Cropping and framing...newbie questions

[Jim Walczak]

Howdy Folks!
Ok, got a question for the old pro's here. How does one decide on cropping and framing for a picture? I'm sure this is probably almost an art unto itself, but are there any "rules of thumb" that should be kept in mind?

As an example, I uploaded a picture of a cute little girl on the beach that I took this afternoon to my gallery (titled "little girl on beach"), ...obviously there's "too much" in the picture and there's one or two different way's I could crop this, but I'm not really sure whats "best". I have a couple like this that I'm just not really sure where I should crop it at.

For "framing" my pictures...so far I'm pretty much just trying to do it by eyeballin the pic. Is there any set standard on how to apropriatly frame an image?

Also, semi-related...since we're talking digital pictures here (aka not getting 3x4 prints back from the 1 hour photolab), how does one decide on the best size for a picture? I know that part of this is dependant upon the application and where I intend to post it...like an astrophotography forum I post on has a file size upload limit of 100k...again looking for rules of thumb here.

I'm grateful for your collective wisdom, experience and opinions on this .

Bright Blessings & Gentle Breezes,
Jim

[Paul_OH]

Jim,
I'm no pro (actually fairly new to photography overall) but from what I've seen and read it's really an art with some technical input as well. The whole concept of cropping is to remove distracting elements from the main subject or to remove things that don't belong in the photo (eg telephone pole). I too take many photo's that are considered too busy which look great as a scene but have too many points of interest and just look confused. It may still be a pleasing scene but technically it may have too many distractions. One of the things I found shooting digitally is you can always take many photos of the same scene and try some different perspectives to find out what works and what doesn't, delete what you don't like and move on. I hope this helps somewhat but remember, if you like it then that's what's important.

Paul

[JCW3]

I tend to recommend do your work with the camera and not the cropping tool. This will allow you to get a little better quality image in the end.

But sometimes it just does not work out and thats when cropping can be very useful.

Composition is really a "learned" art. Some people find it much more natural, but its something you will have to work with. I may recommend a few compositional books, they tend to really aid alot of nice info.

But I would recommend the rule of thirds, sweet spots, DOF, and such. By isolating the subject and makeing the background less distracting, one can make it more impactful.

In your case with the girl, its a nice image. But you may have been able to move down lower and get a differant angle. Also watch distractive items such as the red sign on the left side. Then play with your dof to make you subjects stand out from the rest of the photo.

[Jim Walczak]

Thanks Guys,
Generally I do try and "frame" the shots with the camera when I can. The pic of the little girl was just one of those moments...she was walkin past me as I was seting up a different shot and I just thought she was adorable. The picture didn't really capture the moment anyways...she was all bundled up, shivering as she came out of the lake and just looked very cute and maybe a little sorryful :-)

Another part of my problem is simply that I'm not really comfortable shooting people candidly yet. I know thats very much an art unto itself...and having a second or too lag between when you click the button and when the picture actually takes doesn't help either (you kinda loose the moment I guess). I've done some portrait stuff here at home for my old band, but shooting candids is really a different thing altogether.

Paul, actually I was doing the delete thing quite a bit last night...was tryin to get some pics of a young kitten on the beach playing with a feather...it was a riot needless to say, but out of 20+ pic's I think I only kept 5 (and none of them really caught the moment). Having this ability on a digital camera versus film has always been a great plus for me...a lot less waisted photos. BTW...by your nick "Paul_OH", can I assume your in Ohio? Where abouts? I'm up here in Lorain :-)

Ok thanks again guys...guess I'll keep working at it. I'm starting to also realize that part of the definition of a "pro" is simply being able to get the shot pretty much every time as apposed to 1 or 2 great shots out of every 15-20! LOL!

Bright Blessings,
Jim

[JCW3]

Originally posted by Jim Walczak

I'm starting to also realize that part of the definition of a "pro" is simply being able to get the shot pretty much every time as apposed to 1 or 2 great shots out of every 15-20! LOL!

Jim

Funny you should say that, since many professional photographers such as Art Morris and John Shaw (professional nature photographers) say they feel good if they get 1 or 2 great photos a YEAR. But I guess everyone has thir own idea of what a good photo is.

