a petite peregrination

LK, I don't just crop to make things 'tighter' just to crop (many images die from the opposite, being to tight, but not many), but to tighten up the image so that it is, in the long run, something someone would look at longer. My premise is that the longer one looks at an image, the more successful it is. If the barn needs painting, paint it. If the woman needs make-up, apply it. If an image needs cropping, well you get the idea.

At the beginning of my classes I always start by asking the students (workshops attendees) which of the following scenarios they would rather have happen. They hand their photo to a friend who then looks at it for 4.2 seconds and then says 'very nice', and hands it back, or hand them then a photo and they look at it for 15 seconds, also saying all the time" it's very nice" but still not wanting to quit looking to give it back, as they can't quit looking. If they say it does not matter that someone would look longer, I ask then why take a class, because if nothing matters then why take a class to 'improve'? 99% say they would like the folks, as well as themselves, to look longer.

 

Gordon writes:

"I agree with Landrum regarding the suggested crops. I appreciate that Micheal has put forward his reasoning for the crop suggestions rather than the too common habit of suggesting a crop without offering any explanation for how the crop is intended to improve the image...."

Thanks, but you said something very important afterwords, proving my success at what I was trying to accomplish...

"For myself the tighter crop does make me linger and ponder a bit longer..."

There we have it, thank you for being honest. I don't care if people 'feel' it does not work, I ONLY care that it does!!! I don't care if I have to turn a photo on it's ear to make it more interesting, and I have. Some of my students have done the same thing, those that understand this principle, and won major awards in competitions- doing as one of my favorite photo-art writers Freeman Patterson says, 'seeing sideways'. (He's really good at explaining things, a gift, wish I had it, my right side of the brain overpowers the left).

Gordon continues "but at too great of an expense. The previously open ended story starts to feel confined and claustrophobic. In the final crop suggestion, the man and the horse no longer have any space within which to travel."

And I agree Gordon, to some extent. But it's very balanced, and enough room IS being given, there is no tension, another aspect to worry about, another rule, yada yada... But being a bit confined made the whole thing more interesting, and somehow we cut out a lot of boring white space (in that there was no info- and believe me, I know when to use negative space, and more importantly, when NOT to).

Anyway, I hope that clears up my reasoning a bit. Hope everyone had a good New Year.
MS

excellent composition

Great Image! congratulations

Michael, what if your Grand Premise is false?

I know that we have covered this terrain before, and in general I think that you are correct. I am just not sure that I would base my entire corpus of work on such an absolute premise admitting of no exceptions. As a good working maxim, I don't doubt your method--or your results, either, which are far better than mine. In fact, however, sometimes a photo stymies me or makes no sense to me, and those, too, can cause me to look longer, but that does not necessarily mean that it is a good photo. It might in fact be a mess.

I still prefer the original photo to either of your crops. It is nothing personal. The fact that someone looks longer does not prove the truth of your premise that the longer one looks, the better the photo. To argue that way "begs the question" in the sense that logicians use that phrase, implying that you are assuming the truth of that which you want to prove. You cannot logically do that, but you have attempted it in "rebutting" Gordon. You have assumed the truth of your maxim in trying to prove it, and then you have pronounced that it is proven!

Still, as a general working maxim, your maxim is a good one to teach beginners, along with the "Rule of Thirds," etc. To elevate it to the status of an esthetic absolute is a bit absurd, I think.

We often stare too long at the flaw in a face, not because it is the most beautiful face, but because it is flawed.

--Lannie

"What good is a sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea"
What if the GRAND premise is wrong?
That is a good question, one I had to ask, and answer myself, almost 40 years ago now.

