This not that: frame it

<p>If I give you a bunch of files to play with, will you <strong>crop them to your taste</strong> (and edit, too, if you wish) and repost to this thread? Please?</p>

<p>I'd like to see how many different ways and for how many different reasons people will treat the same files. What they leave in; what they leave out and where they position stuff in the rectangle, due to the choice of framing.</p>

<p>The four files linked below have been taken down to 50% size (now 2592 x 1728) and saved at Medium jpg quality, so they're not in great shape; but they should be good enough to allow cropping without going too small. They have not been sharpened. They are not great pictures. They are happy snaps. <strong>You have my permission to do whatever you want with these pictures.</strong> Anything at all is fine with me. Just show us what you can do. I would ask that when you repost, you give at least a sentence or two about why you did what you did. Here are links to the large-ish files:</p>

<p><a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/croptest_leaves.jpg">Leaves</a><br>

<a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/croptest_bugs.jpg">Bugs</a><br>

<a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/croptest_needles.jpg">Pine Needles</a><br>

<a href="https://unrealnature.files.wordpress.com/2017/01/croptest_wood.jpg">Wood</a></p>

<p>A few minutes before leaving for town. Interesting overall images, Julie, with much potential for evidently quite subjective cropping and identifying strong subject matter. Here are my 5 versions and I will be interested later to see others.</p><div></div>

<p>Second crop</p><div></div>

<p>Third crop (pic should read Cropped leaves ap2)</p><div></div>

<p>Fourth crop</p><div></div>

<p>Firth and last crop.</p>

<p>Overall, as you no doubt know, the originals contain abundant subject matter and invite perception of what is the principal or more arresting subject matter. The crops can gain by being even more focussed than some of these. Thanks for posting the exercise as it is key to seeing in visual perception of scenes. </p><div></div>

<p>Arthur, thanks very much for being willing to go first. These are just the kind of creative crops I enjoy thinking about.</p>

<p>Wow thats are very nice. ameazing</p>

<p>Really good exercise, Julie, and those are fun images to play with--lots of opportunities there. I tried 2 to 5 crops of each, and these are the ones that intrigued me the most. As for why I did what I did: I first looked at the images as abstracts, to hone in on the parts of each image that had shapes I enjoyed. I then pondered what it was about those particular shapes that I found compelling, and then started working with crops and rotations to try to play up the forms that had attracted me. After that, it was a matter of playing with exposures, curves, and occasionally white balance to further bring out those shapes. At each step, the objective was to isolate the elements that I was intrigued by. On "Pine needles," I probably would have gone with the section Arthur chose if he hadn't gotten there first; and I had a hard time choosing between 4 options with "Wood." Thanks for the challenge!</p><div></div>

<p> </p><div></div>

<p>Fun exercise Julie!</p><div></div>

<p>second</p><div></div>

<p>third</p><div></div>

<p>fourth</p><div></div>

<p>These are just so fascinating to me. I love them for what's been found in the pictures via crop and edit, but also for what is shown about the way you are seeing the pictures.</p>

<p>A small feature (just to pick out something to discuss) that I'm wondering about. When editing, was anybody attracted to the barely visible bit of dull green in the upper left corner of the Bugs file? To my eye, it really makes the other two colors (red and caramel) come alive. Absent that green, color stops being a composing factor in the picture. But how or whether to include it?</p>

<p>I have another frame of that place that shows more of the green so you may be able to see what I'm talking about. But it cut out one of the little water doodles at the bottom that I thought people would like to play with, so I chose the frame posted instead. What do you think about that green? What might it do for the picture ... or not? Here's the other frame. I've cropped off some of the right side (which was "empty"), but otherwise, it's as shot:</p>

<div></div>

<p>In the first bug image the green was barely noticeable. In your second example I can see what you are talking about with the three colors. For me, in the first image of bugs I really saw the bug as the main area of interest, hence, my treatment of it as such. In your second example I don't really know what I would do with it regarding the colors; that large bug is still the "main character" for my eye.</p>

<p>I'm curious, and would like to ask those who posted (and those who thought about posting ...) a question. There's an old chestnut that composing in photography, <em>making</em> a photograph, is about <em>subtraction</em>; where composing in other arts is about <em>addition</em>. For example, here's William Eggleston in an interview:</p>

 

<blockquote>

<p>[curator] <strong>Philip Prodger</strong>: But music and photography are different. In music, you start with a note, you add another note, and another and another, and you build something. It's additive. Whereas photography is subtractive — you start with the world and then you narrow it down to what you want to show.</p>

<p><strong>William Eggleston</strong>: That's an excellent way to put it.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Did any of you feel, as you cropped and/or edited the posted pictures, as if you were 'subtracting'? Or when shooting, how often do you think that you're 'subtracting'?</p>

