Cropping Choices

[Red Wolf]

I'd like some feedback / reaction on this shot to address my own indecision about the best cropping. As a note, I will be reshooting this for other reasons I will mention at the end, so any feedback on ways to improved the shooting would also be welcome as I can actually choose to act on them.

But first...

I'm doing a series of "character" studies, not portraits, characters, staged just for the camera, and I'm on the fence about the crop on some of them, this Angry Clown being one.

Here are three crop versions which I will call version 1 (full) and version 2 (cropped) and version 3 (face).

If you had to pick ONE of these, and only one, to exhibit, which would you pick?

First version - has balloons at the top with the thread of the black string holding them supposed to lead us to the clown. Doesn't really work as far as the string and foreground as the clown is so much brighter, but... it's there. (Note in reshooting I will be using brighter, colorful balloons, muting the saturation a bit in post processing, and a white or silver thread holding them.)

Version #2 - Cropped to lose the balloons and focus on the clown and his body.

Version #3 - Just the face - He's got a good expression, is that enough?

After shooting this I felt I made a mistake not having the clown have hair... To confirm this I did a rough comp just to visualize it. Like this...

So I will be reshooting to add hair and use colored ballooons. I thought about Photoshopping it in, but prefer to shoot it with the hair, so... going to restage this.

There are other shots with the clown I'm doing as well, not just this one, but want hair in all of them, so worth redoing it I think.

So... any thoughts --- since I'm actually reshooting at some point .. C&C are definitely in order!

Have another shot with a cropping Question as well. Will post it later. It's a simple A/B choice.

- Red Wolf

 

[smoke665]

I'm doing a series of "character" studies, not portraits, characters, staged just for the camera,

Over the years I've done a few with some elaborate sets. I learned early on that detailed planning, notes, sketches, etc. make it much cleaner when you push the shutter.

When you planned this, did you not consider was this going to be a shot that showed the environment or a close up. You can't just shoot and crop. Staged scenes like this require different light sets, focal lengths, etc., plus you lose resolution by cropping vs using all the frame.

What was "your" first vision?

 

[cgw]

Wildly distracting background and large DOF issues, Balloons? Never saw them. Can't really say the stab at "environmental" portraiture worked at all. Simply put, no amount of cropping can save these.
You asked, so here goes. It takes a load of lighting and set-up smarts to achieve a cinematic composition. Guessing the clown character is the focus? Then go for that. Look at how Avedon handled the "In the American West" series and see the impact it delivered. Zero distractions.

 

[smoke665]

It takes a load of lighting and set-up smarts to achieve a cinematic composition.

This^^^^^^ except replace smarts with methodical planning. Lighting isn't that hard you either add it or take it away. The problem you run into when you start adding multiple lights on an intricate set is controlling the highlights, shadows, snd reflections. There's been several times when I've had to pop individual sections/pieces snd blend in post.

 

[Red Wolf]

Smoke & CGW,

Thank you both so much for taking the time to share your insights and to reply so quickly and honestly. I really appreciate it. I would not have posted here had I not been seeking honest input. You had good thoughts to share and I plan to act on almost all of them when I redo this shot.

To that end, responding to your comments, explaining and sometimes asking for clarification, but hopefully not challenging...

Smoke665 in your first message you said:

Over the years I've done a few with some elaborate sets. I learned early on that detailed planning, notes, sketches, etc. make it much cleaner when you push the shutter.

When you planned this, did you not consider was this going to be a shot that showed the environment or a close up. You can't just shoot and crop. Staged scenes like this require different light sets, focal lengths, etc., plus you lose resolution by cropping vs using all the frame.

What was "your" first vision?

So, let me put this in context and then directly answer your question.

