Crop

[imagemaker46]

I look at most of the photos in this section of the forum as it is where my interest really is, what I see is the same thing over and over, some good pictures that could be better if they were cropped tighter. If there are elements in the photo that don't look like they belong, people walking in the background, bright lights, or colours, too much empty space that doesn't work to help the photo. If these things can be removed by a simple crop, don't think about it, just crop it.

Make your good images better.

 

[dxqcanada]

You are assuming that others see these elements as "not belonging".

 

[imagemaker46]

You are assuming that others see these elements as "not belonging".

Yes true, I assumed again.

 

[dxqcanada]

It takes experience to look at a scene and be able to frame it ... even some of us experienced photographers leave in parts of scene even though we should crop it out. Each viewer will see an image differently, so what you see as something to crop out ... others may see it as an integral part of the whole image.

 

[Overread]

I think one common pitfall many can easily fall into (esp with our own work) is allowing our vision to get tunnelled toward our interest point. Thus many forget to step back and view the whole of what they have photographed and captured. This is different to a new viewer (or one with a more experienced eye) who tends to roam over the photo more generally and thus, can notice parts of the photo where the content is distracting/not essential to the presented subject.

 

[dxqcanada]

I instantly noticed the concept of PTV (Photographic Tunnel Vision) when I started using a 4x5 ... all of a sudden I realized that there was a lot more to take notice of than that center circle in a viewfinder.

 

[Derrel]

Photojournalism and sports are fundamentally different things. Photojournalistic photographs often need to show CONTEXT, and many are shot with wide-angle lenses, or from vantage points that show some background, some setting. It always "depends" though; the exact, specific use of a photo determines whether a long, medium, close-up, or extreme close-up look will work to tell the story or not. Sports photos are another, different thing than hard news photos; the photographer has a LOT more advance notice, and can usually chose a number of vantage points. Often times, the viewers will already be INTIMATELY familiar with the subjects in sporting photos;Joe Montanna, Muhammed Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Wayne Gretzky, Peyton Manning, Tim Tebow---viewers have ALWAYS been able to recognize these types of athletes, instantly, and since they each specialize in a sport, there's not as much need for context if say, the photo is accompanying a news story about a SPECIFIC bout,match, or game. Many daily newspapers like tight,tight close-up 300,400,500,600mm action shots, with blown-out backgrounds that show a lot of "face" and show "expression", but which quite often lack contexual clues. Some of the most-famous sports photos show a LOT of background. And by that, I mean a LOT of background.

Here are some legendary sports photos. NOne of them are "tight" shots.

http://www.photonasia.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/leifer02-600x702.jpg


http://www.photohowto.info/files/im..._phtography_is_unpredicatable_in_the_surf.jpg


http://www.tvshark.com/imgs/cigar-guy-tiger-woods1.jpg


http://www.championsgallery.com/Secretariat Belmont Photo Framed Unsigned.jpg

There is no need to crop ANY of these shots...cropping would only ruin them. Sure, the Ali-Liston shot CAN be cropped, and has been...but look at the Secretariat at Belmont shot...cropping out all that "useless background" would make the shot into a worthless kill-file shot. Same with the TIger Woods photo.

 

[imagemaker46]

Photojournalism and sports are fundamentally different things. Photojournalistic photographs often need to show CONTEXT, and many are shot with wide-angle lenses, or from vantage points that show some background, some setting. It always "depends" though; the exact, specific use of a photo determines whether a long, medium, close-up, or extreme close-up look will work to tell the story or not. Sports photos are another, different thing than hard news photos; the photographer has a LOT more advance notice, and can usually chose a number of vantage points. Often times, the viewers will already be INTIMATELY familiar with the subjects in sporting photos;Joe Montanna, Muhammed Ali, Joe Frazier, George Foreman, Wayne Gretzky, Peyton Manning, Tim Tebow---viewers have ALWAYS been able to recognize these types of athletes, instantly, and since they each specialize in a sport, there's not as much need for context if say, the photo is accompanying a news story about a SPECIFIC bout,match, or game. Many daily newspapers like tight,tight close-up 300,400,500,600mm action shots, with blown-out backgrounds that show a lot of "face" and show "expression", but which quite often lack contexual clues. Some of the most-famous sports photos show a LOT of background. And by that, I mean a LOT of background.

Here are some legendary sports photos. NOne of them are "tight" shots.

http://www.photonasia.net/wp-content/uploads/2011/11/leifer02-600x702.jpg


http://www.photohowto.info/files/im..._phtography_is_unpredicatable_in_the_surf.jpg


http://www.tvshark.com/imgs/cigar-guy-tiger-woods1.jpg


http://www.championsgallery.com/Secretariat Belmont Photo Framed Unsigned.jpg

There is no need to crop ANY of these shots...cropping would only ruin them. Sure, the Ali-Liston shot CAN be cropped, and has been...but look at the Secretariat at Belmont shot...cropping out all that "useless background" would make the shot into a worthless kill-file shot. Same with the TIger Woods photo.

In all those shots the background are not the elements that can be cropped, they are all what makes the images. The Ali photo can't be cropped any other way, the shot at Belmont show distance and give the photo depth. When I mentioned cropping photos I specfically mentioned lights, bright colours, empty space(useless space, you can tell the difference) The surfer shot has no empty space, the wave is again an important part of the image. The fans in the Woods shot are not empty space, they are the same as the wave.

I know what you are saying and agree, but these comparing these photos with kids volleyball or basketball where you can see half the gym, and the gym is all chairs and wall, that is the useless space that I'm talking about. I'm not directing this at the profesionals who should already know how to compose and crop, it is directed at the 99% amateurs that post on here.