You see, I once put a piece of my art (aka photograph) up in front of the advanced photo class for the weekly critique. The class- all 34 of them, said that a certain part of the image bothered their 'eye'. The professor (freshly hired, degree in photographic art at San Francisco State, known for it's excellence and taught us compositional elements to consider, passed down from the masters) , but he concurred when I looked to him for defense! Well, I never! I'd won awards as a painter as a kid. I'd been making art for over 10 years now. AND it took hours to perfect that print in the darkroom, AND I liked it the way it was, especially the part they all said I should crop out- it was dramatic, it was sensational, it was- distracting? They said it bothered their eye, made it get 'stuck', and kept them from enjoying the strong parts, the VERY STRONG parts in the rest of the image.

So I went home, telling myself all 34 students and the teacher were absolutely 'wrong', "or was I?" I kept asking myself. Eventually, I decided to go with common sense, and the majority. After all, how could they all be wrong, and me not? I started to look at things differently, with a more critical eye. I started to notice how the eye moved around the image with more intensity. I got to where I could 'stand outside myself' and pay close attention to how the eye moves around the scene, what stopped it, what grabbed it and made it move, what distracted, what made it flow, what could I do to change it, first in the field- now only making ONE-POINT-FIVE photos a day in 18 hours of looking, on the average, then in the darkroom or computer, cropping for best possible results.

I learned of the killers in the art of good composition, photographic OR paintings, sculptures too; tension points, color mergers, rule of thirds, and more importantly- what trumps that rule, line mergers, balance problems, just to name a few, and how to solve them, even when they were now in 'concrete' as I put it. And that was back in 1971, the year I won my first national photo competition award. I've studied every piece of art I've laid eyes on, to some extent, since. I ask how I could possibly make it 'stronger', my art or others. That's probably well over a million photos. I visit museums (photographic and painting) as well as most galleries when I travel the world making my art, and conscientiously study how I'd possible improve it. 95% of the art I look at I would not want for free ($10,000 painting turned down- yeah, boring as heck, I only look at if for a few seconds and the eye gets bored). OK, technically perfect, but as Ansel Adams used to say, "what good is a sharp photograph of a fuzzy idea". Even some of his need help, but that's for another day.

Although little time to enter, I've since won dozens and dozens of local, national, and international competitions. I am so lucky!

So good question. Are you right, or the class and the instructor? Remember, they have all been given the knowledge that's been handed down through the ages, starting with the guys that taught Michelangelo and da Vinci, and then added to by them, and then their students, and then theirs, etc., etc., etc..

Stunning! Well done!

That is all very impressive, Michael, but you still have assumed that which you want to prove, and then you proclaim that you have proven it because someone (in this case Gordon Bowbrick) said that he looked at your image longer:

No one is challenging your credentials, Michael, just your logic. You are not, after all, Michalangelo, nor are you da Vinci. Get that left brain in gear and you will be an even better teacher. Otherwise, you are asking people to take your absolute maxim on faith. Your best students will take the rule for what it is--a generally good guide--and use it judiciously. They will not absolutize it. You apparently do not want students. You want disciples.

Back to the photo: you have offered tighter and tighter crops. I prefer the original, although I could do without the burning in the corners--especially the top left corner.

I looked at your last photo the longest, but the reason is that I was asking myself the question: What on earth has Michael done to this picture, and why on earth does he think that mangling the tree makes it a better picture? I am still looking at your crop, and I still cannot figure out why you think that it is superior. With all due respect, I do not think that it is.

I frankly think that any further discussion of your rule of counting the number of seconds looked at to determine the esthetic superiority of this or that crop belongs to the philosophy of photography forum, not the Photo of the Week forum.

No amount of cropping is going to make this photo into a masterpiece.

Cheers.

--Lannie

Michael, with regard to your last crop offered above, I think that Gordon Bowbrick delivered the ultimate coup de grace :

Thanks, Michael, for the interesting discussion. You get great results, and your skill and success as a photographer have never been in doubt. You were deserving of all of your awards, including having your own photos selected here as Photo of the Week.

--Lannie

Sometimes I look at a photo for a good amount of time trying to figure out how something so technically and aesthetically substandard appealed to the photographer enough to present it in public.

