U Bien Bridge <a href="http://www.djphotography.net">DJ Photography</a>

Fab lighting and composition. Good with the water in or out. But think it's more focussed if the water is removed.

 

Great shot.

 

Bruce.

Wow - it's great. To me the original beats any of the crops, as whatever minor distractions exist reinforce the idea that this is a real moment in time, and not some oh-so-perfect setup where all spontaneity has been wrung out.

Darrin, Congrats on a great find, rich colors with a beautiful silhouette. Tells of the humanist side of this world from which this shot comes. I like the stillness of the piles and water in contrast to the motion of the people coming and going, the convergence of the horizontals and verticals, like a Mondrian grid.

Seems like a lot of cropping suggestions going on. I don't agree with the water removal even though that would simplfy the composition and refine the textures. I like the water in this shot, makes a reflection like the second set of keys on a piano. For my taste I would not remove much at all from the sides either as that is where the richest warm tones reside. Maybe the left piling as Marc suggests. What I have found in my experience (minimal at best) with art and photgraphy is to rough out a movable mat that can be moved easily. Crop the work, hang it for a few days and if you still like it after that you can go back to it. Then try another crop see how you like it. I cannot really say that I would crop your photo at all but I might try a few changes over a period of time. OK, I agree this is a lot of crop.....

Marc G. suggested another photo of yours as an alternate to the one you have been chosen POW for. "Break" is a fine photo but I gave up long ago trying to figure out the elves thought process. Again, Congratulations on your fine work. Brad

This is a critique site. Suggesting alternative crops as a means to improve an image is perfectly legitimate and far better at generating meaningful discussion than the hordes who say "lovely image, cheerio!".

Cropping should be a requirement of photography. The notion that you must somehow be constrained by the limitations of the viewfinder (and certain aspect ratios) means your discipline is defined by a camera manufacturer (and magazine publishers) and not your own goal to create the best image possible for a given situation.

Painters can create canvases to the size that best suits their inspiration. As painters of light, why shouldn't we?

Whether Darrin likes the image in its straightforward aspect ratio or even gave consideration of a crop remains to be seen. But if one crop suggestion gives Darrin cause to reconsider the image (or future images) in terms of its power, in terms of its aesthetic relative to the original inspiration, then photo.net has achieved part of its mission. Darrin is pushed to consider an aspect of his chosen expressive medium and, irregardless of his response, the fact of the consideration becomes a means towards improving one's photographic craft.

And the culture of photography is so much the better for it.

While I do find the background color vs foreground silhouette striking, this picture doesn't grab me in any way. I think, for me, it seems a case of less is less. I find I want more detail to look at and the little figures crossing the bridge offer me little compositional, textural, or humanistic interest. I don't care why they are crossing, I imagine to get somewhere they are going, and I'm not inspired to invent interesting stories for them. I don't get that whole thing I guess, as I'm looking for more visual interest. If anything I feel a sense of monotony. The composition also is just too "thirdsy" for me, and that plus the flatness of the image just doesn't engage my eye. I think more detail and some sense of depth would, for me, create a more interesting picture. But then that would be a different picture entirely.

Great light and colour. Simple, pleasing composition. And what a photogenic bridge. But I must say I prefer one or two of Darrin's other shots:

 

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1168344

http://www.photo.net/photodb/photo?photo_id=1168305

Great! I like this "sky in fire" light, quite original & beautiful.

I would say that to suggest a minor crop that affects a possible flaw would be acceptable, but crops that change altogether the original photo should stand in another category.

but of course I'm talking semantics

I too would crop the water at the bottom of the image. Otherwise, keep up the good work.

Suggestions to crop are way off mark. Leave it alone. Especially the water, which gives meaning to why the bridge exists. This very nice image captures what appears to be great natural light (no filter is mentioned) which is supported very well by the silhouette of the main subject matter.

Crop? Maybe there are some unique aspects of the photo you could emphasize by cropping. But, the original photo has great impact and can stand alone as a unique and satisfying image. It is a very complete image in the original - a perfect "decisive moment".

Nicely done Darrin!

As I've previously said, this is a beautiful picture. it makes me feel as if I'm stepping into a different world. I feel so close, as if I could reach out and touch the bridge, and the lives of those caught in this moment. It's truly..amazing..

 

As far as the cropping arguments..I have only this to say... What's a bridge without water? Every cropped version I have seen looks less than whole, as if the picture is missing something. The water is it, without the water..you have no picture.

 

Marc, Your suggestion of "break" as POW is something I whole heartedly agree with. I would LOVE too see that as POW, but I am just as excited to see this great picture of Darrin's picked...They are both full of magic.. and (I think) equally worthy of POW.

 

Darrin- Again...Nice Job This is a beautiful picture..full of timeless magic. Congratulations.

An Asian L.S.Lowry painting. Superb

Why mess around with it? It is an outstanding as it is. Go for the original.

