Cutting off the tops of heads

<p>This seems to be a big no-no for still photography (although like any other rule, it can be broken if that is the desired look). As I've developed my photography skills, I find myself paying attention to lighting and framing more in movies, as well. I've noticed that cutting off the tops of heads is quite common in close up shots where the detail of the face is the most important factor, even if it seems (to me) that a slightly wider shot that doesn't cut the head would show just as much detail. This makes me wonder how important it really is (in still photography) to avoid cutting off the top of a head when all you really want people to see is the face?</p>

<p>Who cares... You can do whatever you want.</p>

<p>It's a no-no? Looks like I have a bad habit I need to break, then. :-)<br>

<a title="20100831-8525 by Mark Sirota, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4087/5019512590_9758f3ec54_m.jpg" alt="20100831-8525" width="240" height="160" /></a> <a title="20100831-8521 by Mark Sirota, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm5.static.flickr.com/4150/5018908189_780bc3a288_m.jpg" alt="20100831-8521" width="240" height="192" /></a> <a title="20090324-6342 by Mark Sirota, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3340/3422365544_fbbf5cfa48_m.jpg" alt="20090324-6342" width="240" height="161" /></a> <a title="20081225-5322 by Mark Sirota, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3440/3246337472_dde7992210_m.jpg" alt="20081225-5322" width="240" height="160" /></a> <a title="20080901-3916 by Mark Sirota, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm4.static.flickr.com/3173/3030534403_caf5b08e23_m.jpg" alt="20080901-3916" width="240" height="160" /></a> <a title="20070804-0323 by Mark Sirota, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm2.static.flickr.com/1124/1030751640_26182d1259_m.jpg" alt="20070804-0323" width="240" height="240" /></a> <a title="20070519-0128 by Mark Sirota, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/199/510898342_672cb87aa6_m.jpg" alt="20070519-0128" width="240" height="160" /></a> <a title="20061105-0087 by Mark Sirota, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/121/290935872_b5880aea92_m.jpg" alt="20061105-0087" width="240" height="161" /></a> <a title="20060518-0146 by Mark Sirota, on Flickr" href=" src="http://farm1.static.flickr.com/56/189152464_b3124c4d11_m.jpg" alt="20060518-0146" width="240" height="160" /></a></p>

<p>If you cut off the top of the head, you can look inside.</p>

Jay, just so you don't feel alone here, I agree with you for my personal photography. However, when I was a web content editor and every pixel was precious, I frequently cut off the tops of heads, ankles, kneecaps, elbows and (well, you get the idea) of other photographers' work. If I could make someone more recognizable in 200 pixels by cutting off the top of his head, off it went. I find most of Mark's above photos agreeable, although I would probably not shoot them that way. Very subjective.

<p>I'm actually glad to see this...it clearly isn't as big of a deal as I had thought.</p>

<p>I suppose my problem is being sure that the cut off is deliberate and not just sloppy composition. A number of otherwise good shots have ended up in my discards (but not delete bin) because of this...although in my case, it was truly sloppy composition. So maybe I did the right thing. :)</p>

I really like Mark's mother/daughter shot above. A lot. His intentional crop in that photo is masterful. Mom's forehead would add nothing to the emotion that image evokes.

<blockquote>

<p>(although like any other rule, it can be broken if that is the desired look)</p>

</blockquote>

<p>That pretty much says it all. Not that there's actually a rule; more of a guideline, really. (Thank you Jack Sparrow.)</p>

<p> There is a story about an old time photographer,<br>

who was asked to redo a photograph of a lady's recentle deceased husband.<br>

He was wearing a hat and the lady wanted a photo without the hat.<br>

the photographer was a skilled retoucher and started the job.<br>

But before continuing he telephoned the lady and asked her on which side her late husband parted his hair.<br>

The lady replied " when you get the hat off you will know"</p>

<p>I shoot without cutting out the head, then in post , I can cut off a bit of the head or whatever I need that I feel will make the photo better for my portfolio. But when I give it the the client, the head is there.</p>

<p>It has taking me a while to get used to the all too common cutting off the top of the head as if our crown were a throwaway part to detract from the eyeballs and nose. I begin to look at the almost all the time crop off of the crown as another quasi 'rule.'I think the rule gets to be mainly one other "fashion," which we see slip into a must do- or must not do. Nor would I deny fashion at all by that statement. For myself, I will choose to keep the crown visible. Sometimes not,mostly IN for a head shot.<br>