<p>I never feel that. Rather it seems like everything in front of me opens up, dilates and gives meaning after meaning (or, if you don't like the verbality of 'meaning' try 'form after form'). The frame doesn't feel like a subtractor to me; it feels like ... what? ... the edge of attention? the limits of mental focus? Of course, sometimes it's used compositionally to irritate or mystify, but even then, the non-picture created by that arbitrary cut doesn't feel like subtraction to me. It feels like intention, which I think is very different.</p>

<p>Do you, readers, ever feel any sense of subtracting? As I said, for me, it's kind of the opposite; a dilation, a blooming; I rarely notice what ... I don't notice (don't see?).</p>

<p>I agree with you, Julie. Speaking as a sometimes composer and watercolorist, there really isn't a fundamental difference in process. With each medium, there's a near-infinite world to chose from. In each case, one starts with an idea, then selects the elements that seem best suited to realizing that idea in a form that others can experience. Sometimes those elements are notes, sometimes lighting, and sometimes brush strokes--and obviously, each medium relies heavily on composition to ensure that the elements are interpretable. As for cropping as "subtracting"--not any more so than looking through a microscope or telephoto lens (or selecting a sequence of notes and silences to form a melody) is "subtracting." In each case, the action is adding to the depth of understanding or experience by showing us things that we wouldn't have otherwise had access to. </p>

<p>I crop and edit a lot, but I don't want my images to appear highly altered. I agree with Leslie, its about being able to direct the viewer's eye to grasp the idea of the image without being "distracted" by unnecessary elements. You can set it up to have intentional "distractions" to create some dissonance, I suppose. I do like what I call "visual tension" as opposed to always a perfect balance, which is popular in composition. I've noticed that elements near the corners and borders of an image are particularly powerful in being able to "pull" the viewer's eye away from central themes. Sometimes a slight intentional vignetting of a landscape gently "pushes" the viewer's eye inward. I remember reading Ansel Adams on printing and he mentions doing that on purpose. </p>

<p>Agreeing with Leslie, or I guess we're both agreeing with each other.</p>

<p>The thing is, if you 'subtract' you should have less of something afterwards. Do you have a smaller picture? Or is there a hole in the picture?</p>

<p>Steve, I hesitate to tell you this (okay, I <em>love</em> telling you this!): you've intuited much of what Rudolph Arnheim teaches with many words and many diagrams and examples in his (excellent) books on composition. You're so close, I'd almost accuse you of having read him.</p>

<p>[Which is to say, I agree with all that you pointed out, and am a little deflated that you got it 'naturally.']</p>

<p>I will often scan my scene, including background and, as I zero in on what I want, I will find myself sometimes very intentionally and sometimes much more spontaneously or intuitively "framing out" what doesn't work in the shot. Though the viewer will never literally see what I've left out, I often appreciate how much the left-out periphery has influenced me to see what's remaining in the frame in a very particular way. So for me, the act of subtraction is part of the act of how I see what I'm shooting. Though I often feel like I'm subtracting, what I'm subtracting is by no means meaningless and by no means not affecting what I'm leaving in.</p>

<p>Replacement is not subtraction.</p>

<p>Julie, I don't know what you're referring to as replacement in what I said.</p>

<p>Of course, one can always claim, if one is interested in simply being disagreeable or haughty, that subtraction is really the addition of a negative number, as we all learned in grade school. In that case, one can argue nothing is really subtraction. And if one wants to argue that, who am I to dissuade them? I'll go on photographing the way I photograph and talking about it the way I want to.</p>

<p>Rudolph is very influential as a teacher. Steve did a very fine job of recomposition in his images, better than I did (cropping is best not done and considered final too quickly, as there are many opportunities that are only a few mm away. Not to suggest that spontaneity does not provide its rewards as well).</p>

<p>Julie, i never feel that I am really subtracting (in terms of the power of the image) when I crop, as the aim is usually to rid the frame of unnecessary elements and seek a better composition. Less is often more.</p>

<p>Of course, if the way that the subject matter is portrayed and composed is already all that is needed, then any subtraction is usually a negative result.</p>

<p>The frame for me is as useful as the period following a sentence in a text. In both cases, frame or period, the creator can still ask questions or suggest things related to what follows or what transpires or is derived from what is read or seen within the confines of the original statement. The frame is for me an important element of the composition.</p>

<i>Whereas photography is subtractive — you start with the world and then you narrow it down to what you want to

show</i>

<p>

well that's not really subtractive is it. all a photographer is doing is looking at a subset of the world or, as most people

would say, a snapshot. nothing's been taken away.