[Paul_OH]

Ohio ?, no actually over here in Australia, OH is the first 2 letters of my surname. I agree with Jim on the number of photos expecting to keep. Back when I was a kid with a point and shoot I'd expect to keep every photo out of a roll and usually did (there were some pretty awful ones in there !). But nowadays would expect to keep 1/10 or 1/20 also.

Paul

[Jim Walczak]

JCW3...
Actually I had started to post a new thread with the question "what makes a "great" shot?" earlier then changed my mind on it thinkin it was maybe a bit too philosophical (LOL). As long as you mentioned it though...I realize there are -many- factors; lighting, angle, rule of thirds, timing, shadows, etc., as well as the techinical aspects of aperature, shutter speed, yadda, yadda, yadda. But what really makes the difference between a "good" shot and a "great" shot? I've been looking throught some books at the library on photography and while yes, some of the pics are absolutly amazing, there's others that really just leave me flat. To be honest, most of the pics that really impress me are usually...not always, but usually, from really nice or exotic locations. For instance some pics I was lookin at of the Grand Canyon...I mean really...the subject matter is just so incredible I would think it difficult to get a "bad" picture!

I know that my work has improved drastically (amazing how a decent camera will help!) and compaired with my earlier efforts, I've taken a few that really make me go "Wow!"...but I'm not sure if it's just that I'm easily impressed or not. I guess part of it is that I'm trying to decide which pic's of mine to put in a portfolio to go out "job hunting" with . I know what looks good to me but I'm not sure what would be impressive to a perspective employer. I've been out of work since August 02' and until recently we've been doing ok on what my wife makes. Unfortunatly, we've had a recent medical situation arrise and I need to find my butt a job here soon and before I settle on another line cook position, figure I'll put in some apps at some local studios and such...maybe see what turns up. Anyways, some of my more recent pics are "great" to me, but I'm not really sure how they rank in the real world...so to speak.

Paul...sorry for the mix up in location! LOL! Believe it or not I actually run into a lot of people online who are right in my area...thought it might have been the same with you. Actually, I'd -love- to see Australia someday! Between my photography stuff and my interest in astronomy alone, Australia would be such an ideal location for me (not to mention I -really- hate Ohio winters!). My only fear is that my wife, who's a serious nature lover, would go "bush" on me and I'd never see her again! LOL!

Anyways, thanks for the info and as always, I'm grateful for the insight , experience and wisdom! I hope most of that made sense...getting kind of tired and the thoughts are coming out a little random this evening.

Bright Blessings,
Jim

[JCW3]

Originally posted by Jim Walczak
JCW3...
Actually I had started to post a new thread with the question "what makes a "great" shot?" earlier then changed my mind on it thinkin it was maybe a bit too philosophical (LOL). As long as you mentioned it though...I realize there are -many- factors; lighting, angle, rule of thirds, timing, shadows, etc., as well as the techinical aspects of aperature, shutter speed, yadda, yadda, yadda. But what really makes the difference between a "good" shot and a "great" shot? I've been looking throught some books at the library on photography and while yes, some of the pics are absolutly amazing, there's others that really just leave me flat. To be honest, most of the pics that really impress me are usually...not always, but usually, from really nice or exotic locations. For instance some pics I was lookin at of the Grand Canyon...I mean really...the subject matter is just so incredible I would think it difficult to get a "bad" picture!

The big thing is everyone has differant taste, and what makes you smile my not make the next reader. Sometimes I have images that I feel are great, but at the same time thats often not the images that win or sell. Taste has alot to do with it.

But usually the one key factor that makes up a good image is LIGHTING. Look next time you reveiwing some images. Usually if the photo is good as far exposure, composition, and subject, then the next big factor is lighting.

I have seen many great photos that are trully great work, but if the lighting was not right then that photo just will not have that magical feel.

A good photo to me means that the photographer has did his/her best with the camera, nature has worked on there side by giveing nice lighting/backdrop, and the location gives off a nice matching backdrop. As you can see the photographer only plays a small part in this, location, lighting, and then timeing all comes into play. (but thats just my views on it, everyone usually has their own)