Crop Flop

[Sabaki]

Hi all

I've come under some crit recently for my poor cropping and I must admit that I do not always put an equal effort into my cropping as I do taking the actual pic.

My most used cropping ratio is 16:9 as I normally drop my favourite images into a folder that I use as a screen saver, in order to enjoy my photos.

The latest image of mine that I was advised I could crop better is the attached Geranium Bronze Butterfly, taken at Kirstenbosch Botanical Gardens, Cape Town, South Africa.
The image I posted to Facebook, was the 1:1 crop but a buddy felt I should've placed the eye on a point of intersection, instead of allowing the first vertical 3rd to run through the eye.

I have decided I need to re-think my cropping and science out the art, as it were, to get the most out of my images.

I have attached three different crops of the image below, with the 2:3 ratio being the original dimensions and the 16:9 which is my 'screensaver ratio' and then the 1:1 as recommended by my friend.

Could I ask you guys to please take the 2:3 ratio image and crop the way you would and please give me a short brief on why you decided on the crop you chose.

Lastly, does anybody have recommendations on cropping? Is there a definitive standard or exponent I can research to improve my cropping?

Thanks in advance everybody, I really would appreciate some guidance.

 

[Maximilian]

Hi Sabaki!

I'd go with the 1:1 crop.

Reasons:

• I like the focus on the subject: the butterfly.
• You're (edit: sorry, wrong vocabulary) torn drawn into the details of the butterfly and the pic is sharp enough to deliver the information.
• The background bokeh is nice and smooth - but the highligt on the left is distracting and leads the focus/attention away from the butterfly.

Do the pictures and the croping you feel you like the most.
Of course it's good to listen to advice of others but quite often they are more distracting than helpful.

 

[Sabaki]

Hi Sabaki!

I'd go with the 1:1 crop.

Reasons:

• I like the focus on the subject: the butterfly.
• You're torn into the details of the butterfly and the pic is sharp enough to deliver the information.
• The background bokeh is nice and smooth - but the highligt on the left is distracting and leads the focus/attention away from the butterfly.

Do the pictures and the croping you feel you like the most.
Of course it's good to listen to advice of others but quite often they are more distracting than helpful.

Thanks Max, I appreciate your feedback.

I'm not always sure if the people making these comments have it right and that's because I'm not sure myself. I think 2016 will be understanding how to crop effectively.

 

[Sporgon]

It's personal of course, but I'd either leave it as is on 3:2 or keep the same composition within the classic 5:4 format.

 

[Halfrack]

4:3 aligned right. Crop also comes down to use, the orig 3:2 works if there is a text overlay. Don't consider it a flop, just consider it what appeals to you. Your use case for 16:9 makes perfect sense - I've been doing more in the 2:1 range personally.

 

[RobPan]

My preference is definitely 1:1 for a print.
On a computer screen, 2:3 would look better.
Fine picture!

Kind regards,
Rob.

 

[zim]

Don't think that there is a single correct answer, both 2 and 3 work for different purposes. I wouldn't print 2 and I wouldn't use 3 as a screen saver! Just as I'd process 3 specifically with printing in mind and process 2 for backlit screen viewing.
I wouldn't look for formula's go with your guts, feel the force

As I love prints I do prefer 3 though

Regards

 

[mrzero]

With your 16:9 folder, you've already figured out one of the main principles of cropping - you have to know the final output. If you have a 16:9 screen and you need to fill it, that is your format. I like the 16:9 crop you've created here. The 3:2 original is not as compelling in terms of framing, but the other main principle of cropping is that the original shot should always have some dead space around the edges so you can crop it to the necessary format down the road. You could recrop at 3:2 and find a better composition if you have a displace space in that format. Google "negative space" and keep that concept in mind. Your 1:1 is not as compelling to me because it simply fills the frame with the subject and has no negative space. You could also consider a 5:4 as suggested above, which could add some of the negative space back on the left and create a great 8x10 print.

 

[Sabaki]

With your 16:9 folder, you've already figured out one of the main principles of cropping - you have to know the final output. If you have a 16:9 screen and you need to fill it, that is your format. I like the 16:9 crop you've created here. The 3:2 original is not as compelling in terms of framing, but the other main principle of cropping is that the original shot should always have some dead space around the edges so you can crop it to the necessary format down the road. You could recrop at 3:2 and find a better composition if you have a displace space in that format. Google "negative space" and keep that concept in mind. Your 1:1 is not as compelling to me because it simply fills the frame with the subject and has no negative space. You could also consider a 5:4 as suggested above, which could add some of the negative space back on the left and create a great 8x10 print.

Thanks Mr Zero

2nd person I to recommend 5:4, I think I'll try that

 

[Lurker]

you've already figured out one of the main principles of cropping - you have to know the final output.

+1

Also review composition guidelines and apply them to achieve the look you want. There are no absolutes.

I like the 16:9 crop but I'd try to give a little more headroom above and maybe a little less room behind. Now do that and keep the 16:9. ??? I like that you got rid of the OOF foreground element.

The 1:1 is too tight all around for me. The poor thing needs room to move and breathe. It's hard to avoid a bullseye shot in a square crop and bullseye shots tend to come across as static.

My 2 cents.