...

Forgive me, Michael, if this is not what you had in mind. I do not know exactly where you would have us lop off the head.

 

I don't know for sure which suggested crop is better, but I still know that I like the original.

 

--Lannie

With Carl's crop Lannie, I see nothing distinguishable. It just does not work for me at all. Just a blur. With Michael's (artist-instructor) crop I cannot get beyond the missing head issue. It's been chopped off. The only reason either might work to some degree right here -even if just a little- is because we already know what the original looks like. IF that original was not available here, would either of these be considered very good on their own? Personally, I do not believe so.

 

Micheal (art-instructor), I did acknowledge I looked longer at the cropped image. But did you not also read WHY I believe one looks at it longer? It is as I already stated "to figure out what I am actually looking at". You seemed to skip over that part of my comment entirely. Does that really make it a better image, because somebody has to look at it longer to figure out what exactly it is we are viewing? I believe we all know the answer to that one. Thanks for the crops Lannie. I still like the ones leaving the head. Interesting, though different points of view. Aloha.

I guess, put simply, it comes down to what the SUBJECT of the photo is?? Is it the water? Or is it of the woman behind it?

 

As I said before(and this is pure opinion) Ibelieve the photo is of the woman... therefore one loses the human element by cropping the head.

 

I DO like it either way.. so... doesn't it depend upon the desired perseption?? Not "good, better or bad" but "what do I want as actual subject"??

This discussion seems really strange to me. Vincent, you're telling me that without her head and shoulders, all you see is a blur? Really? You can't read the pair of legs? Jack, you say this shot is about "the woman". . . as in who she is or where she's going? I don't think the photographer cares. The folder confirms what I am compelled to say seems obvious. They're all about the visual interest obtained shooting people through water. I don't want to get too hung up on the crop, but would rather try to address the best way to accomplish photographically what Tomasz is trying to convey. If we can't agree on what the purpose of the shot is, then the discussion comes to a screeching halt.

Carl, is the purpose of the photographer relevant to my or anyone else's evaluation of it? I concede that, given the larger context of this folder, the purpose can give more depth, but it surely is possible to evaluate the picture independently of the folder and thus independent of the purpose of the photographer.

 

That said, I will concede to you that the purpose of these particular shots was about shooting people through water, and some are quite incredible, such as this one.

 

--Lannie

In my most humble opinion, when I looked at this photo, I was able to look at the whole photo and everything works together. The good, the bad, the ugly and it is perfect. This photo could be depicting the transparency of our lives. We walk on in the ignorance of our knowledge never realizing the potential that we blindly walk past. To all others however, we are in some ways still very transparent, as shown by the water. hmmmm.

I would be reluctant to use the word "incredible" when there are obvious technical flaws. The distortions in the folder upload are not nearly as uniformly clear and crisp as the POW. The line in the water breaks up the image in a distracting way. The upper left triangle needs to be gone. The always problematic white amorphous blob is yet another distraction. The contrast from the white pants is missing . . . etc. etc.

 

 

Here's another version for your consideration. (meant for discussion, not a proposal for actual changes.)

After reading some of the other suggestions, I have to strongly disagree with the recommendations to crop the image. I find it original, visually interesting and that it invokes a feeling. The long wet region coming up from the left is cool and refreshing, the upper right is dry, hard and warm. There is a dragon like face in the water image who?s sharp lines contrast well with the soft out of focus image of the woman in mid. In fact I could argue that a longer thin crop could emphasize the contrasts in the subject matter. As it is I find the photo compelling, I have seen water images before, but this is truly different. Excellent, very original, work.

IMO this photograph is really fresh and original that deserves to become the PoW, great reflex, frozen water and excellent control of DOF; just stunning. Congrats Tomek

"Vincent, you're telling me that without her head and shoulders, all you see is a blur? Really? You can't read the pair of legs?" Carl R.