I've done about 12 of these character studies so far with plans to do between 15-25 total, and the first ones were exactly what you said, very carefully planned, very specific. Like this one:

In this case I was intentionally recreating a very famous painting. In doing so I carefully prepared the set, props, wardrobe and lighting based on the original Caravaggio painting of "St. Jerome." This was basically a single set up and it was planned quite precisely to match the feel of the painting. Although I did several poses, and preferred this one over the one that matched the original painting, the lighting and camera set up was the same for all.

As you said - very specifically planned and I'm actually happy with the result.

I have done many others in the same way, the last being this last one ("American Hamlet").

In this case I was not matching a specific painting, but it was still a single, specific setup based on what was in my head, with specific props, wardrobe, studio lighting, etc. Carefully planned and placed.

A fellow photographer I respect looked at my proofs for the different poses the actors had done to give me his thoughts and said he thought I was limiting myself by only doing, more-or-less, a single camera setup. He suggested I shake up my process a bit and open myself to possibilities beyond my preconceived image. I should try more angles, poses and creative discovery.

Which brings me to the process on the Clown.

The Clown was my first attempt doing that. I got out of the studio and opened myself up to more than just the one shot I had in mind. I did have a specific shot I was out to get, and I got it. It's the one I posted here, but in addition to that shot, in the period of a few hours on this location, I probably shot 30 completely different setups and concepts, conceived on the spot, and clicked off a few hundreds exposures total, exploring and experimenting more freely. In the process I really did discover a few shots I plan to go back and recreate, when I change the clown hair, makeup and balloons.

So I hear what you're saying about planning in detail, and basically agree. It's what I usually do. I believe in meticulous planning and highly controlled lighting... usually. But in this case, wanted to shake it up a bit.

Lighting for this was on location using a single strobe placed camera left on the ground as low as I could get it, but I had to lower the exposure on it because I wanted to hold a little light in the fading sky. This ended up allowing more ambient light from the location into the shot as fill. I wanted darker shadows and more contrast. Next time I will start this set up sooner so I can increase the strobe brightness and put more contrast into the lighting while still hold some detail in the sky and making the shadows and bg darker.

Some things worked, some didn't. The great thing is, I'm reshooting this so all this constructive feedback can actually be applied in the reshoot.

Which brings me to the cropping comment - you said:

You can't just shoot and crop. Staged scenes like this require different light sets, focal lengths, etc., plus you lose resolution by cropping vs using all the frame.​

Yes, absolutely, you are correct, sir. And, as I'm about to reshoot this, not literally "crop this," I can and will be doing exactly what you are saying.

In this case was looking for a gut reaction to the various framing options before redoing it. In the end we all shoot things the way we want, but this was me looking for some thoughts and gut reactions from fellow photographers. A simple "what do you think works best" question based on the existing shot. I apologize if I implied I was looking to literally crop this shot, but as I had mentioned in the post, I was reshooting this, so I didn't think you thought I was talking about literally cropping this exact image. I'm not doing that, for the reasons you said, but I am reshooting that, and curious what others thought worked best.

And while I had, and have, a specific framing in mind.... I was just kind of asking other photographers their thoughts on framing.

You asked: "What was "your" first vision?"

The concept I had in my head was the wide shot ( I suppose the medium crop) without the balloons. I tried the balloons on set as a last minute add.

In my mind the image I wanted had a bit more contrast, a bit more wide angle distortion, darker surroundings with deeper shadows but still with a bit of twilight in the sky, but framing was the full body shot with the character about to lunge at you. That's what was in my head.

So if I may ask, if you were the one reshooting, what would you go for? Maybe none of the above? Just, curious.

CGW: You said...

Wildly distracting background and large DOF issues, Balloons? Never saw them. Can't really say the stab at "environmental" portraiture worked at all. Simply put, no amount of cropping can save these.
You asked, so here goes. It takes a load of lighting and set-up smarts to achieve a cinematic composition. Guessing the clown character is the focus? Then go for that. Look at how Avedon handled the "In the American West" series and see the impact it delivered. Zero distractions.

