Opinions please, "Couples", crop this image or not?

Loren Sattler

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 25, 2005
Messages
379
Location
Toledo, Ohio
Format
Medium Format
I posted this image ("Couples") full size in the gallery recently. Wondering if it would be a stronger composition with the top cropped? I go either way depending upon my mood of the day.

Opinions please?
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,018
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
Cropped right above the upper couples' heads.

Or even better -- crop the top down to just a touch of sky on the right...and cut the upper couple in half. Titile it: Two and a Half Couples

You'll have people asking if the dog counts as a half...
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,958
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
Well, you asked
Here is how I would crop it:
 

KerrKid

Member
Joined
Feb 5, 2022
Messages
1,512
Location
Kerrville, TX
Format
35mm
The dark area in the upper right of the frame pulls my eye towards it and away from the couples. Removing it as you’ve done in your crop allows the couples to be the main focus.
 

Vaughn

Subscriber
Joined
Dec 13, 2006
Messages
10,018
Location
Humboldt Co.
Format
Large Format
KerrKid said:
The dark area in the upper right of the frame pulls my eye towards it and away from the couples. Removing it as you’ve done in your crop allows the couples to be the main focus.
Click to expand...

If you get rid of the sky and upper couple, at least keep some of the darker rockwork along the top of wall and that partial window on the left wall. They'll help to keep the viewer's eyes from following the tree up and floating off the image, and instead will return them back down to the benched couples. I would not crop the width...for me, Matt's crop stablizes the image too much without the sky (or at least keep all the fence behind the couples.)

My...how fun to crop other's images!
 
Last edited:

lxdude

Member
Joined
Apr 8, 2009
Messages
7,094
Location
Redlands, So
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
Well, you asked
Here is how I would crop it:
View attachment 324933
Click to expand...

I'd crop it more on the top. I'd take off most of the black area down to about twice the height of the upper couple from the roof edge. That way it's not so imposing, yet it still leads the eye to the "surprise" there.
 
Last edited:

Daniela

Member
Joined
Feb 20, 2017
Messages
1,000
Location
France
Format
Multi Format
I love the original image as it is.
I like the triangle implied by the three couples. I also think that the top part offers a lot of dynamism (not sure this is the right word in English) to the image, with its contrast and the play between the two bottom couples being against a light background and the third against a dark one. I also like the tree being silhouetted against three different grays. The only thing I found distracting was the staircase pattern at the top, that @MattKing cropped...still, I wouldn't crop it. Maybe I'd burn that top edge to make it less pronounced.
Beautiful image!
 

Helge

Member
Joined
Jun 27, 2018
Messages
3,938
Location
Denmark
Format
Medium Format
Have you considered this option?



Otherwise original crop.
Photos does not need to be “perfect” to be good.
Your crop makes me wonder about the top of the tree. “What are you hiding?”.
 

guangong

Member
Joined
Sep 10, 2009
Messages
3,589
Format
Medium Format
Very good pic as it stands. Makes the eye wander about. Any cropping would be to crop the top as per Matt, but don’t cut the top branches of the tree. Or leave pic alone. A very charming picture.
 

foc

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 30, 2010
Messages
2,496
Location
Sligo, Ireland
Format
35mm
The first two images the OP posted don't look great to me. The tree is dividing the image in two ( too symmetrical)
Matt King's crop looks much better as the tree is now off-center.
 

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,252
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
Helge said:
Have you considered this option?

View attachment 324941
Click to expand...

Love this. Establishes a clear relationship between the (older) couple on the bottom left with the (younger) couple on the top right, and the fenced arched doorway on the bottom right with the fenced arched window on the top left, all this forming an "X" (Cartier-Bresson would have like that). The tree in the near middle bring equilibrium to the whole, paradoxically through the chaotic design of its branches—the "natural" chaos of nature in the middle of the "unnatural" X. Furthermore, since you have an old couple in the bottom and a young one on top, the tree symbolizes the passage of time — the "older" trunk in the bottom moving to the "younger" branches on top mirroring the ages of the two couples— and also becomes metaphorically a genealogical tree.

All is metaphor.

Well, except for the dog.

It's just a dog, sorry.
 
Last edited:

Andrew O'Neill

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Jan 16, 2004
Messages
11,764
Location
Coquitlam,BC Canada
Format
Multi Format
Matt's tighter crop is how I would do it.
If it wasn't dark up in that corner, your eye would not go up there, and see the couple. The blackness of the tree prevents the eyes from staying up there.
 

jeffreyg

Subscriber
Joined
Jun 12, 2008
Messages
2,588
Location
florida
Format
Medium Format
I would crop horizontally just below the level of the window on the left. To me the top couple is not important and they are not strong elements of the image and the line of the building is not parallel to the plane of the composition causing the eye to go there. So your second version IMOP is better. You might very slightly burn the upper corners (vignette) to bring more attention to the subjects. Nice image.


 

mrosenlof

Member
Joined
Feb 25, 2010
Messages
622
Location
Colorado
Format
Multi Format
I agree that the top couple is not important, but I like that they are there. I would pick the OP's original, or maybe Matt's crop.
 

MattKing

Moderator
Moderator
Joined
Apr 24, 2005
Messages
51,958
Location
Delta, BC Canada
Format
Medium Format
One advantage that everyone other than Loren has is that we weren't there, so our observations aren't affected by the initial thoughts of the photographer.
One dis-advantage that everyone other than Loren has is that we weren't there, so our observations aren't informed by what initially moved the photographer.
Thanks for an interesting thread.
We regularly have similar conversations at regular meetings of our Darkroom Group.
 

Pieter12

Member
Joined
Aug 20, 2017
Messages
7,506
Location
Magrathean's computer
Format
Super8
jtk said:
The dog is crucial, the couple at right is some other photograph, and couple at top is clutter,
Click to expand...

I agree. Although this is not what the OP is asking for, I think as cropped the image is too symmetrical and static. I wouldn't even notice any of the couples if it weren't the title. Crop out all but one couple, push the tree to one side. Pretty severe crop, but makes the image more dynamic and interesting. Right now the tree is where I look first, the couples are secondary, small and not even close to the tree. I'm not drawn into the image. Not sure if it is the scan or just the internet presentation, but it looks soft, something that is especially apparent in the people.
 

Alex Benjamin

Subscriber
Joined
Aug 8, 2018
Messages
2,252
Location
Montreal
Format
Multi Format
MattKing said:
We regularly have similar conversations at regular meetings of our Darkroom Group.
Click to expand...

This would be an interesting one to share in a darkroom group because my feeling is that not only most people would come up with different crops, but also with different printing solutions, as this negative (seemingly at least from the little that is given from the scan) poses some particular challenges.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Menu
Log in
Register
Cookies are required to use this site. You must accept them to continue using the site. Learn more…