 

You see blurred legs then, so what? Shot becomes dead in my mind. A nothing image. Uncropped, you also get a sense of movement here from the girl. She is leaning forward, hand behind her, foot off the ground, walking in a girly manner that seems somewhat cute. Take off the head, or even further as you suggest, you have nothing more than blurred legs. The image falls apart entirely. While this is nothing truly spectacular, in my mind, it is an interesting capture that succeeds on its own as it was originally posted.

Landrum, thanks for taking the time to show some of our espoused ideas (Carl's and mine). I like Carl's rendition that you created better than my original idea; as I teach 'start tight and work out or you might miss making it even stronger'. I should take my own medicine. Blessings, MS

 

PS If you are in the camp of thinking that if you look longer at an image that it does not make it more successful, then you would not want to waste your time on one of my workshops! That's because it is my basic premise to making stronger art. I'm not into pretty, I'm into strong; it can be a shot of a toilet for all I care, but it better have a lot of elements making it the best darn toilet shot you ever saw, or why bother. By the way, if it's pretty and strong, all the better.

Michael, I'm squarely in your camp. Give me interesting every time.

 

Lannie, to avoid an element on the edge of the frame, my original crop would have cut off her chest too.

"it is my basic premise to making stronger art. I'm not into pretty, I'm into strong" Michael S. (artist-intructor)

 

I certainly respect the idea of strengthening am image. I just fail to see where that happened in this case. Chopping off her head really was not an improvement here in my honest opinion. However presenting that idea does make it interesting.

 

Swish...

It's easy to pick apart someone else's concept of how an idea should be interpreted photographically, but much harder to articulate what you think the photographer sees or what you see. You could try to draw a walk, I suppose, by saying "I like it just the way it is", but that rarely drives in runs, and in this case it doesn't tell us what it is that creates the interest in this image for you. I may have offended some by saying that I think it's self evident, but at least I've spelled it out. If you think I'm wrong, please spell it out differently.

"It's easy to pick apart someone else's concept of how an idea should be interpreted photographically, but much harder to articulate what you think the photographer sees or what you see." Carl Root

 

Well, lets see here, Michael posted that the head should be cropped off entirely, you Carl thought even more should go, and I disagree.

 

"Cropping the head and or shoulders does nothing in my mind to improve this, sorry. It becomes impossible to distinguish anything significant and in essence would make this a dead shot."

 

 

"She is leaning forward, hand behind her, foot off the ground, walking in a girly manner that seems somewhat cute. Take off the head, or even further as you suggest, you have nothing more than blurred legs. The image falls apart entirely."

 

more

 

"With Carl's crop Lannie, I see nothing distinguishable. It just does not work for me at all. Just a blur. With Michael's (artist-instructor) crop I cannot get beyond the missing head issue. It's been chopped off."

 

How about:

 

"Regardless whether Tomasz planned this out ahead of time or walked into this and figured it out, it takes a good, creative eye to pull it off successfully. And this, in my mind, he has done. After reading his comment above, we can see this was the result of much patience and his recognizing the potential it offered."

 

 

I simply did not like your severe crop suggestion, and articulated.

 

[Carl's and Vincent's comments: Edited by moderator to remove personal attacks. Further personal attacks will result in temporary vacations from the POW]

"She is leaning forward, hand behind her, foot off the ground, walking in a girly manner that seems somewhat cute."

 

Is that what the image is about? Everything else is a criticism of our input or a recognition that the photographer showed some patience, etc. in order to accomplish . . . . what exactly?

 

Pretend yours was the first comment on the image. (That means you can't refer to me or Michael or anyone else). Now what works or doesn't work for you in this image?

So which is it Carl? Did I not share enough reasons why I DO like this image? Your complaint keeps changing. Why?

 

As is plain to see I have shared what I do like about this as well as what I do not like about your and Michael's suggested crops. I also said I thought this was a refreshingly successful idea, and the photographer's patience and creative eye were rewarded with a very nice capture. If I wanted to say more, don't you think I am capable and would have done so. You might also remember my comment about this not being "truly spectacular" so perhaps you can better understand why my commendations may appear to you to be somewhat limited. As you must also know by now, your suggested crops sparked a bit more specific of an opinion. They just don't quite make this one work for me at all. Sorry.

