Valley View, Yosemite at 16:9

[Donald]

In my main album set of Yosemite (in which all images are at 1:1 format) I made an image of Valley View (or 'The Gates of the Valley'). Some people (who I think know the location) suggested that this scene required a landscape format and that the square format didn't really work.

My square image will remain as a primary presentation piece, but alongside will, I think, sit this image in 16:9 format. The two were captured in the same shooting session, but as per my usual self-applied 'rule', this was captured to be 16:9 whilst the former was captured to be a 1:1 image .... and never the two shall be changed around.

As always, any thoughts or opinions are welcomed.

[JBW]

Personal taste... I prefer this one. The shot breathes and I'm noticing the clouds in the center

[Shadowman]

Nicely composed, I like that splash of light on the valley floor.

[Mike Buckley]

Donald's evil twin strikes again, this time using a non-square format.

this was captured to be 16:9 whilst the former was captured to be a 1:1 image .... and never the two shall be changed around.

Good for you! You had two visions and you like both results, so there is no need to change anything.

For me, it's not at all a matter of which version I like better, as I like both so much. Though I respect other people's right for enthusiastically picking one image over another, that's not a decision that I feel compelled to consider much less make.

[Daisy Mae]

Donald's evil twin strikes again, this time using a non-square format.



Good for you! You had two visions and like both results, so there is no need to change anything.

For me, it's not at all a matter of which version I like better, as I like both so much. Though I respect other people's right for enthusiastically picking one image over another, that's not a decision that I feel compelled to consider much less make.

Wise words.

[DanK]

I haven't seen the 1:1, but this one is superb. I think the composition is nicely balanced in this aspect ratio, and the use of tonality is outstanding.


Sent from my iPad using Tapatalk

[Manfred M]

Every time we add a constraint to something we are creating, we putting constraints on how we assemble the final product.

In this case, you were working to two constraints (1) B&W image and (2) square format. So long as the scene works this way for you, who are we to say different?

I personally prefer the landscape orientation, because I find it makes more of a statement and does a better job guiding the viewer's eyes in this particular scene. The square format version looks truncated and somehow incomplete to me. It isn't telling us the whole story.

[madcrow]

16-9 or square, a great image is a great image, like this one.

[Tronhard]

I could not express my own thoughts more clearly.

Donald's evil twin strikes again, this time using a non-square format.



Good for you! You had two visions and like both results, so there is no need to change anything.

For me, it's not at all a matter of which version I like better, as I like both so much. Though I respect other people's right for enthusiastically picking one image over another, that's not a decision that I feel compelled to consider much less make.

[NorthernFocus]

I'm too lazy to click onto your site to make the format comparison. But similar to Mike's comment, it doesn't really matter. I like this one. Well balanced, great foreground detail, interesting sky, etc. And in this format it fits modern laptop screen

Nicely done.

[JBW]

Donald, I've been curious for a while and now seems a good time to ask: Why do you prefer square?

[LePetomane]

Donald, nicely done.

[Stagecoach]

It works for me Donald as did the other. What strikes me about the scene is the way the mountains seem to stand so separated from the sky.

[Donald]

Thanks for all your comments.

If I may, I'll address myself specifically to Brian's question.

Donald, I've been curious for a while and now seems a good time to ask: Why do you prefer square?

Rather than use my own words, which would probably become long-winded and rambling, let me quote from one source (there are many). This is from The Digital Photography School:-

• A square is a perfectly balanced shape. Each side is equal in length. Using the square format encourages the eye to move around the frame in a circle. This is different to the rectangular frame, where the eye is encouraged to move from side to side (in the landscape format) or up and down (in the portrait format).
• Negative space is the term used to describe the empty space in an image around the subject. ... it can be very effective in the square format. (Members will know that I use a lot of negative space in my images)
• The square format lends itself to a simple approach. There is less room within the square frame than the rectangular one, therefore simplifying the composition becomes a necessity.
• ... because the square is such a powerful shape in itself, that it emphasises other shapes within it. Linked with this are the ideas of balance and simplicity. Simplifying the composition emphasises shape, and so does placing shapes within a square frame. Converting to black and white emphasises them further.
• Take away colour and what do you have? An image that relies on tonal contrast for impact and that emphases visual elements such as line, texture and shape. The square format and black and white seem made for each other, which perhaps explains its popularity with fine art photographers.
• And finally, from DP Review - Another artistic reason for using square format is simply that it's different. Square photographic prints tend to stand out in the crowd.

There are other things one could say on the subject, but that captures the main points.

[JBW]

Donald, thanks now for some thinking and experimenting

First problem my camera shoots 3/2 or 16/9. This will take some mind games to get the composition right.

[mugge]

Donald, I think Mike is on the button on this. It is a great photo. You may well be correct in that the square format emphasises other shapes within it and so forth. It is a great photo and I care little whether it is square or otherwise. I value it.
Cheers Ole

[John 2]

I can't remember the 1:1 version Donald so I won't even try to make the comparison but what strikes me immediately in this version is the beautiful tonality. It's essential for a fine art finish like this. Nice work.