Exercise 14 – Cropping

For this exercise I’ve selected three images taken in the Masai Mara in 2002, using an Olympus E20.

 This group of zebra present a mediocre image – they’re lost in a big landscape.

By selecting a smaller part of the image and using a ‘letterbox’ crop, the group can still be the main subject, but a lot of unwanted detail can be removed. The crop can be tilted to make the animals fit the frame better.

The image is now much more about the zebra. They’re obviously still on the plains but without the distractions. They also look to be nearer to the camera.

This view of flamingos at Lake Nakuru has far too much going on. The eye is distracted to look at the birds in the air and on the far shore. The reflections look interesting but they need to be isolated.

Another ‘letterbox’ crop can cut out the distracting birds and shoreline. Again the image can be ‘straightened’.

With this crop the birds and their reflections are now the centre of attention. It has made the image less cluttered.

This group of wildebeest are lost against the sky, which takes the attention away from them. The slope on the horizon is also distracting.

With yet another ‘letterbox’ crop, much of the sky can be discarded, to leave the animals more in the picture. I tried a squarer crop, to include more of the sky, but it just didn’t work as well as this format.

This crop has taken out dark areas in the sky and foreground; The sky seems lighter; The horizon is now level and I think the image is much more pleasing.

 Looking for images within an image is obviously well worth doing. It can concentrate one’s focus and create more interesting pictures.

Exercise 13 – Vertical and Horizontal Frames

 These images were taken at Brodsworth Hall, South Yorkshire, using the D300s with the Nikkor 18 – 200 VR lens. The camera was hand held in programme mode.

The first 20 images were taken in Portrait orientation, with the second 20 in Landscape format of the same vistas.

 

These contact sheets were processed in Adobe Bridge, and then converted to JPEGs in Photoshop.

 

I’m probably going too far with this, but I think it’d be a good exercise to compare the results of the two formats for each scene.

The obvious portrait format would be the one to use for this statue, but I think the landscape format gives a better sense of perspective and place.

 The portrait format for this view is more pleasing to me. It gives more of the feeling of distance – please ignore the manhole cover in the foreground (I’ll clone it out later!)

These trees suit the portrait format, as it enhances the line of the trunks and gives more of an impression of height.

Again, the portrait format works best, accentuating the form of the large topiary shape and using the hedges to frame it. The landscape image takes in too much of the hedges, which I think are quite uninteresting.

I’m not happy with either of these images, probably because they’re both quite flat and have too much distortion due to the wide angle lens. 

Portrait format is better here, accentuating the verticals and hiding some of the other ‘distracting’ topiary shapes.

On balance I think the portrait version is best on the basis that ‘less is more’ The landscape version has too much going on to give a point of focus whereas the vertical format leads the eye to the tiered shrub in the background.

The lady gardener is somewhat lost in the horizontal format image, but I find this format more pleasing, due to the variety of colours which have not been caught in the portrait image.

The simplicity of the portrait format pleases me more here. In the landscape image the eye is drawn to the leaning tree in the foreground and the additional detail detracts from the fountain, which is obviously the point of interest in the image.

Looking back towards the hall I prefer the portrait format again, as the lines leading to the house are more prominent. Also I’m not happy with the slope of the horizon which is more pronounced in the landscape format.

I deserve to be taken out and thrashed for spoiling this image – it should have been taken so that everything is symmetrical, just by moving further back and to the right. As they stand the landscape is slightly better as the hall isn’t obscured as much.

See what I mean? With this laburnum archway the landscape format works better by framing the hall better. In the portrait format the laburnum takes up too much of the image.

I think the landscape format works better for this view of the Japanese garden too. It makes the road look longer, by including more of the ivy fence.

The vertical format tells the viewer that this plant is perched on a ledge, whereas the landscape format just shows it growing in gravel.

The eye is drawn towards the folly much better in the portrait format. The lines of the steps and the road are not distracted by the extra detail that is evident in the landscape format.

The vertical format image doesn’t feel as ‘warm’ as the landscape image. Maybe it’s because the white sky and haze in the trees makes the portrait format seem cooler, or maybe it’s just that there are more warm colours if the horizontal image. Whatever the reason, the landscape format is more inviting.

Back to the hall again where the portrait image accentuates the height of the building and also cuts out some of the blocked of windows that are seen in the landscape format.

This one works better in landscape where the regressing line of dogs gives much more feeling of depth.

I think I prefer the vertical format here. I can’t say why, but it’s probably due to the composition which is better presented on the thirds (wash my mouth out!)

The portrait format gives more of an impression of height. The image in the landscape view looks more defined, but it may be just due to the closer zoom being used.

 So that was a good exercise. It makes me think a bit more about the camera angle, although I think I’ve varied it quite naturally before this.