![Very Happy :D](./images/smilies/icon_biggrin.gif)
Kind Regards
Mark
Gruditch wrote:No you can't do that to that picture, I'm calling the police.![]()
Regards Gruditch
There is, actually, some "science" behind the art ... such as the rule of thirds. Some simply have a gift in this respect - and the rest of us need to analyse things (I'm in the latter category). "The Photographer's Eye" by Michael Freeman is, in my opinion, a "must read" for all photographers - it covers composition, colour contrast etc. in a rudimentary manner that is pretty powerful for a layman, such as myself.Mark Tutton wrote:That is really interesting Neil - I have found myself instinctively cropping most of my images as you describe ...
Thanks for that PetePete Eeles wrote:Hi Paul - this is nothing to do with the file size and everything to do with the composition. If you want a photo that helps with the identification of specific features of the adult butterfly, then perhaps a closeup and constrained view where the butterfly has no room to breathe is it - but it's never going to win any prizes in a photo comp! However, if you want a work of art that you'd be happy mounting on a wall, then your 600 x 750 is pretty close, in my opinion.Testudo Man wrote:Cheers for the compliment on my original imageGruditch wrote:Of course if you do take a great picture like that, and crop like Mikes example. You should be arrested, and sent to prison, for crimes against photography.![]()
Regards Gruditchbut as i said above, Mikes version/crop, was always going to look "pants" because of the small file size that he had to use. I hope ive rectified this with my latest crop.
Cheers Paul.
Cheers,
- Pete
Cheers for the input Neil, and thanks for your crop and explanation.Neil Hulme wrote:I don't usually comment on threads which discuss the technical aspects of photography, mainly because I don't have any knowledge of the subject. But this is more to do with the aesthetic; itself highly subjective, so we'll all see it differently.
The natural crop for me is as below. In the examples above I think the insect is too central. To my eye, the image requires significantly more space in front of the butterfly - that's where it will move to, when it takes off. Equal (or nearly so) distance behind it doesn't work for me. That's where it came from, before it landed, so is now history and redundant. To place it more centrally seems to gives the impression of it being stranded.
BWs, Neil
Hi Mike, i like that word you used - "Anti Crop"MikeOxon wrote:I have also occasionally added a little at the side of a photo, in an attempt to improve the overall balance. I feel that your 'anti-crop' needs a little more at the top.
On another controversial point - although the plain background is widely admired and considered to add to the artistic value, I often like to see a little more of the surrounding habitat, especially for photos taken 'in the wild' I once suggested (tongue in cheek) that one should carry around a selection of backgrounds to place behind a subject, to achieve the 'plain' effect
I posted a shot, last year, from the opposite end of the spectrum at download/file.php?id=59002&mode=view
Mike