Autumn Cottonwoods, Fog (2) ........

[LenR]

Another capture from the same morning as the earlier post.
Canon 5D series ISO400, 200mm @f9 1/30s

[Wavelength]

Immersive beauty....

[DanK]

Also very nice.

[Tom Barry]

Nice and moody. Well done.

[Manfred M]

Another nicely executed image with an interesting mood. I find shots in fog hard to execute because balancing the fog with other aspects of the shot are challenging. I do find the image is just a bit "hot" for my personal taste.

[LenR]

My thanks to Nandakumar, Dan, Tom & Manfred for their input.
Attached for comparison is an image captured at the same location 10 days earlier with foliage in transition.

[moroccanimager]

I'd be inclined to crop the fog photo bringing in from the left up until the top small tree and also from the right by a 1.5cm as we see it. That makes a 5x4 which on the crop I made looks good. You may then want to clone out the top left small tree and cool the fog a little to bring out some blue tones.

[LenR]

Hi Darren, appreciate your comments. I created a virtual copy with the crop suggested. This has possibilities although I may be inclined to take a little off the foreground as well.

[moroccanimager]

Losing some foreground also works nicely, more 4:3 ratio. As a general rule I always recommend cropping to established aspects ratios. We are more attuned to seeing these. Going slightly off square for example looks uncomfortable.

[DanK]

Losing some foreground also works nicely, more 4:3 ratio. As a general rule I always recommend cropping to established aspects ratios. We are more attuned to seeing these. Going slightly off square for example looks uncomfortable.

I have to disagree. Occasionally I impose a conventional aspect ratio to save money on a frame, but for serious work, I never pay the slightest heed to standard ratios and let the image dictate the aspect ratio instead. I can't recall a single time that I have received a negative comment as a result. The negative comments I've received about cropping--and I've received a great many--have all been based on the characteristics of the image, not deviations from a standard ratio.

I suppose that something just slightly off square might seem odd, but it would have to be only a slight deviation. I've never had that happen to me. For example, one of my most successful images this year has an aspect ratio of 1.26:1.

On the other hand, this does mean custom frames for everything, and that does get pricey.

[moroccanimager]

Well an image that's not quite square and just off looks to me like the photographer has just missed the mark but the issue of aspect ratios relates more to the series or set rather than one-offs. If I visit a page of images from one photographer and the aspect ratios are all slightly different or bespoke, then it looks to me like the photographer is not in control of location composition. Again it also depends if the set are supposed to relate to each other. It's also about where you are coming from. I've always worked to the in-camera frame as I enjoy the discipline on location but I do still make slight crops, particularly for portraits or in 5x4. I think along the way I'm influenced by contemporary photographers who present a consistent aspect ratio although historically this was not always the case. Many of the greats cropped to suit but as a teenager viewing some of these 'odd crops' didn't work so well for me. It's worth a bit of research to see how many of the top contemporary photographers are using aspect ratios.

[DanK]

If I visit a page of images from one photographer and the aspect ratios are all slightly different or bespoke, then it looks to me like the photographer is not in control of location composition.....I've always worked to the in-camera frame as I enjoy the discipline on location but I do still make slight crops,

To be clear, I'm not offering you advice about what you should do. I'm just responding to the advice that you gave Len because it would impose on him what I consider an unnecessary and often counterproductive constraint.

I can see why keeping a consistent aspect ratio makes sense for some series, although I've personally never created a series for which it would make sense. But I see no reason whatever to be constrained by the aspect ratio of the camera, which is an entirely arbitrary ratio created by someone who obviously couldn't have in mind the scene you face or the image you want to create from it. I shoot both FF and MFT. Should I compose a photo differently based on which camera I took out of the bag? Or should I compose it to look like I want it to and trim off any excess--which would be different for the two cameras? The discipline I look for is getting the composition to look as I want, not getting it to fit an arbitrary ratio.

I'll make this concrete. I took the following image with an MFT, only because it was the only camera I had with me.



The MFT sensor's aspect ratio is of course 4:3. This image is about 4:2.25. Should I get rid of some of the roof on one side to make it 4:3, or add more at the bottom? No one has ever suggested either to me, even though this image has been seen by a lot of people, in print as well as on line. And if I had shot it with my FF, which would have been my choice if I had had it with me, would you say that I should add less at the bottom to get it to 3:2 rather than 4:3? Of all of the people who have commented to me about this image, none asked what the aspect ratio of the sensor was. It's unimportant. What's important is their opinion of the image.

