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

[Loren Sattler]

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]

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...

 

[awty]

Your crop works better for me.

 

[MattKing]

Well, you asked
Here is how I would crop it:

 

[KerrKid]

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]

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.

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!

 

[lxdude]

Well, you asked
Here is how I would crop it:
View attachment 324933

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.

 

[BobD]

I like it as it is.

 

[albada]

Well, you asked
Here is how I would crop it:
View attachment 324933

This crop was the first time I noticed the couple at the top. Before that, there were too many distractions.

Mark

 

[Daniela]

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]

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?”.

 

[otto.f]

Don't crop

 

[Nicholas Lindan]

Another vote for not cropping.

I do, however, like Helge's crop; it changes the mood of the image from quiet contemplation to humor.

 

[guangong]

Well, you asked
Here is how I would crop it:
View attachment 324933

 

[guangong]

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]

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]

Have you considered this option?

View attachment 324941

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.

 

[jtk]

The dog is crucial, the couple at right is some other photograph, and couple at top is clutter,

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

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]

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.

ABOUT | JEFFREY GLASSER

HOME | SCULPTURE and PHOTOGRAPHY

 

[mrosenlof]

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.

 

[Andrew O'Neill]

It's interesting how we see differently. Loren, do what you feel is best. It's your image.

 

[MattKing]

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]

The dog is crucial, the couple at right is some other photograph, and couple at top is clutter,

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]

We regularly have similar conversations at regular meetings of our Darkroom Group.

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.