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

Most of the cropping suggestions here represent violations of the photographer's concept of how to best show his image. The medium here at photo.net - JPEG on white background - is different from, say, a magazine cover, or a poster format. It has no fixed format. It allows the photographer relative freedom to present the photograph just the way he wants to, not the way a publisher's editor or graphic designer thinks it should be presented.

Darrin has now told us that this version is the way he wanted to remember the scene. His choice should be left, and criticised, as it is. The alternatives are generally physically similar in size to the photograph itself and as such detract from the original presentation, which is permanently anchored (and, as the discussion gets longer, lost) at the top of the page.

The shape of the viewfinder is not the determining factor of a photographer's interpretation of a scene. It is simply something he had to work with, just like everyone else who uses the same or similar equipment. The photographer's vision comes from within, not from equipment. I don't know whether this image, as presented by the photographer, is cropped or not. If not cropped, it represents the totality of what he had to work with, and reflects his skill in using what was there at the time to present an attractive scene (and yes, in my view this is to be encouraged as it promotes the exercise of creative thinking). But if it has been cropped, then it represents what he wanted to show, in the exact proportions of length and breadth he desired.

This is not to say that there is no case for cropping a photograph. There is. The determining criteria could be publication format, or context. That is the publisher's right, once they have paid money to the creator of the image for the right to do so.

By contrast, in the context of a "gallery" type presentation (which the photo.net format approximates) it is up to the photographer to make any cropping decision.

Darrin, .... and you have not taken a picture with the red robed monks walking over the bridge?

I like the shot and it's execution, but regardless of crop I'm having a real hard time getting a sense of scale.

Darrin, congrats with your well deserved POW. A great picture (more below).

 

As for the presentation ("the cropping") it is fine with me. Besides one could not criticise Shakespeare for writing a sonnet in stead of another style of verse (nor did the sonnet blocked his creativity ..and on the contrary it baffles people what he did with this form of verse).

 

I like the balance of the people walking/bycicling on the bridge. They were at the right moment the shot was taken. In vertical direction the amount of water is just enough. I like the little reflections of the pillars in the water. I can just see where the bridge pillars start in the soil. My monitor is not that good, but I think th real print shows this even better. These little gradations in color...make it more than a silhouette to me.

 

A good eye to catch this moment. I like the other photographs in Darrin's portofolio as well, but for me this picture works like an icon, that still captivates my mind.

Darrin...The way you've presented this image is just fine with me. I see the crop as balanced, exposure has details and I find the details give interest to this image. As far as the "other image", I'm not even going to think of it in that way...this image is the POW! Congratulations on POW.

Trimming the water out!- No Way!

I think Scott Eaton's comment on sense of scale serves to partly define the appeal of this one. The photographer suspends or alters our reality just a bit. Whether that was previsioned and intended at the shooting, - only he knows! Exactly how, we will probably never know either, although the silhouette, colours amd graphic arrangement are all parts. Despite having familiar (human) sized components, the photograph teases/challenges and intrigues our scalar perceptions.

Sorry to be unclear earlier...

 

I meant that cropping suggestions and other "after the fact" changes are generally unhelpful because there are a million possible configurations for any image. If you think there's a reason to crop, then something must be wrong with the photograph. Say what the problem is and the photographer will learn more from that.

 

Also, I wanted to express my admiration for the photographer's excellent timing. That is the key to this image and makes it truly special. The sillhouetted forms, the divided space all make a visual statement that has the kick of a well done senic, with an extra bit of human interest and complexity. Well done!

Although I disagree with the suggestions to crop this image, I also believe referring to such suggestions as "violations" is a problem. It is not a "violation" to make such suggestions in this forum.

When I went to school ... a long time ago ... we filed the film carrier down so all prints would have a black border, showing the full frame. We were told that we already cropped by using a camera; if we wanted to have a different composition, take more shots. The reasoning: it forced us to be creative in the field yet selective at the same time.

 

I still like seeing the full frame and this beautiful portrait of a moment in time is no exception. That being said, I wonder what another portrait would look like with more of the water in it, to the point that people on the bridge are reflected below. My curiousity is not to change Darrin's fine work (I wouldn't change this portrait one bit!), but to simply have another view of what was there.

To crop or not to cropthat is the question??????First of all I want to felicitate (congratulate is getting wore out) the photographer for a fine POW.Interesting photo, I wonder how it would look like with one of those Eric Maeolas 1,200 mm lens sunset suns juxtaposed in the background?(Somehow I feel that I have just committed the unpardonable sin of making a small suggestion!)

A few questions and or observations!!!

I think that POW choices are like food, sometimes you get sick of hamburgers and a hot dog seems more palatableI guess this in keeping with Marcs comment about not choosing the photo he suggested.

Douglass Vincent, ditto on what POW is all about.