There is the concept and then the success or failure of the execution. This has execution problems which I need to address, but I think you may also have concept issues.

Regarding DOF: Wanted a wide angle lens (wider than it looks) because I wanted some "stretching" on the arm reaching for the camera to make it a bit more menacing through wide-angle distortion up close, but wide lenses come with a lot of DOF, even wide open, which this was.

In this shot the lens was 24mm on a full frame sensor at f2.8. I also shot it with a 16mm and a 14mm. Those increased the distortion on the arm in a good way, but even in close, the face, which is the real subject, felt too "far away" (too small in the frame) once the arm was included. (The extended arm limited how close I could get to the face.) The 24mm seemed to be the best option.

The DOF is as shallow as I could get with that lens and if you look at the larger of images in my initial post (the face close up) you can see only the eyes are in focus, the hand, and very much the background in the full size image are quite soft, but yeah, at this scale, on that lens, not really reading that way. So, point taken, there is a large DOF, but I'm not sure I have a problem with that in this shot.

I often use a shallow DOF to direct the viewers attention toward my subject, but in this case my intent was to direct the viewer's eye to the subject through brightness and composition. DOF was part of it still, but not the main part. The brightness is why I shot at last light of day, so the world would be as dark as I could get it, with just a hint remaining in the sky for depth and most of the background well below exposure without going black. In practice, I will go back sooner in the day, increase the strobe intensity and make the world darker through shutter speed, so hopefully I can address the problem you are feeling (distracting environment and background) through that. DOF will always be deep because of the wider lens I want to us, and the focal distance to the face being limited by the outstretched arm. Hopefully that exposure change will help address the "distracting background."

Most of my studio work is set in what I call "null space," meaning.... well... they are not in any real, visible place. They are in "nothing," as in the two example shots I posted here. I could've done the Clown in studio (maybe I should?) but wanted to try something different, add some depth. So... maybe a fail, but I'm going to try again. In that regard your feedback is very helpful and I will try to address the "distracting background."

Balloons are a definite fail. You are correct. The concept seemed right. Creepy clown would have black balloons, not colored balloons. Made sense to me at the time and was a very intentional creative choice. In practice... they don't read photographically. Also they were all over the place because of wind in the location so I never could place them where I wanted them, it was hit or miss on where they'd be from one shot to the next and I couldn't do anything about it. I picked this shot because they fell in the best place of that series with that pose.

Next shoot, I'm either using brighter balloons then desaturate them in post so they neither over power things or get lost, or... not have them at all.

Which brings me back to my question for you, regarding the crop. Do you think they need fixed, or do you think they might be best omitted altogether from the composition, when I redo this? That was sort of the question I was asking as, I noted, they don't currently work at all in the existing shot.

As to your last comment, I'm a little confused regarding what you're telling me in referencing Avedon's great work in "In the American West."

Avedon's work is amazing, an outstanding example of portraiture of real people at it's finest, but conceptually and stylistically so completely different from what I'm doing here, I'm not sure I understand what you are trying to tell me. His work is actual portraits of real, rural people, on flat, non-descript backgrounds, in black and white, in straight on perspective. What I'm going for here is none of those things; not real people, not flat backround, not black and white... not anything like his work. That style, which he uses so brilliantly in his work, is in no way right for this project. So, what are you saying in referencing that? It's great work, but how does it inform something like this?

I have done shots of that type, although not at his level or course nor in that exact style, but actual portraits of real people, like this one, which have more similarity to what you're referencing.

But that is a different animal altogether. That's documentary.

The Clown is colorful, theatrical and totally fictional.

I was also confused by your comment: "Can't really say the stab at "environmental" portraiture worked at all."

Again, I don't know what you mean. I would not describe what I'm trying to do here in any way as "environmental portraiture." I do not think that was a phrase I used. This isn't that at all.

This is neither a portrait nor environmental. I'm not fighting you, but I'm simply not clear on what you mean, the comparison and what you're trying to tell me here. Please, help me understand as I would like to.

