Surfer - does this crop work? (Page 2): I think that R. G.'s advice is very good. I would focus more on the negative space on the right--it makes this a more effective photograph. I...

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

R.G. wrote:

That advice is too simplistic. Yes, cropping in does increase focus on the subject by making it more prominent, but as you crop in you lose more and more context. There will be times when that is definitely not what you want. And yes, cropping in is one way to remove things that are not the subject, but non-subject stuff isn't always a distraction, and in addition to that it may be necessary for providing storytelling or context (don't forget that free space or open space can be part of the context). There is also the fact that it would be wrong to classify all non-subject things as unwanted distractions since some things are not as distracting as others (and therefore more tolerable).

Apart from that, there is no rule that says everything in a shot has to be subject oriented or subject related. It's perfectly acceptable to have non-subject stuff as additional interest.

Each situation will have its own optimal balance and it's up to the shooter/editor to weigh the need for subject prominence versus the need for context or storytelling, and to determine whether non-subject stuff is distracting or is it desirable as additional interest. Not every situation needs 100% exclusive focus on the subject.

In your posted shot you should be asking yourself how much prominence the subject needs. In the process of filling the frame with the subject you are breaking one of the other "rules" of composition, which is that it's usually better if the subject is not seen to be moving out of (or looking out of) the frame - which is what happens if the subject is too close to the edge of the frame or just too far beyond the centre of the frame.

A bit of open space in front of the surfer wouldn't go amiss either since it would be showing us what he's moving into. If you exclude something from the frame or if you have it too close to the edge of the frame you're implying that it's not important. If you don't give a moving subject space to move forward into you're implying that the forward movement isn't important.

You could also consider the fact that the surfer isn't competing for attention anyway since there's only him and the wave and the clear sea that he's moving towards.

That advice is too simplistic. Yes, cropping in d... (show quote)

I think that R. G.'s advice is very good. I would focus more on the negative space on the right--it makes this a more effective photograph. I would move the crop to give the surfer more empty space to travel into. If you have the option you may try to crop even less, using the same proportions. When I am not sure how to crop I make multiple copies of a photograph and then try different crops until I find the one that works for me.

anotherview Loc: California

This composition reflects the Fibonacci curve and employs the Rule of Thirds, for visual balance. It could tighten slightly by a diagonal crop from the lower-right corner.

zug55 wrote:

I think that R. G.'s advice is very good. I would focus more on the negative space on the right--it makes this a more effective photograph. I would move the crop to give the surfer more empty space to travel into. If you have the option you may try to crop even less, using the same proportions. When I am not sure how to crop I make multiple copies of a photograph and then try different crops until I find the one that works for me.

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

To me, the crop is insignificant to the large, distracting blown out areas within the photograph.
--Bob

Craigdca wrote:

Ken Rockwell says to crop into the subject as much as possible to remove distractions and to make the subject larger. The challenge with this photo is that normally I would want the surfer moving into the frame more than heading out, but I want to include more whitewater than blue.

Craigdca Loc: California

Hi Everyone, thank you for your responses here. I implemented your ideas in this new version of the 16x9 crop. Lowering the highlights reduced the blown out whites although I should try using a polarized filter next time, and desaturating the reds improved the skin tones dramatically. I also reduced the noise further and brought up the shadows. The idea to tighten up the crop from the bottom right seemed to help, and shifted the surfer to the left to take out more of the bright white water that pulled attention away from the surfer.

I'm only disappointed that there wasn't enough detail in the shadows when I snapped the camera. I'm also disappointed that I couldn't zoom in enough to fill the frame as you can see in the full image. I really appreciate that you took the time to share your knowledge that I can apply going forward.

In the meantime, here's the new cropped version and the full image for reference.

(Download)

Craigdca Loc: California

anotherview wrote:

Picture works as is compositionally. It captures a dynamic moment. Note the three graphic masses: white water, surfer, and green water to his left. This arrangement compels the eye.