Excellent capture,

Liked the shape of the water, face-like with the blurry trouser of the passer-by.

Well done!!

there is so much to admire here that i really hate to say anything negative, but this is really more of an outstanding experimental capture than a final product.

 

first off, as pointed out above, the white strap is an unfortunate clashing element. when we add to it the clumsy bokeh of a plastic/wobbly/japanese lens and severe crop, this excellent attempt screams to be repeated until done correctly.

 

*[in my opinion] cropping is merely the refuge of those who failed to compose properly in the first place. *[edited by moderator]

Cropping is just a means to an end, and is not wrong in my, or most folks, opinion. In fact, with a moving subject such as this one, one does not have the control an architecture, or landscape photographer does, do they?

After these discussions and alternative crops, it is interesting to look once again at the original and get a sense of the freshness that it exudes. There are no constraints imposed by overly-tight cropping for the sake of a "strong" photo. There is no requisite formula for balance, much less for marketability. The white portions offer a refreshing counterpoint. It is beyond pretty. It is liberating.

 

I like it more and more everytime I see it. The fixation on control and limits inhering in the crops is a reflection on types of personalities, not universal truths about aesthetics.

 

Ah, freedom!

 

--Lannie

A refreshing perspective Lanny. I'm an obsessive control freak myself but I think it's both my greatest strength and my greatest weakness.

"The fixation on control and limits inhering in the crops is a reflection on types of personalities, not universal truths about aesthetics."

 

Wow! Provocative responses are getting to be contagious. Sounds like you're saying that suggestions for improvement (like cropping for strength in your piano reflection shot!?!) reflect some kind of character flaw.

 

Cropping is a training tool that has to be applied judiciously, like all other suggestions. I implied earlier, as did Vuk, that Tomasz's own crop may not have been the best way to present the scene and the moment, both specifically and as a matter of practice, but we can't explore that option since we can't expand the frame to include elements that we can't see.

 

Eric, your attention to detail must have played some role in your being selected for a gallery show in a couple weeks. Congratulations and keep doing what you're doing.

 

Michael, I think this scene might actually work as a carefully composed shot on a tripod. Then you can concentrate on the moment, by using the cable release without looking directly into the viewfinder (or directly at the approaching subjects.) There's an approach that should please the Leica crowd (NOT!)

Carl, offering a suggestion or two on a crop is one thing. Obsessing over a crop, especially if combined with claims of how self-evident this or that crop is, is quite another. I am grateful to those who did make suggestions for crops on my piano shot. The best suggestion (by Lee Park) took one sentence. Likewise, when Marc G. suggested a crop to my path at Turkey Creek, he suggested cropping out exactly fifty percent of the photo--the top half. No claims were made about formulaic methodology (counting seconds), the self-evidence of this or that crop, or anything else. The suggestions were offered and accepted. Sometimes they are rejected or ignored. In no case did dogmas and egos get involved.

 

The discussion about crops on this photo, by comparison, was getting out of hand. The moderator must have agreed, since some posts were edited if not deleted entirely.

 

I understand that we photographers in general tend to be perfectionists who want to get the very best out of our better shots, and I am a bit obsessive-compulsive myself, but the discussion was beginning to get tiresome and acrimonious. I will have to stand by my comment, although it might have struck some as a bit like amateur psychologizing or a bit of an ad hominem. I did not intend the latter, much less an attack on you, one of my most constructive critics.

 

Congratulations again, Tomasz, on this very nice shot and the folder that contains your other efforts at shooting through this fountain.

 

--Lannie

Lannie, please be clear about who was suggesting what.

 

My line of inquiry was to try to get others to be more specific in how they analyzed the image rather than how they felt about others' suggestions.

 

I must say that there seems to be a general resistance to any advise that looks formulaic. It sounds too much like the delight we hear when others proclaim "there are no rules." Michael's guideline (my preference) is that other things being equal, an image which holds your attention for a longer rather than shorter period of time is difficult to argue against. You make it sound like something he made up and is applying arbitrarily. He didn't and isn't.