Dean Grangos, you said I'm not inspired to invent interesting stories for them I concord with you 1000000% somebody who looks at a photograph for what it contains and no more. Kind of reminds me of the stepping stones POW by Phil Morris, where everybody tried to instill the whole universe into a simple piece of dirt and rock.

Joseph Coalter, I absolutely agree that the water gives meaning to why the bridge exists therefore IMO to crop the water from this image is to destroy it, or its message.As far as cropping goes, the final image presented by the photographer is not incontestable. Even if the photographer will not be swayed by the suggestions it doesnt mean that these should not be suggested; all they are is one mans opinion to another. Dont we alsoor didnt we at some point in our liveslike to show, or show off our pictures to our friends who know nothing about photography only to receive some kind of insight? If this is the primary way for a photographer to know whether his work is good enough for the world, what is so terrible about one photographer giving a piece of advice or an opinion to another photographer who didnt ask for it in the first place if this advise if from an expert to another. For crying out loud, what if scientists were not allowed to give suggestions to other scientists? The way I look at it, suggesting a crop is the same as suggesting that he shoot the photo in B&Wits just a suggestion not a commandment or an expression of disapproval!

P.S. Darrin, another excellent photo (the one titled On the bridge). This one looks very much like it was P.S.ed, was it?

Hi Darrin! Congratulations on POW! This is a very lovely image! I don't know why/how, but the subjects on the bridge seem to be flying! I would not crop the image at all.

Cheers!

To Isisdro. Yes, the one on the bridge is PS'd. I rarely change my shots but I actually had no good ones on the bridge to to the time of day I was actually on the bridge. As you can see, I'm better with a camera than a PC!!!

 

The POW shot is as close to the original as I can get. In fact it was very nearly published in Wanderlust Magazine but they declined at the last minute due to the human rights issues in Burma.

Superb image--I would not presume to rate it beyond the comment that I wish I'd taken it. To the crop of croppers, I would say that the height of the bridge and the fact that the commuters are so high above the water adds a nice humorous element to the image. And the light, dark, light, dark patterns, both horizontal and vertical, add to the aesthetic pleasure I get from viewing it.

Bad day... because it looks as if I would to disagree a bit - but really, just a bit - with Tony...:-)

Here is why I personally say "Let's allow cropping suggestions"...

There are imo 4 reasons to crop an image, not only editorial reasons. 1) To correct a flaw 2) To try to improve the internal aesthetics of a given composition 3) To fit an editor or a publisher's layout requirements 4) To MODIFY entirely the structure of a picture's composition - "reinventing" the image, as someone put it so well...

I personally agree with Douglas Vincent and Scott Bulger's general statements above. Meaning that this is a critique site - isn't it? - and as such, people are of course free to "suggest" anything about cropping, lighting, etc. Some may argue that posting a recropped version is somehow not very courteous... Well, that's something I can understand. Whether the photographer himself allows cropping suggestions or not should in that sense matter, imo. For example, I generally post pictures cropped to the best of my understanding, and I always consider the crop carefully first when I shoot, then again before posting to PN, and again before printing the final image. Yet, if anyone sees a different cropping that he feels works better, I'm always glad to hear his suggestion, whether the poster uses words or an attachment. Mary Ball, for example, has specific cropping constraints due to the nature of her work, and has therefore expressed long ago, that suggestions about cropping were not useful to her - so, fair enough. I think we should all remember that this place isn't Le Louvre, and also that we should all be greatful for every constructive critique we get...

Now, did this picture NEED to be recropped. Honestly, I think it did NOT. A crop is not NEEDED. But I've wondered whether a minor recropping would or wouldn't be better. My conclusion, as stated above, was that only a very minor crop of the last pile left and a tad off the sky could have been good. Not necessary, not decisive at all, but imo, probably good.

The thoughts I posted on this page about cropping fall under category 2). The last pole on the left doesn't really distract me, but it isn't really necessary to me either, and I'm always slightly more comfortable with picture that have no element near the edges. Then slightly less sky seems to result in placing the bridge's deck exactly on the golden means line. So, cropping a tad left and a tad at the top results in a very similar composition, but in which I feel my eyes will stay more focussed on the bridge.

This suggested crop keeps the same aspect ratio and doesn't make a huge difference with the original post. All I am saying is that it MAY improve the internal aesthetics of the image by, say, 5%...? AND, of course, I may be wrong... One could for example object that such a minor change could transform the image in a textbook example, and deprive it therefore of its "realistic flavor"... I don't believe I know anything better than anyone in this case, but the matter is imo very interesting...

There are too many dos and dont's imo on photo.net. If one posts a long comment - like I often did -, he gets brought to the guillotine. If one criticizes an image, it's war. If one suggests a crop or a different lighting, it's a crime. Sorry, Tony, I understand your point as a matter of respect for the original photo. But what to criticize, or what sort of minor improvement one wishes to propose should in my opinion remain the poster's prerogative... The photographer is always entitled to disregard any critique he receives anyway...