Sometimes I look at a photo for a long time trying to figure out how many different photos the image was com-posited from since the shadows and perspectives are all contradictory.

Sometimes I linger over a photo to admire the technical aspects-- the beauty of quality and craftsmanship.

Sometimes I ponder an image to try an unravel the mystery presented by a clever plot or concept.

Sometimes I spend an extra few seconds trying to figure out why a cramped and uncomfortable crop suggestion would have been put forward. I am here to learn and I assume a crop suggestion is something I can learn from, provided that I take the time to consider its implications. In this case I did learn a few things, some about photography, some not, some with which I agree, others not so much. As always, it is a pleasure to consider other points of view.

This statement seems to be at the heart of Michael's argument. While understanding the majority view is important, since as Michael states that view is based on generations of accumulated wisdom , I do not believe that applying that majority view dogmatically is common sense although it may be common practice.

I love these types of things!

My two cents would be that it isn't a matter of how long you look at an image that is important, it is how many times do you WANT to look at it again that counts! If you buy something that you like and hang it on the wall and never look at it again, it only served the candy palette and becomes nothing more than wallpaper. If you continue to confront it daily, then it is alive and that is a successful image.

As to what others think. I showed a series of work to a friend of mine, an accomplished photographer, and he picked out one image in particular that he did not like in any way, shape or form. Six months later, when the series was finished, I showed the work to him again. When he came to that image he said "That is still my favorite one of all!". My sense is people don't always know why they think what they do and need time to process things that push them--and that is good art!

 

No amount of cropping is going to make this photo into a masterpiece. --Lannie

And I agree with that. I don't believe I said I made one out of it. I, as mentioned, only take one or two photos per day of looking, this would not have been one of them. It's missing one or more elements I suggest are included to make it a stronger piece of art overall.

I take a much loner look at my crops usually, if I even apply them, than I did this one. The reason is, the 'feel' changes after you step back and come back with a new, and relaxed, eye. I think my 'improvement' of my second crop is indeed too tight. How do I know? My eye gets locked into the man/horse, a no-no. My first offering is the one I'd most likely go for now that I come back and look. I thought I needed it to balance the placement of the tree, but I didn't. Mainly, and more importantly, the first offering is more interesting than that of the original offering by Cornel. So, in this case, cropping is an important tool to consider/use. You don't crop to crop, you crop to improve. If you don't know how it would improve it, how do you know when to use it?

It's not if I can sell the art, it's if I can live with being the creator of if. Many of my images won't sell, they are not pretty. But they win awards. It's not great art if you say you like it and look at it 4.2 seconds (not claiming anyone has said that of this piece), it's great art if you can't stop looking at it, pretty or ugly.

I'm also not saying this piece of art is terrible, it's quite ok. It's nice. Either way, my suggested cropping makes it a bit more interesting, if only by two or three seconds. An improvement, none the less.

As Lannie say, cheers

PS- Having a POW is of course, no big accomplishment since they say they pick it not necessarily as the best they saw that week, but one that could possibly be a good one to discuss, but thanks for the congrats. (But then again, they did not say it was NOT the best one they saw that week :/).

Michael, the quality of your postings, both photographic and verbal, has never been in doubt.

Love your work, and you know it! Wish I had the same eye, the same skill--the same accomplishments.

Thank you for drawing us again to the question of what makes for a good crop, one of the most vital and interesting questions in photography for me.

I have learned to crop tighter in part in response to your comments.

--Lannie

Although I cannot go seriously into the cropping philosophy of my cropping teacher Michael Seewald with this image and as I have also mentioned earlier that the image do luck the present of some essential elements, still I insist that the cropping of this image in particular would not improve it but would make it worse, specially at this stage where the image been on the first page and thousands of people already viewed at.
I look at the cropping philosophy at the initial stage where the image is going through its “After Shooting Process”, and then to be presented to the viewer as a complete work, this is how other should see it, a piece of A Complete Art and not an Image going through surgery and into one million pieces.