I hope none of my responses sounds challenging as I really appreciate the feedback and never want to discourage people from offering it. This is all helpful and in posting to C&C,the type of detailed critique to be expected. The great thing, in this case, is I am already planning on reshooting this, so its one of the few instances where it's not "after the fact" and I can actually do more to address these comments and make this work than I normally could.

I am well aware this clown needs some work although my base question was merely one of framing options. I was curious what other photographer's thoughts and gut reactions might be and I got them.

The objective of this clown image, for me, is to evoke an unsettling character from a bad dream. An image not of a real thing or a real person, in any real place, but an oddly unreal character in a dark, non-descript place, but not "null space" and without getting too abstract or impressionistic.

I appreciate your generous feedback. It helps me grow!

Thank you!

 

[smoke665]

A fellow photographer I respect looked at my proofs for the different poses the actors had done to give me his thoughts and said he thought I was limiting myself by only doing, more-or-less, a single camera setup. He suggested I shake up my process a bit and open myself to possibilities beyond my preconceived image. I should try more angles, poses and creative discovery.

I have a favorite saying that I give to those I've mentored in the past, "Even a blind pig finds an acorn in the woods every now and then". The sign of a professional photographer is knowledge and repeatability. Someone who when tasked with a shot knows how to work out the set up, and can consistently produce solid takes in a timely manner. I've never been in favor of the shotgun approach to photography. It's a cop out most often used by those either naive in their knowledge, to lazy to learn the art, or both.

The objective of this clown image, for me, is to evoke an unsettling character from a bad dream. An image not of a real thing or a real person, in any real place, but an oddly unreal character in a dark, non-descript place, but not "null space" and without getting too abstract or impressionistic.

In the sticky note at the top of the thread "Welcome to the C&C Gallery" there are two important rules. #1 "After you post your photo, please provide as much technical detail as you have. Your camera, your lens, even shutter speed and aperture, plus whatever editing program used. For our analog users, include your film type and development process, and #2 states "In a sentence or two, please let us know what you were trying to achieve with your shot. Letting us know why you took the shot helps us understand your creative thought process, which will inform how someone might respond".

The guidelines aren't meant to be picky, I've let the thread run because it illustrates the need for them. In Post #3 CGW had no way of knowing if your DOF was intentional or not, and it took all the way to the end of post #5 for me to find that out what your original objective was. One last comment before moving on, in the changes to the thread marked 2022, it says "Only one image is to be posted unless a second image also aids in demonstrating the issue or feedback that the OP is looking for". The goal of the thread is to answer your questions and give specific critique to your image.

So, moving on with critique of you image #1 only

Did it meet the objective? "to evoke an unsettling character from a bad dream. An image not of a real thing or a real person, in any real place, but an oddly unreal character in a dark, non-descript place, but not "null space" and without getting too abstract or impressionistic".
Without a doubt he'd be an unsettling addition to any of my dreams. It reminds me somewhat of the character Pennywise in the Steven King movie "It". As to the hair/no hair, I'm not sure it makes a difference, though I'm not a fan of the orange hair.
The location is not objectionable, nor are the balloons. It all fits with character in the environment posed. Possibly bring them down some, as shot they seem slightly detached from the character. Bringing them down would give a better transition into the surrounding environment. Remember you don't have to clearly show every detail
just a suggestion of something sometimes works best, and the amount of the environment shown depends on lighting setup. I'd stick with some of the environment to give the clown context. As to the cropping question, decide what you want and fill the frame. I only shoot a little loose so that I change the aspect ratio without a lot of hassle. Finally, while you met some of your objective, for me it appears you missed on some important points.