On the other hand, with too many dos and donts - in general -, a critique site can easily end up scaring off all constructive criticism, and surely, a "Wow-society" is not what Tony is after, nor anything we should aspire to. Best regards.

Tony Dummett and Brad Bradley have imo very well explained what is good about this image. So, rather than repeat what was already said better than I could, I'll try to explain why I find this picture very good aesthetically, but maybe not as interesting as I wish it were...

I find myself - to a certain extent at least - in agreement with Dean Granros.

I have to first admit that I'm not, generally, very interested in silhouette shots. There are exceptions, but few. And of course, that's just my personal preference, and I realize that. Like Dean expressed so well, I feel in general that "100% silhouette shots" lack life and lack visual interest. They are, to me, a bit like paper cut-outs, flat, 2-dimentionnal, and of course, needless to say, two silhouettes will always resemble each other more than the 2 fully represented pictures of the same subjects.

Another little negative about this very nice image, for me, would be the fact that such silhouette shots are much more common in Asia than most westener may think. Basically, this picture, like most travel images, relies on the fact that something, unusual to us because it's far and rare where we are, will easily evoque magic to our mind. Having shot travel images almost every day for 4 years in Asia, I am probably a bit less sensitive to this picture. To me, Asia is a lot more magical than this, and it is 3D, and it is very real, with lots of wonderful smells and textures, and mostly colors. In that sense, this image is a bit poor to me. It works as a very good aesthetical abstraction of a reality which I personally find sad to convert to an abstract.

This certainly explains as well why I would personally have prefered the other image I posted a link to, by the same obviously talented photographer... This other photograph is full of life and absolutely real and wonderfully 3-dimentional, rich in colors, with a really stunning light... It feels a lot more appealing visually, a lot less ordinary, and a bit less stereotypical as well... (to me.)

Congratulations, Mr. James. Like many photographers selected for the POW, you have a fine portfolio with many photos worthy of the selection. One thing I wondered, but I don't think has been asked, is: Have you thought about increasing the contrast a touch and making the blacks a little blacker? Maybe that would ruin the subtlety, but the image is so graphic, I would consider it.

"changes are generally unhelpful because there are a million possible configurations for any image"

 

I couldn't disagree more.

 

There is a point in any art form where all possibility exists. The white canvas, the empty viewfinder, the open stage. But to create art one must proceed to eliminate the possibilities and focus on what is essential. The culminating work is a combination of a person's history, the inspiration, and the level of craft and consideration that is applied. In the end, there is only one possible configuration, the way that best expresses the inspiration that drove you to consider the possibility in the first place.

 

The problem with photography is that its inherent level of technical excellence and ease of use tends to make people sloppy undisciplined artist wannabies. It's just too damn easy to find a pretty place (the world is full of them) trip the shutter and bracket 3 stops on either side. This ease of use problem carries over and creates uneducated and over confident critiquers. Slap it all on the web (the largely anonymous web) and it can get really ugly.

 

While I can't get into Darrin's mind, to take him at his word that the image represents what he felt is not enough to blindly accept the image in its composition. I've been on too many workshops where pride and ego get in the way of obvious cropping suggestions and other improvements. And a cropping suggestion is not really a cropping suggestion - it's a composition suggestion that should be aimed at improving the photo within the context of the image's intent (perceived or stated).

 

So, in short, if anyone is going to suggest a crop it should be a requirement to suggest why the crop would improve the image relative to what you believe the image is expressing (some crop suggestions on this POW clearly do not fit this case). If a photographer is unwilling to give that type of suggestion due consideration, then they're posting to photo.net to boost their ego rather than improve their craft.

On the issue of cropping...

 

I find myself in rare disagreement with Tony D. here. This site is a critique/educational site, and I have learned more about photography on the pages of Photo.net (by a factor of at least 10) than I have anywhere else (except, of course, my own trial and error when out shooting).

 

Let me ask: what is the single most important element in a successful photograph? Subject? Light? Exposure? Film/camera format? Myself, I would argue that there is no single most important element in a successful photograph. Rather, I would suggest that there are many "very" important elements, with ther relative importance of each to be determined on a case by case basis. Among these important elements, and missing from my list, is *composition*. And one of the easiest ways to suggest an improved composition is via a crop.

 

This is not to say that I dismiss the arguments of the "full-framers" or the "respect-the-photographer's-vision" camps. I myself lean towards the full-frame camp, but, alas, my ability tends to fall well short of this ideal. Therefore, many of the photos hanging on my wall have been cropped to some extent or another (generally minimal, but cropped nonetheless). However, when making these cropping decisions, I am always nagged by the fct that perhaps I could have composed better at the time of capture, thereby rendering the crop unnecessary. In short, my cropping decisions continually force me to consider my compositions more critically at the time of capture and this, I think, improves my photography.