It either grabs me well or not, unpredictable at outset.<br>

Rules are there for good reason but not handcuffs as we all appreciate. As to trees "growing" out of heads, well that never <em>seriously</em> irked me as much as it does some folk. Not, even those <em>slightly tilted horizons</em>, another wearisome no no.<br>

Clients, naturally, are the arbiter. I got none.</p>

<p><em>" makes me wonder how important it really is (in still photography) to avoid cutting off the top of a head"</em><br /><em></em><br />Perhaps you are not talking about the nude photography?, where cutting off entire head is common practice. Otherwise cutting off top or part of head could only serve some possible artistic expression, but more likely reveals a careless photographer.</p>

<p>Walter, that's certainly one of the funniest photography jokes I've ever heard. Thanks for giving my wife and I a good chuckle.</p>

<p>Let's quarrel a bit, in a friendly way. Mark, take that mother daughter close together shot. Would the intimacy be thrown out if the mom showed some more of her face and the frame were closer to square. I would like to see how that would work,and ask you to post one with more forehead for her, but since she wears <em>sunglasses</em> it would not prove a thing to my point. (Sunglasses to me are more of a no no in a portrait, though I know someone close to me with tender eyes that can hardly abide no sunglasses out doors, alas and alack....)<br>

OK, now I will demur on what you said, Will , said about that same photo. Namely, that I find the close crop to add nothing/zip to the intimacy of the pair or the charm of both. And actually unbalances things to achieve like what? ...See, you will get a contrarian opinion in our friendly abode of photo net...What a shock,eh :-)?</p>

Yup. And I respect your opinion even though my personal taste differs.

<p>I take many photos of people and I really do not care about the photo pseudo-rules. Compose and crop as you want your photos, feel free to express yourself with you work.</p>

<p>I appreciate the respectful tone of the conversation.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>Mark, take that mother daughter close together shot. Would the intimacy be thrown out if the mom showed some more of her face and the frame were closer to square. I would like to see how that would work,and ask you to post one with more forehead for her, but since she wears <em>sunglasses</em> it would not prove a thing to my point.</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Not only that, but I can't show you that variation because I didn't shoot it that way. It was a while ago now, but I think I was getting in close like that to eliminate some background that would have been above the daughter's head.</p>

<blockquote>

<p>OK, now I will demur on what you said, Will , said about that same photo. Namely, that I find the close crop to add nothing/zip to the intimacy of the pair or the charm of both. And actually unbalances things to achieve like what?</p>

</blockquote>

<p>Can you elaborate on your choice of the word "unbalances"?</p>

<p> </p>

<blockquote>

<p>Can you elaborate on your choice of the word "unbalances"?<br>

Glad to try, Mark. I could use just words, but let me take this not so fancy snapshot of a mother and child on my drive.As a pair shot- and both important to the one behind the camera. The "masses" of the two faces are approximately equal. And balance off in the frame to my eye. Of course, it is an aesthetic judgment which I make, a choice. Balance is not<em> always</em> the goal...but it is, arguably, a goal with some merit.</p>

</blockquote><div></div>

<p>Ah, thanks, I see. In my case the lack of balance was strictly intentional; the daughter, and especially her brilliant eyes, were meant to have much greater visual weight than the mom.</p>

Of course, and that's what I meant earlier when I wrote that it was a masterful crop. The irony: your intentional lack of balance gives the photo great balance.

<p>To me cutting off the head looks fine on extreme close-ups when you are trying to position the eyes about one third of the way down from the top. It usually look better when the subjects head is turned slightly to the side. Like anything in photgraphy, you have to be careful that you don't over do it. Cients who are not accustomed to this style are bound to complain and once the top of the head is gone it is gone for good.</p>

<p>Check out Irving Penn, the master, who used this technique frequently to accent the eyes. An old, accepted teqnique.</p>

<p>I was just talking about this yesterday with an actress friend of mine who had some new head shots done. I was surprised to see the top of her head cut off many times, usually in head and shoulders shots, but also in shots that included the top of her torso. It seems to me at least that on a tight head shot you can use framing as such, but on a wider shot, I prefer a small space at the top of the frame at least.</p>