I didn't mention it before but the biggest distraction to me is the blur
of the hand motion. If it was mine I'd clone out the secondary blurred
image as well as possible. The hand will still be slightly blurred but
not near as noticeable.
Chuck Norcutt
Moose wrote:
> 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/
|