Lighting? Lighting for this was on location using a single strobe placed camera left on the ground as low as I could get it, but I had to lower the exposure on it because I wanted to hold a little light in the fading sky. This ended up allowing more ambient light from the location into the shot as fill. I wanted darker shadows and more contrast. Next time I will start this set up sooner so I can increase the strobe brightness and put more contrast into the lighting while still hold some detail in the sky and making the shadows and bg darker.

I take a lot of inspiration from old masters. You mentioned Caravaggio, known for intense realism or naturalism, who influences my portraits as well. One thing glaring I saw in the clown....do you think a dirty, smelly sewer dwelling evil clown would be wearing a nice white t-shirt, new shoes, have clean skin and white teeth??? Not very real in my book. LOL In my dreams, he'd be a puss oozing, filthy, ratty looking character with yellow and rotting teeth. In an image you only get one shot at creating what the viewer sees, little out of place details are the first thing the eye picks up
Chiaroscuro is another influence on my work. Creating light and shadows isn't about underexposing, it's about putting light where you need it and taking it away where you don't. To me it looks like you probably ran up the ISO because of the under power lighting which is creating objectionable noise.
One light on this would be difficult, you need a tight circle on the clowns face, plus the spill over is creating unnatural light way up in the background on camera right, that should be shadow. I'd start off with my key as a 7" reflector with 10 degree grid, camera left, above the eyes and 45 down to keep the light off the distant back ground beams and create defined shadows under the brow, eye sockets, chin, etc. As that will be your main highlight meter it to f/8 incident. Then bring in a gridded 4x6 softbox for fill camera left and reflector right to define the body, and raise the shadow transitions, metered incident to a 2/1 ratio, possibly even 3/1. If you bring the balloons down/slightly behind, you might be lucky enough to use the falloff from your mains to illuminate them if not you could use a 7" reflector with 40 degree grid placed front/high to highlight them and create shadow, incident meter reading to a 3/1 to start. As an alternative with camera immobile in the same position, with same settings and focus, drop your shutter speed and use an LED penlight to paint the balloons and blend post. Notice except for the body fill I'm not overly concerned with hard light, as the hard edge shadow lines ad edginess. Up high and behind camera left I'd put a kicker, another 7"reflector with a 10 degree, to separate the clown from the background, meter it the same as the key.

Up to this point I discussed lighting the clown. With all lights firing and from your camera, take a reflective meter reading on the clown face, now take reflective reading from different points on the background. Anywhere there's a 4 1/3 or more negative difference in stops your background it will photograph pure black. you'll either need supplemental lighting on the parts you want to show or possibly move your subject closer to the background, to utilize the spill. Alternatively (assuming you are on a tripod), leave the camera fixed with it's original settings and focus, move the clown out. Have a helper paint the parts of the background you want illuminated more with a strobe light, or I have on occasion slowed the camera shutter down and painted the parts I wanted with a LED flashlight. Then blend them post as layers with masks to only reveal parts you want. FYI this works best when you shoot on a tripod. I've done it handheld with only a very few to align but it's a PITA.

Finally mixing ambient light with flash requires some additional steps to look real, and isn't something easily fixed post as WB changes are global. For this particular, I would have gelled the lights with CTO and set the camera WB to around 3000k to start and adjust camera temp as required.

Remember I said it isn't always showing everything, but creating an illusion, that the viewers mind can fill in. The members here were gracious enough to vote this as a winner this past year in the POTM.
Halloween 2 (1 of 1).jpg by William Raber, on Flickr

 

[AlanKlein]

One comment about the balloons. The clown looks very scary. But the balloons don't go with scary. You need a more sinister prop. Good luck with your project. Very interesting.

 

[cgw]

As to your last comment, I'm a little confused regarding what you're telling me in referencing Avedon's great work in "In the American West.

The impact of those "West" shots is epic. The clown, meant I gather to shock and disturb, lacks that quality. Referenced Avedon not so much as definitive as suggestive of the unambiguous character of the subject you tried to capture. Agree with smoke665 that a closer reading of the forum's guidelines would have helped.