Autumn Time II

[Javier]

[Shadowman]

Nice effort.

[Manfred M]

I'm going to make exactly the same comment as on your last posting. There is far too much space above your subject's head that is not adding anything to the composition. A similar crop to what I suggested last time would work. If you want, you could crop right into the subject's hat.

[rpcrowe]

Another shot of this absolutely lovely young lady. I think, however, that if it were mine; I'd process it along these lines...

[Hanginon]

I'm going to make exactly the same comment as on your last posting. There is far too much space above your subject's head that is not adding anything to the composition. A similar crop to what I suggested last time would work. If you want, you could crop right into the subject's hat.

I think what also exacerbates the OP's crops ($5 word, sorry) is that both have a very narrow crop ratio, even narrower than 5x7 - no space on the sides, or as in the other photo, almost no space on sides.

Is this a freehand crop ratio?

[Manfred M]

I think what also exacerbates the OP's crops ($5 word, sorry) is that both have a very narrow crop ratio, even narrower than 5x7 - no space on the sides, or as in the other photo, almost no space on sides.

Is this a freehand crop ratio?

Actually it looks like what Javier has posted is simply an uncropped image that has come out of the camera. This ratio's history has its roots in the 35mm camera. Prints, which is what we traditionally think of when looking at portraits, were determined by photographic paper sizes, which never had the same height to width ratio as film / sensor sizes. These tended to be closer in the height to width ratio than film / sensors.

This issue has more to do with how the image was framed than the aspect ratio of the image that we see. There is no "rule" that suggest a particular height to width ratio for portraits.

[Hanginon]

Actually it looks like what Javier has posted is simply an uncropped image that has come out of the camera. This ratio's history has its roots in the 35mm camera. Prints, which is what we traditionally think of when looking at portraits, were determined by photographic paper sizes, which never had the same height to width ratio as film / sensor sizes. These tended to be closer in the height to width ratio than film / sensors.

You are probably correct.

This issue has more to do with how the image was framed than the aspect ratio of the image that we see. There is no "rule" that suggest a particular height to width ratio for portraits.

I know there is no "rule", but in IMHO, anything with a ratio higher than 5x7 (like uncropped 35mm) has always felt too narrow when used vertically for portraits.

[Manfred M]

I know there is no "rule", but in IMHO, anything with a ratio higher than 5x7 (like uncropped 35mm) has always felt too narrow when used vertically for portraits.

Look at a 3/4 or full length shot. They often look a bit strange in one of the "standard" crops and can be effective as a full-frame shot. Head shots, head and shoulder shots, I tend to agree with you.