Which crop is better

File: z.jpg (2MB, 2005x2293px) Image search: [Google]

2MB, 2005x2293px

OP here with second image

Took this yesterday btw

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Equipment Make	SONY
Camera Model	SLT-A57
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CC 2014 (Macintosh)
Maximum Lens Aperture	f/6.3
Focal Length (35mm Equiv)	202 mm
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	350 dpi
Vertical Resolution	350 dpi
Image Created	2017:04:22 10:29:38
Exposure Time	1/640 sec
F-Number	f/8.0
Exposure Program	Normal Program
ISO Speed Rating	100
Brightness	10.1 EV
Exposure Bias	0 EV
Metering Mode	Pattern
Light Source	Unknown
Flash	No Flash, Compulsory
Focal Length	135.00 mm
Color Space Information	sRGB
Image Width	2005
Image Height	2293
Rendering	Normal
Exposure Mode	Auto
White Balance	Auto
Scene Capture Type	Standard
Contrast	Normal
Saturation	Normal
Sharpness	Normal

>>3061498
>>3061500

fuck the crop, what the fuck is wrong with his face!?

>>3061502
i edited it as part of the theme for the shoot, notice the shadow has no head either

>>3061498
First one better. The square one make him look like he's stuck somewhere without nowhere to go

>>3061498
Both shit

>>3061498
First crop is better, seldom say this but the edit makes it quite a cool photo. Nothing groundbreaking but thought-provoking nonetheless.

>>3061498
this one for sure

>>3061498
both are meh desu. find a spot that will at least give you framing and composition that looks good.

first one, for sure. There's way more of a story/immersion in it. You have the out of focus foreground image, the graffiti, the window and then your subject. The cropped 2nd image just brings 100% of the focus on the guy's head and the writing in the window. Too in your face and too much focus on the writing in the window. In the first one the viewer gets to discover the weirdness on his own.

>>3061498
I don't know dick about photography principles,
but I do know that your subject matter is trite and overdone;
it captures the same post modernist b.s. which we are all quite saturated and familiar with.

>>3061498
are you a Bergman fan?

Also, 1st is better but please don't do the face removal nonsense. It's pretty pretentious.

>>3061498
If you're cropping your photos, you're taking bad photos.

It's just a snapshit of a dude. Delete-in-camera tier no matter how you crop it.
Keep trying, though.

>>3063851
Tell me more about how you're a better photographer than every pro on the planet who crops their photos.

>>3061498
Delete both and pretend they never happened.

>>3064089
If you're cropping your photos, you missed the shot.

>>3061500
This isn't a bad photo. The first would be better because the subject is walking and looking into the shot. Having them off to the far left with very little space until the frame looks kinda bad, if you moved him over to the right side of the frame it'd be better. If you're not centering your subjects you want them to be looking into the frame, always.

>>3064270
You're fucking dumb, dude.

>>3064287
Prove me wrong. Inherently, if you are cropping, you are throwing away recorded information. If you can throw it away, why did you record it? That just means you did not effectively position the camera. You have wasted space on the sensor. Worse, you have changed the relationship of the lens to the image. You have taken the perspective of a wider lens, and made a smaller image. Had you moved closer, the relationship of objects in z-space would be fundamentally different. If you'd gotten a longer lens, they'd be different. You have created a new photo that has none of the benefits you could have gotten from simply adjusting your set up, and only served to make a smaller photo. It's lazy picture making.

>>3061498
My eye is more drawn to the man in the first, and more to the telephone cord (or whatever that is) in the second - so I vote for the first.

File: cartierbresson-neg-copy2.jpg (67KB, 340x446px) Image search: [Google]

67KB, 340x446px

>>3064270
Cropping is a photography tool.

[EXIF data available. Click here to show/hide.]

Camera-Specific Properties:
Camera Software	Adobe Photoshop CS3 Macintosh
Image-Specific Properties:
Image Orientation	Top, Left-Hand
Horizontal Resolution	72 dpi
Vertical Resolution	72 dpi
Image Created	2012:01:08 09:06:30
Color Space Information	Uncalibrated
Image Width	340
Image Height	446

>>3064444
Yeah, but the final result sucks just as much as the original in OP's case.

>>3064444
As this image demonstrates, it should only ever be used when necessary. If he'd been standing in the water, the ripples would have ruined the image.

>>3064417
Have you created a single piece of art in your life? It doesn't sound like it. Removing unnecessary information is part of the artistic process, it's fundamental to creating anything. There is no great piece of film, literature fine art or indeed photo series which has not discarded aspects which upon composition were deemed important by the artists. In fact many if not most of the greatest pieces of art of all time have more discarded elements in their compositional history than have gone into the finished product. All artists are fallible, no art is perfect.

Secondary to this, never cropping photos means you only ever shoot in a single aspect ratio. Show me a single photographer who never deviated from 3:2.

This post for me sums up /p/. People who have never once created anything of lasting value making baseless blanket criticisms of people infinitely more practiced in their craft, largely out of insecurity.

>>3064784
You just proved it--if you crop, you missed the shot. By cropping, you are trying to recover an otherwise ruined photo. It fundamentally means your photo us worse than it could have been. If you are relying on the crop, you've introduced a crutch to your technique.

Also, it is generally bad form in still photography to publish work outside if the aspect ratio it was shot in. You really need a compelling reason to deviate from that norm. Cropped photos are very noticeable and very distracting.

>>3064858
>Also, it is generally bad form in still photography to publish work outside if the aspect ratio it was shot in.
You're talking our your arse. How many exhibitions have you been to where every single photo has had the same aspect ratio? What if a shot only works as 1:1 or 3:1? Do you have to build a sensor from scratch? Human faces, geographical features, architecture, wildlife all have their own geometry which demands specific framing and dimensions. The idea that cropping is 'bad practice' is one of the most hilariously uninformed and downright idiotic things I've seen on here. Again, I challenge you to name one living photographer who has never cropped a photo.

>>3064858

>I've never been to a gallery

>>3065244
Of course I've been to a gallery. You should try going to a museum.