I like the image a lot. Although it has many faults, the palpable sense
of engagement of the people with each other is wonderfully caught. The
eye posiitn of the man in the middle is priceless.
I like the crop better, although I believe there are others also better
than the whole frame. Like Chuck, I find the arm on the woman's chair
back very distracting. One of the strengths of your crop is eliminating
that arm.
I believe that looking at the strengths and weaknesses of an image
first, before thinking about crops, can be beneficial. Here, the
strengths I see are in the faces, especially the way they are animated
and engaged with each other. A major weaknesses, for me is the way
several elements are brighter than the primary subjects, particularly
the woman.
<http://www.moosemystic.net/Gallery/Others/Amard/Triangulation.htm>
So I first dropped the arm waaay down. If one pays attention to it, the
light on it is obviously wrong. However, if I am successful in moving
attention to the people, that won't be a problem. The next problem is
all the bright things that should not be central subject matter, but our
eyes seem naturally to be drawn to the light. The wall lights, brightly
lit wall itself and the tablecloth, which is a huge blob of bright white
filling the whole foreground all are problems..
So I pulled down the highlights overall, and did a bit more for the big
wall light and wall behind it. I also pulled up the shadows. this
brought up the people, so that overall, and especially in their faces,
they are able to compete with the now somewhat tamed other elements.
Now it was time to consider crops. First, I just tightened up the basic
subject, cutting down on the foreground and losing irrelevant
surroundings. At least to me, the image immediately gains
energy/intensity. The human interaction is intensified.
Then I tightened up even more, intensifying the focus on the people. Now
the problem arm becomes even less noticeable. It can't be eliminated
without harm to the presence of the woman, but it's no longer an issue.
As extraneous material is lost on the bottom and right, the painting, as
both human and now the only other significant object, starts to become
part of the group, so I gave it a bit more breathing room.
I considered cropping right into the head on the left. it makes it more
intense, but I know cutting heads in half bothers some people. If the
painting weren't there, I would crop much more off the top, letting a
strong horizontal form strengthen the connection between the people.
Finally, I did a version of your crop, although, like Andrew, I thought
it needed a bit more air on the right.
Moose
Philippe Amard wrote:
> PAW 46 is up, but I'm still wondering if the crop
>
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/PAW-2009/2009-PAW-46-Triangulation-1140498.jpg.html
>
> is any better than the original shot.
>
> http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/Phileica/PAW-2009/2009-PAW-46-Triangulation-1140498-2.jpg.html
>
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|