I do a lot of cropping and other corrections work to make my images look good and so I try to present them in their best shapes and I do not have to go and mention what I have done to the image, not unless someone asked me for the details.
I experienced most of the viewers when they see an image which had gone through different process, they do not pay it the necessary attention.

The luck of educations of some people makes them look at the processing work today as being prohibited and this is of course a wrong attitude, the processing work of an image been there since the entail show up of photography, the conversional dark room always been the means of earlier photographers to manipulated and add more interest to their images, again that’s all before the image get itself on one of the expedition stands.

This is why I think this image should not be cropped now and again I insist that this image do have a stile which requires all of its present lay out to be there UN touched, even with its missing elements.

Bravo my friend, Cornel Pufan , having your image on the first page for a full one week and the cup beside your name, this is itself a great achievement and let tell you with a clear heart my friend you deserve it by all means, I will look forward to see you future posts on photo.net, please except my best wish’s for you and yours and all of the best for the new year.
Rashed
I hope my English home work did improve.

Cropping is one of those things that most should try not to do as a rule. It is sort of a last resort and I think it only makes sense when it is previsualized at the time of shooting and/or your format doesn't fit the scene you envision--oh yea, that is the first things I said!

Anyway, too many use cropping as a crutch to "save" an image. If you habitually crop and your crops make for great photos, get a longer lens or learn to see with the lens you have--better, do both!

Now, I am not saying there aren't some valid reasons for cropping in post that don't fit what I said. There may be an intrusion that comes into the frame that you didn't see because of your need to make the image quickly (so the crop was not previsualized) and maybe there are other exceptions, but if you crop habitually, you probably aren't seeing with the camera but with the eyes.

What I see on these pages too many times are crops that don't even consider what the image is about in the first place. These change the whole meaning of the image and don't acknowledge or respect the person's intent who made the shot. I don't think that is what Michael's crops did but I am not sure that it makes a lot of difference how this image is cropped. It is nice, but I don't think it goes further than that in any of these versions.

What's wrong with cropping? John A. stated, "These change the whole meaning of the image..." Precisely. Often there may be several different images within a single photograph, and they can be brought out only by cropping. Each crop has a different set of elements, and each may have a different impact and convey a different meaning. Now that's fine with a person's own images, but one must be very careful when doing it to another person's image (e.g., this POW), because it may, in fact, change the implementation of the photographer's intention. Understanding the photographer's intention is exceedingly important. On the other hand, cropping another's photo may give the original photographer something interesting to think about that otherwise might have remained unknown.

Good work! Felicitari !

Beatiful shot, wonderful compotition and very good angle of view

correct for vignetting in PS

I crop almost all my images, and sometimes I surprise me. A leftover from the square format, maybe just a habit,who cares. The nice people at Adobe provided those little L sticks. Shame not to play with them :-). Do we think the poster has decided that the image as presented is the director's cut? I happen to think it does no disservice. To the contrary, it is free advice. Shows interest. Offering a reason makes it honest commentary. Otherwise, it is no better help than saying ' I like it hon. That one would fit in well on our living room wall." Seriously, Michael's first reframe does seem to make it a little more interesting. Not all that much, some interesting. No tighter or the balance of elements gets lost altogether.

Simple, plain and meaningful. Congratulations for the good work.

I disagree with the comments to crop the right corner. The pair need a place to 'go' visually and the empty space in the photo is integral to the mood. It is perfect just as it is. Congrats Cornel!

The problem seems not to be the cropping or the overdone flashing around the edges.
What I would try to do would be to get more detail in the horse and figure. They should be in the middle between the graphic black of the tree and the dead white of the snow. Using tonality to make greater the distinction between the dead (at least for the season) tree and the living horse and figure.
The cropping is fine, just dodge the horse and figure.