KR has it right as a rule, as a guideline.

Thanks for your feedback on how I successfully composed it for a tight crop. His article was about winning contests by boldly emphasizing the subject. I like the concept for this stationary horse that had enough context immediately around it, but not sure if it worked for this surfer which is why I asked for UHH advice. The final answer seems to be: It depends on how it will be used. But with better tone and color.

Another tight-crop example
Another tight-crop example...

(Download)

rmalarz Loc: Tempe, Arizona

Craig, the composition is much improved, as the surfer is "heading" towards the center of the photograph. A classical approach. The highlights are stilll a bit "hot", but overall a definite improvement.
--Bob

Craigdca wrote:

Hi Everyone, thank you for your responses here. I ... (show quote)

Craigdca Loc: California

rmalarz wrote:

Craig, the composition is much improved, as the surfer is "heading" towards the center of the photograph. A classical approach. The highlights are stilll a bit "hot", but overall a definite improvement.
--Bob

Thanks for the follow up, Bob. It helps knowing I’m on the right track. I agree about the bright highlights and hopefully can get a better exposure without losing the shadows too much. The polarized filter might just do the job next time

anotherview Loc: California

From my experience with a polarized filter, I found this filter unfriendly to human skin tones.

Craigdca wrote:

Thanks for the follow up, Bob. It helps knowing I’m on the right track. I agree about the bright highlights and hopefully can get a better exposure without losing the shadows too much. The polarized filter might just do the job next time

Craigdca Loc: California

anotherview wrote:

From my experience with a polarized filter, I found this filter unfriendly to human skin tones.

You just saved me a wasted day. Should I also remove the UV filter? I don’t want weird reflections or sun flares.

anotherview Loc: California

Here we have the interesting subject of a surfer suspended between the contrast of the chaotic water and the smooth water. For their weight and mass, they balance each other.

Explosive white water appears to propel the surfer and his board to the right

The board edge, his right arm up to his head, and then down his back form a triangle that perception completes.

Another triangle forms along his right arm to his head and then along his left arm and hand, also completed by perception.

These implied geometric shapes produce their own compelling element within the frame.

The viewer, even if not a surfer, must sense the human shape in tension.

The act of motion serves as its own subject in this photograph.

Overall, the photograph nicely presents the spectacle of a lone man perched on a board by which he rides an ocean wave.

Craigdca wrote:

Hi Everyone, thank you for your responses here. I ... (show quote)

San Clemente Surfer -- edited
San Clemente Surfer -- edited...

Craigdca Loc: California

anotherview wrote:

Here we have the interesting subject of a surfer s... (show quote)

YES!!!

This is a powerful version of what I saw and felt! I see the triangles now that you’ve pointed them out and will look for these and other points and shapes when composing my shots. It will take patience that will be rewarded in the results.

Even though it breaks the classic guidelines of moving into the frame, I think it all works as it seemed to in the original square crop.

I’m open to seeing other ideas in this practical discussion.

CamB Loc: Juneau, Alaska

anotherview wrote:

Here we have the interesting subject of a surfer s... (show quote)

This is the best framing of the shot I have seen.
…Cam

Craigdca Loc: California

CamB wrote:

This is the best framing of the shot I have seen.
…Cam

Thanks for confirming, Cam. I’d add that it’s also the best lighting.

anotherview Loc: California

The UV filter supposedly filters the slight blue hue from an exposure outdoors. I keep one on all my cameras to protect the face of the lens. Your question may trigger some come comments.

Craigdca wrote:

You just saved me a wasted day. Should I also remove the UV filter? I don’t want weird reflections or sun flares.

zug55 Loc: Naivasha, Kenya, and Austin, Texas

Craigdca wrote:

Hi Everyone, thank you for your responses here. I ... (show quote)

Thanks for sharing the original file. Based on that I would suggest a crop that is not as tight. I think that the negative space on the right is quite dramatic.