It's saying you used a smaller film format than you did. This is the same thing as using the same lens on a smaller format from exactly the same spot.
Edited for clarity
Last edited:
Actually, I prefer the original. The cropped version is trying to say you were not where you were.
It's saying you used a smaller film format than you did. This is the same thing as using the same lens on a smaller format from exactly the same spot.
Edited for clarity
The crop says nothing if you don't know the image was cropped. It is the image I wanted, period.To me, the crop is saying that he used a longer focal length lens from exactly the same spot than he actually did, regardless of film format.
I prefer the cropped version of Stravinski, though not necessarily this cropped version now that I see the options. I would want to take a look at including the third triangle comprised of his right arm and hand. The white/grey of his right cuff/hand mirror the white/grey of the background. But perhaps it would be too busy.
Of course, many times cropping will help. But there are certain cases where it just won't work. If you stood in a spot where a telephone pole is going through the subject's head, cropping later won't help you. Only moving at the time you shoot the picture so the objects don't line up would compose it correctly. If the angle of the shot is off, cropping won't help. If a photographer is going to depend on cropping later and not take the time to compose the shot when shooting, his best shots may be lost.
All cropping does is select a portion of a flat picture already captured. It cannot line up the objects in the picture.
It's about the composition, the birds flying above connecting the woman photographing and the woman being photographed. Plus the grittiness of the weather being accentuated by the larger grain.Just so you know, if I see another photograph of someone faffing about with his/her phone, I'll scream.
Who ever claimed it could?
I think Newman shot mostly 4x5, although he did do some 35. His style was to place the subject in the bottom third of the frame in an environment that reflected who the subject was. But he was smart enough to recognize that for the Stravinsky shot, cropping out the dead space, leaving the subject in the bottom corner made a better composition and made the subject more dominant.It always makes me think he might just as well have been shooting 35mm.
There are people here who claim that these things can be corrected by cropping when editing. Maybe you missed their posts.
The crop says nothing if you don't know the image was cropped. It is the image I wanted, period.
I could not get that crop in the viewfinder under the circumstances. And once I have determined the crop, it is no big deal to reprint it as desired.But if you cropped in the viewfinder, you would not need to spend time and effort to do it later and for every time you print the negative. Do it right to start with and your life will be better.
The crop says nothing if you don't know the image was cropped.
It is the image I wanted, period.
But if you cropped in the viewfinder, you would not need to spend time and effort to do it later and for every time you print the negative. Do it right to start with and your life will be better.
I could not get that crop in the viewfinder under the circumstances. And once I have determined the crop, it is no big deal to reprint it as desired.
Maybe I could have sprinted through the sand to get closer, scared the birds and attracted the attention of the subjects, making them self-conscious and gotten a totally different photo that wouldn't please me. Or to get a more ideal composition, I could have tripped while running, dropping my camera in the sand. My life wouldn't be any better and neither would the photo.
I must be. Such a claim is ridiculous. But you can minimize such things with burning and dodging. Cropping would help only if the object is large and dominating the subject. If the subject is large enough in the frame, you could crop tight to the subject as to eliminate a tree or pole.
It's about the composition, the birds flying above connecting the woman photographing and the woman being photographed. Plus the grittiness of the weather being accentuated by the larger grain.
Of course, we wouldn't want you to fall off a cliff trying to get the right angle and composition. However, in the end, viewers don't care about our predicaments. Either the picture works or it doesn't.I could not get that crop in the viewfinder under the circumstances. And once I have determined the crop, it is no big deal to reprint it as desired.
Maybe I could have sprinted through the sand to get closer, scared the birds and attracted the attention of the subjects, making them self-conscious and gotten a totally different photo that wouldn't please me. Or to get a more ideal composition, I could have tripped while running, dropping my camera in the sand. My life wouldn't be any better and neither would the photo.
There are people here who claim that these things can be corrected by cropping when editing. Maybe you missed their posts.
I must be. Such a claim is ridiculous. But you can minimize such things with burning and dodging. Cropping would help only if the object is large and dominating the subject. If the subject is large enough in the frame, you could crop tight to the subject as to eliminate a tree or pole.
Cropping doesn't help if the camera angle was wrong. I have no idea how dodging and burning help at all.
By minimizing something that might be better off not in the composition. Lightening that pole coming out of the subject's head, so it blends in with the background, for example.Cropping doesn't help if the camera angle was wrong. I have no idea how dodging and burning help at all.
For me, the picture works. But I guess I'll burn in hell for the sin of such wanton and egregious cropping.Either the picture works or it doesn't.
By minimizing something that might be better off not in the composition. Lightening that pole coming out of the subject's head, so it blends in with the background, for example.
For me, the picture works. But I guess I'll burn in hell for the sin of such wanton and egregious cropping.
One foot (or even 3 feet) would not have made the foreground trash go away, tilting the camera up would have made the photo about the sky. And those birds weren't hovering, waiting for me to nail the composition.Stepping over to the left one foot before snapping the shot is easier.
But orienting the subjects in a shot cannot be adjusted afterwards by any means, They must be composed in camera.
No one says you shouldn't crop. I crop too. just remember there are limits to cropping.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?