 

The same is true of cropping suggestion made here, in the display pages of Photo.net. A cropping suggestion should not necessarily be seen as an attack on the photographer's vision. Rather, it should be seen as a suggestion for compositional improvement... something which the photographer is free to consider or dismiss the next time he/she presses the shutter release.

Oh, BTW, I find most of the cropping suggestions unnecessary, offering only marginal improvement at best.

Forgive me for having an opinion that includes less of the photo than Darrin posted, but I honestly find that removing the water makes the scene easier to look at, and calmer, which seems to be in fitting with the mood of the subjects. It also concentrates attention squarely on the people and their myriad relationships. By including the water a more complete record of the location is obtained, but in my opinion, also a weaker photo with one or two elements that demand attention, but that don't really offer any additional value to what I was reading as the intended message, but were in fact, detrimental to it.

 

However, I've been doing the same thing lately, so I can understand the reasoning behind it, which may not have been important to me in December when I first visited this picture.

 

What I think Darrin has done here (subconsciously, perhaps) is to opt for a weaker image in favor of an image that is more comprehensive and faithful to his experience, including certain memory cues that are significant to him, but which do not, in my opinion, make the image stronger.

 

While a weaker image may not carry Darrin's message to EVERY viewer, as an artist he has to decide who the image is for (all of us have to do this): Is it for the sake of the most viewers, to please the greatest number of people? Or is it dedicated to expressing something pure and personal about himself and his experience? In other words, does he want to make a postcard* with mass appeal, or is he looking for a contemplative reminder of something more intangible?

 

This explains to me why I can look at photographs by world class (and dead) photographers and not understand the 'greatness' of their work; I think now that it's because it was not ever meant to have postcard appeal, but to express something personal about the photographer.

 

*The term is used to differentiate creative intent, not to diminish the value or difficulty of any particular type of photography.

What more can be said...but perfection

What a fascinating picture with rich details which I'd like to enjoy (better in a bigger format but less compression loss) for hours.

Awesome image. I prefer the image uncropped. The fact that the composition leads the eye back and forth from the bridge to the water and back again is what I like most about the image.

Doug said it for me! So Im going to use his words to head my discussion. Doug said: By including the water a more complete record of the location is obtained, but in my opinion, also a weaker photo with one or two elements that demand attention, but that don't really offer any additional value to what I was reading as the intended message, but were in fact, detrimental to it.

 

I can understand why some want to immediately crop the water out, the truth is that for as long as you look at this photograph, the lower 1/8th of the frame (water) carries as much weight as the ¾s of the frame (sky), so much so that this water line even takes attention away from the people. This constant pull on your eye towards the bottom of the frame does not cease to demand your attention and can become very bothersome after a few seconds, and if an element in a photo dominates your eye, yet this element is displeasing to your eye, we now have a conflict of interests.

I could be wrong, but since Darrin admitted to have P.S.ed the photo of the man at the bridge, I think I can detect a little P.S. on the water in this POWmaybe to try and create artificial wave movement or more drama?

 

Darrin, in case you are wondering why the obsession with cropping, I believe that marc hit the nail on the head when he described the need for cropping, especially in this photo. The truth is that silhouettes become a two dimensional study of light and shadow, and by nature there in not much one can dissect from a shadow...no emotions, no intrinsic beauty, no distinctions between each of the people, or each of the poles, or even to some degreethe people from the poles. In a silhouette there is no intimacy, no relatedness, no attraction, no likes or dislikes to any of the characters. A silhouette is a shape of a person not a person per se. A silhouette does not discriminate nor provide any of the details which make peoplepeople, such as color of eyes, hair and skin, expressions, mood or intentions, and it doesnt provide the little details such as who is wearing eye glasses, what kind of clothes theyre wearing, who is old or young, who is male of female, attractive or not attractive.

Because of the lack of these descriptive elements of interest, a silhouette looses the viewers attention real quick, and a silhouette that contains a separate and brighter part which fights for attention and is dull or insipid compared to the silhouettes themselves is bound to be a caso perdido (lost case). Therefore, I can agree 100% with those who instinctively reach for the nearest pair of scissors. But unfortunately I still feel that the water is needed to give a reason for the bridge to exist and for the people to be on this bridgemaybe if you toned the water down a little?

So does this mean that the croppers were right all along? I guess we are facing a picture perfect paradox here: is this photo a success in spite of the opposition who insists that cropping is needed, or is it a failure in spite of all the praises? I guess if the original question was: to crop or not to crop? The new question is: had we not seen the water to begin with would we like the photo just as much? I think the answer would be a resounding YES! But asking this question would be like asking: if I had never seen a red Corvette would I still like the Yellow one just as much as I like the red one? This answer can never be known it can only be imagined.