Archived posting to the Leica Users Group, 2011/12/24
[Author Prev] [Author Next] [Thread Prev] [Thread Next] [Author Index] [Topic Index] [Home] [Search]The 4th one is the winner to me... On Sat, Dec 24, 2011 at 7:54 PM, Howard Ritter <hlritter at bex.net> wrote: > Hello All? > > I'm planning to enter my first show ever, the annual Healing Arts show put > on by and for the local medical community in March next year, open to > entries from the graphic arts. I selected a photo I took at Pictured Rocks > National Lakeshore of Lake Superior on the UP of Michigan on a short trip > there last year. The subject is a wave breaking on a multilayered sandstone > shorline. (OK, OK, I can hear your eyes rolling now. What new way is there > to show a wave breaking on a shore? Well, I think this is one.) Because the > purpose of the trip was not to go to Pictured Rocks or to take photographs, > I wasn't expecting to encounter any subject that would benefit from FF, so > the only camera I took was my Lumix GF1. Lesson learned (not for the first > time). The GF1 is a great little camera, but the degree of the crop here > really would have benefitted from the larger sensor and greater number of > photosites of a FF camera. > > The viewpoint is an observation platform about 300 feet above the water, > at the top of a nearly vertical cliff, explaining the perspective. I have > uploaded four photos to the Gallery ( > http://gallery.leica-users.org/v/hlritter/Fotos/). One is the full frame, > taken at 45mm (90 equiv) containing a good deal of foreground shrubbery. I > started to crop down to clean the worst of this out, but as I worked, I > realized that the picture works best (for me) as an almost abstract > composition with the shore, the breaking wave, and the colors of the lake > bottom forming a nicely proportioned and colorful array. I think this is an > unusual perspective for this subject, and is the reason why I think it's > worth showing. The other three are crops. > > The first photo is the full frame. The second is the largest crop I could > get that contained only a small amount of foreground clutter that I could > PS out (some of which I've already done) and preserved all of the green > water. The problem with the core crop is that I don't like the near-square > proportions much?but I like all of the parts of the composition. The other > two are crops in conventional print proportions, each using one of the full > dimensions of the core crop. The 11x14 is the proportion I find most > pleasing, but even though it occupies the full horizontal dimension of the > core crop, it leaves out a lot of the beautiful green waters and some > shoreline detail. The 8x10 is about as near-square as I find pleasing to > look at, and includes all the water, but its portrait orientation is at a > right angle to the flow of the picture elements. But I don't think that's a > deal-killer, and the 8x10 may be better in that it comes closer to > conforming to the rule of thirds. And I like the off-center location of the > most prominent part of the wave in the 8x10 crop, as well as the inclusion > of more interesting texture and detail on the shore. Right now I favor the > 8x10. > > I'd appreciate C&C, especially on what might look best framed and on a > wall?the square core crop, the 8x10, or the 11x14. Or any other cropping > and proportioning suggestions. > > Thanks in advance. Merry Christmas (and Happy Hanukkah) to all, and to > all a good night! > > ?howard > > > > _______________________________________________ > Leica Users Group. > See http://leica-users.org/mailman/listinfo/lug for more information > -- // richard <http://www.richardmanphoto.com>