So, Len, my advice is simpler: crop so that it looks good to you. People here will often throw in helpful suggestions about how they would do that. I've received a lot of good suggestions along those lines from people here. But I wouldn't worry about fitting arbitrary, "standard" aspect ratios.

[moroccanimager]

Hi Dan,

On your image, I much prefer your squarer landing page version on your website rather than the one posted, as the former directs my eye towards the structures which are the central interest. It works really well. I'm not sure folk are able to articulate their feelings about AR. You'd probably have to show both to get an insight there.

I look at the AR I am using at the time, as my window on the world. I like that constraint. Working to the camera frame can improve compositional approaches in the field. If we get into the mindset that we can always fix in post than I think we can get into some bad habits. Having said that we can learn a lot from cropping on the computer which can help out future field compositions.

Pre-visualising as you mention is fine but it’s not easy to see beyond the frame. What I sometimes do is to tape off the viewing screen to match an AR so I'm not limited by the camera’s sensor. For example, switching my 4:3 to 5:4. Then I can check my composition on location, so I’m still framing for a way of seeing but as you suggest not one set by the manufacturer. I’d offer the same advice for shooting b&w, much better to have the JPEG view in mono and keep the RAW for working on later.

There are many advocates for discipline shooting; one lens, one AR. The reasons are that the photographer gets to really understand their craft. It’s not the only way of working but it’s useful for a beginner who has so many other choices to think about. I’m also coming from the approach that the frame on location is that window that we begin to make sense of place through. It really sharpens compositional approaches plus there’s a tremendous kick in seeing that play out. For me photography is rarely about audience reaction, in fact it’s very low on the motivational list. As a rule I don't enter competitions and only seek confirmation from certain people. I’m more interested in my own journey. Here’s an attached gallery which hopefully shows that some compositions could only have been made working to a frame on location.


http://essaouiraimages.viewbook.com/album/salinity

[Manfred M]

Darren - this is an area of photography where there is no consensus.

Many photographers have strong opinions on this topic and it varies wildly with some photographers working to a very strict view on an appropriate aspect ratio, while others look at the it from a standpoint of cropping the image so it works for them and not paying any attention to the actual crop ratio. I had one photography instructor at college that strongly disliked square crop and his students quickly learned that submitting images cropped that way was a fast way of losing marks.

I was at a presentation by a nationally highly regarded photographer just before the COVID-19 shutdown and I asked him about what his view on cropping is. "It don't crop" and much of his output is print. I know some competitive photographers crop to the screen format in juried competitions of digital images, to ensure that their image fills the screen.

Like Dan, I do a lot of prints, so my default approach is to stick with standard print based aspect ratios. In Canada, even though the country has been using the metric system for around 50 years, we are still working with old standards for picture frames and mats; 5"x 7", 8" x 10", 11" x 14", 16" x 20", etc. Going non-standard means buying custom frames (I cut my own mats). I tend to try to work my images so that these standard sizes work. If they don't I will go custom size.

If I create a body of work, they tend to follow the same format and orientation, much the same as you suggest. The consistency is part of what links the images as a body. just as much as a consistency of theme and processing. As an example, for a body of work I would not mix B&W and colour images.

[DanK]

Darren,

Some very nice images. I think I prefer the color in general because of the interesting color contrasts.

I much prefer your squarer landing page version on your website rather than the one posted, as the former directs my eye towards the structures which are the central interest.

Well, from your portfolio, it's clear that you like square crops. I l like square or near-square crops for some images, but I don't like that image in a square crop; it looks cramped to me. Of course, square isn't keeping to the original camera's AR either. Here is the original:



Re the shoot-only-with-one-lens argument: that's never made sense to me. I did shoot with only one lens for a long time when I started, for the simple reason that I couldn't afford a second one. Zooms were not very good back then, so to have any flexibility, I had to wait until I could afford a second lens. It didn't facilitate my learning. It simply made fewer images possible and frequently frustrated me.When newbies ask me what lens they should start with, I tell them to start with a kit lens. That at least gives them some flexibility.

For me photography is rarely about audience reaction, in fact it’s very low on the motivational list.

I agree in part; my major motivation is trying to create an image that pleases me. However, I do enter competitions, and I used other venues as well to request comments. I do this in substantial part because I often get useful criticisms or suggestions, but also because it is enjoyable to have a successful image recognized and appreciated. It's much like music: there is an intrinsic pleasure in mastering a difficult piece, but most musicians I have known greatly enjoy a positive audience reaction. But to each his or her own.