I found my self staring at the ultimate crop for a very long time. It is simplicity itself, while retaining all the elements of the image, and I find the ultimate crop much stronger than the original image. However, whether the crop by itself would be so powerful is something I can never find out, for I have already seen the original image.

Criticise - verb - to consider the merits and demerits of and judge accordingly : EVALUATE (Merriam-Webster's online dictionary)

I think that this definition would help us focus our discussion. Clearly we have two groups that are philisophically at odds, the "share-croppers" and the "authenticists". We should remember that our own preferences, while integral to our personal assesment of a photo, are not at issue here. The photographer is seeking our critical analysis of how effective the photo is. Unless he or she asks for specific advice in cropping (or any other aspect of the artistic process, for that matter), we should only analyze what is presented in the frame.

Of course, as the "share-croppers" are entirely right to point out, mere compliments do little to help the photographer. To say that "this photo is incredible" is no more productive than saying "I wish you had reshot this with more DOF" or "you should have used a longer lens". I assume that a skilled photographer like Darrin James reasoned through his framing choices and technique. To challenge these precepts is valid and often interesting, but then we are not speaking about his photo anymore but of something that exists in our own minds. His photo is here, it is exctiting, and it's worthwhile to assess it as it is and articulate why it works or does not work as we see it on our monitors.

Thus, the "share-croppers" make valid, helpful observations about elements in the picture, but go too far in recommending a specific cropping. Leave that to the photographer!

Conversely, the "authenticists" don't go far enough. They will take the picture as the final word, the infalliable dogma. For them, to subject it to analysis is to kill its appeal.

These are extreme depictions of course; most of us fall somewhere in between, but we still should remember what we are here for, which is to give directed feedback to users wishing to improve their photography, not have it molded to our own tastes.

This is one of the strongest POTW's I've seen in quite a while and we've had some really good ones lately. Your timing is impeccable. This has "stock photo" written all over it.

How does making a crop suggestion differ from any other suggestion that might be made with regards to an image? How is it any different than suggesting to pump up the contrast? How is it any different than suggesting a different lighting technique? Should the critique be more vague? Is that the issue? Maybe it should be said like this ... "I think there is a more effective composition available to you here but I am going to keep my idea a secret since you chose not to do it that way in the first place". No arbitrary cropping suggestions were made. They all had reasoning to go with them. The photographer is free to ignore any suggestion that he does not think is valid. I don't understand why everyone has their knickers in such a twist over opinions that were offered in a constructive vein. If they didn't offend the photographer, what do you care? Or is that the predetermined road that this discussion is going to take this week?

Wow, all this attention. I can understand those who prefer this cropped because I can understand that people see different things, whether in an image, a person or life in general. I presented the photo in the best way that reminded me of being back there.

 

No, the figures have not been pasted on (that cracked me up!) and they are locals walking between one village to another. Going about their daily lives, trading, farming and being with friends and family.

 

The bridge itself is quite wide (probably about 12' from memory) and it is one of Burma's oldest. The included shot is on the bridge itself to give you the idea.

 

The sunset was amazing although it waqs helped with a warm up filter. My wife Dana and I were in a small boat in the middle of the water just soaking in the serenity and the surrealism of this amazing scene.

 

So, crop away, it hangs on my wall as it is!

 

Thanks for all your comments and thanks to the elves for choosing this shot,

 

Darrin

 

www.djphotography.net

Oh, and I hope you noticed the person in the water! When it is blown up they are much more obvious and is a strong reason for me the water should not be cropped.

The question of cropping is simple for me: the image as presented demonstrates that it was well composed and requires no further modification. Having said that, I do feel that suggestions of cropping are healthy, they promote a discussion (potentially about many things but at least about which elements are most important and therefore accentuated) and after all isnt photography about generating discussion?

 

Personally, Im moving away from cropping. There is a history and tradition associated with the 35mm format aspect ratio that Ive decided is both aesthetically pleasing and important enough to respect. Im not asking anyone to agree or disagree, but I do wonder about those of you that consider the notion of printing everything full frame as too restrictive. Since Im guessing youre also not promoting the idea that ANY aspect ration is appropriate. Surely octagon, or triangular shaped formats are not what you had in mindor are they?

When I talk about cropping, I don't necessarily mean taking a pair of scissors to it and chopping it up. The cropping idea that I presented could have just as easily benn made "in camera" for those that want to print full frame. When shooting 35mm, is it ok to present in a square format, or should I have to go buy a 6x6 to do that? What about a 4x5? Can that present in a square? or should it be restricted to 4x5? I don't know if their is a "correct" presentation. Well, I take that back, yes there is. The correct presentation is the presentation that suits the subject the best, triangles and octagons excluded. As long as there are 4 90 degree corners, it's ok with me if its ok with the subject.

Congrats Darrin,

I have visited the same spot two years ago. Your picture has brought back my memories, the serenity and beauty of place.

I am sure those who have seen this in real will not want to have the water cropped away. Excellent picture.

Same bridge, same day, further out.