbled across it. Discovered it. Then, becoming cognizant of it, applied it.
If you are aware of the nature of response to visual signals, you may ignore "rules" as the become irrelevant in the face of your awareness.
Now, Harpofreely, just how much tension, and how much release do you want?
codester80
A Touch of Light
First picture is OK. No crops at joints so the image is safe in that respect as our mind's eye will fill in the missing part of the hand. However, Two steps back and shooting horizontally would fit both hands in and give a little bit more context to his surroundings, eliminating the weird blue background under his right arm. It would also allow the arms to render a bit more of a shape than two pinkish blobs.
Second image doesn't work. There is no context and the arm is cut off at the wrist (take about tension). Again two steps back (or wider lens) and going horizontal again would fit in the hand with the paintbrush(?) and provide context and a focal point in the image for the subject.
The second set of images are great. I'm not sure if a shot from the other side in the first one would yield anything better. You would struggle with orphaning the arm with the roller as it's blocked by the head. Plus, you would get that wonderful shadow. The arms provide a nice gentle S curve up to the roller which is in the top right third of the image making it a photo that reads well.
The second image is wonderful. Did you try one from the same spot but lower? Photos of children almost always work better shot from their perspective.
Second image doesn't work. There is no context and the arm is cut off at the wrist (take about tension). Again two steps back (or wider lens) and going horizontal again would fit in the hand with the paintbrush(?) and provide context and a focal point in the image for the subject.
The second set of images are great. I'm not sure if a shot from the other side in the first one would yield anything better. You would struggle with orphaning the arm with the roller as it's blocked by the head. Plus, you would get that wonderful shadow. The arms provide a nice gentle S curve up to the roller which is in the top right third of the image making it a photo that reads well.
The second image is wonderful. Did you try one from the same spot but lower? Photos of children almost always work better shot from their perspective.