portraits

[chauncey]

I'm trying to turn some of my bird images into portraits...as an example



How tight would you'll crop a bird for a portrait shot?

[FrankMi]

How tight would you'll crop a bird for a portrait shot?

Hi Chauncey, if you mean a typical 'head and shoulders' portrait, I think that owing to the long face and even longer neck, that it would be difficult to crop this image very much without it looking choppy. On the other hand, birds with more rounded faces and shorter necks, like Macaws wouldn't be a problem.

[Stagecoach]

With this image about this crop. You could possibly remove up to a third from the left hand side.

Grahame

[IzzieK]

No Bill, I disagree...I love the selective lighting and the position of the bird. The front represents the space he is moving to and the top and bottom are balanced as it is...love it! I'd print it if this is mine.

[Mike Buckley]

Stunning. Don't change a thing.

[DanK]

I agree on two counts: it is a stunning image, and I would not crop from the left at all. Negative space in front of a moving subject is appealing. However, I would experiment with cropping a very small amount from the top, to make the bird less centered. I haven't tried it, so I am not sure it would work, but I would try it and see.

One other question (not an answer)--given how little detail there is in the background, would it look better if the background were turned into pure black, rather than a mottled black? It's not all that hard to do if you use photosop. Select the black by color in a new layer, making sure that you don't inadvertently select anything else. Add a levels adjustment turning the selected area fully black.

In any case, it is a great image.

[Stagecoach]

With this image about this crop. You could possibly remove up to a third from the left hand side.

Just realised this may have been interpreted incorrectly,

For 'about this crop' read as this crop is good.

For 'possibly remove a third from the left' read as it would be possible to remove up to a max of a third of the negative space between the end of the beak and the left edge if really wanted, but personally I would not.

Grahame

[Geoff F]

I would crop slightly from the left side. Possibly reduce the current 'blank space' on the left by as much as a quarter, or a little less; and to keep the same size ratio, split that amount between the top and bottom.

For me, I tend to regard wildlife shots in the same way as portraits of people. That is to say, 'What would I do if this was a person portrait'.

I think that going to 4 x 5 ratio would be too tight. Although cropping 5 x 4 ratio which would retain the same left side space but lose from top and bottom is a possible alternative.

[Colin Southern]

If it were me, I'd ...

[chauncey]

Cropping is valid but, consider for a moment, some dodging and burning, to give the appearance of light from the left fading off to the right as done with this one...almost like a spotlight.



Colin, which is conventional for a portrait...facing left or right?

[IzzieK]

I see that Colin changed the direction of the bird. I love it very much...he had done a good job of how it should be shown too. (and I am continuing to type here without too much problem..My pooter must be getting used to this site by now.. )

[Colin Southern]

Colin, which is conventional for a portrait...facing left or right?

I don't think there's any hard and fast rules - just 'tog preference really.

I do most of mine with the subject looking to camera left.

In the case of the bird though, I thought the head/beak gave a better lead out to the right, with a better implied direction of travel (left to right).

[John 2]

Love the idea William, it works very well. Colin's version is an improvement I think simply because he has reversed the direction. For some reason, it seems to be an accepted fact that left to right is more satisfying - why, I have no idea but it works for me. Not one of those so called rules of composition, just part of the human psych (apparently).

[Colin Southern]

For some reason, it seems to be an accepted fact that left to right is more satisfying - why, I have no idea but it works for me.

Possibly to do with the fact that we read left to right and are used to evaluating things that way.

[Mike Buckley]

I still prefer Chauncey's version especially because of the background.

Possibly to do with the fact that we read left to right and are used to evaluating things that way.

Not all cultures read from left to right.

[Downrigger]

I think the original is great. I like the idea of the minimum artifice to get the job done, and have no problem with right to left and wonder if it doesn't have some power and impact derived from countering our reader expectations.

I think the amount of crop might need to be tailored to the size of the image (print). Beautiful with a lot of negative space if a big print on a big wall. As an 8x10 dressser topper it might be better with more bird and less black.

[Colin Southern]

I still prefer Chauncey's version especially because of the background.

I'm confused Mike - Chauncey's is a completely different image and on the same (black) background.

Not all cultures read from left to right.

For sure - but mine does, which is why I processed the shot in a way that appealed most to me.

[chauncey]

I think the amount of crop might need to be tailored to the size of the image (print). Beautiful with a lot of negative space if a big print on a big wall. As an 8x10 dressser topper it might be better with more bird and less black.

Interesting...that is something that had never occurred to me.

[IzzieK]

And also I might hazard to add, even in design and placement of objects, if you tend to put the tallest object left to right, it looks more pleasing, e.g., a tall vase, then a medium similar shaped object, then the smallest at the end....

Possibly to do with the fact that we read left to right and are used to evaluating things that way.

[Mike Buckley]

I'm confused Mike - Chauncey's is a completely different image and on the same (black) background.

Not on my monitor. Chauncey's background has a mottled look throughout the entire background. Not so with your version.