Dan

[moroccanimager]

Hi Dan

On the lens choice, likewise I recommend kit lenses for beginners so they can understand perspective; etc. but the downsides are that the middle part of the zoom is often bypassed. Prime lenses probably suit down the road in learning when a photographer has favoured a wide or tele approach and then can work to that around a couple of lenses.

On the squarer crops, someone asked Jem Southam why he shot 5x4 and he said it looks more expensive. Personally I use that ratio as it's established in film stock and tank processing. I prefer 4:3 for verticals.

I think the processing on your shot makes a difference on the 'cramped' look. RE the salt series, the colour was inserted as an afterthought as I imagine they would appear in a book. Still I've yet to decide on the sequence. In terms of mixing colour and b&w as David suggested, I would readily agree that it often asks too much of the viewer. Having said that my eyes became open to the possibility when I saw this gallery from https://www.stevesmithphotography.ne...o-city-arizona, A real master of composition is Steve and he convinced me to go down the 5X4 route. His mix series really works as the subjects are so very different.

[Manfred M]

On the squarer crops, someone asked Jem Southam why he shot 5x4 and he said it looks more expensive.

Something that an old film shooter might think. When I mention 4 x 5 format to people who got into serious photography in digital, they don't understand. I was never particularly enamored with that format in my film days. I've always found the format somewhat arbitrary and awkward; I far preferred the 5 x 7 aspect ratio.

https://www.stevesmithphotography.net/colorado-city-arizona[/URL], A real master of composition is Steve and he convinced me to go down the 5X4 route. His mix series really works as the subjects are so very different.

He does have a good eye, but this genre that is popular in the academic fine art circles has never quite struck me as something I want to see on my wall. While I can understand the underlying basis of the post-photographic genre, I find it has a voyeuristic aspect to it, even when there are no people in the shot. I await the day when someone puts together a book on images from security cameras.

[DanK]

Leaving aside the issues of post-photography and the quality of Jem Southam's work (mixed, IMHO, for what little that's worth), I'm still completely befuddled by why one would choose an aspect ratio because it matches one of several large-format film formats used nearly a century ago, rather than based on how well it suits the image. It is the case that if one wants a particular aspect ratio, one can hunt for scenes that work with it, but why discard all the others?

I'll give one more example:



This is--completely by chance--very close to the native aspect ratio of a FF camera. More precisely, it's 1.44:1. Why? I was walking on the shore of a lake early on a very cloudy morning, and I was struck by these pickerel weeds. Often, they grow in dense clusters that make it hard to see the graceful form. This was a beautiful (to me) exception. So, I climbed onto a rock at the shoreline and I took several shots. I decided in post how to frame them, that is, how much negative space would highlight the forms. That determined the aspect ratio. This is what I ended up with. If the cluster had been longer or shorter, side to side, I would have used a different aspect ratio.

[xpatUSA]

I'd be inclined to crop the fog photo bringing in from the left up until the top small tree and also from the right by a 1.5cm as we see it. <>

That should read "as I see it" because "we" may have different monitors with different diagonals and different dpi. So your 1.5cm could be cropping a different percentage of the image on other people's monitors. Not only that, I have FireFox set to 150% for this website, so a post view for me is quite wide in cm.

Just sayin' ...

[Wavelength]

Leaving aside the issues of post-photography and the quality of Jem Southam's work (mixed, IMHO, for what little that's worth), I'm still completely befuddled by why one would choose an aspect ratio because it matches one of several large-format film formats used nearly a century ago, rather than based on how well it suits the image. It is the case that if one wants a particular aspect ratio, one can hunt for scenes that work with it, but why discard all the others?

I'll give one more example:



This is--completely by chance--very close to the native aspect ratio of a FF camera. More precisely, it's 1.44:1. Why? I was walking on the shore of a lake early on a very cloudy morning, and I was struck by these pickerel weeds. Often, they grow in dense clusters that make it hard to see the graceful form. This was a beautiful (to me) exception. So, I climbed onto a rock at the shoreline and I took several shots. I decided in post how to frame them, that is, how much negative space would highlight the forms. That determined the aspect ratio. This is what I ended up with. If the cluster had been longer or shorter, side to side, I would have used a different aspect ratio.

I think this is half image-half reflection in water body; but why in many places reflection is not retro-identical with the object?