Posted by Andy Astbury on December 8, 2012 at 7:20 AM
Cropping seems something of a topical under-current at the moment, so I just thought I'd jot down a few of my musings on the subject.
Why would an image need cropping; after all, everything we do to an image must have a purpose, point or reason..
Making a vertical crop from a horizontal image has always been something of a "sketchy" process simply because you are attempting to make the 'short side' of the image into the 'long side'.
If you are just using the image as a low resolution web jpeg then the exercise is usually unnoticed by the viewer, but if you send the image to print then it's another story.
A typical magazine cover is A4 vertical - 11.7" which equates to 3510 pixels @ 300dpi. Add to that a layout "wiggle room" factor and edge bleed, the vertical dimension of the required image exceeds 13", or 3900 + pixels @ 300dpi.
A 16Mb sensor image is typically sub 3300 pixels on its short side, a 12Mb sub 2900.
So no matter if the image is going to be used as a front cover, or it's just going to border less A4 desktop printing, if it's a vertical crop from a horizontal image then there's going to be a need for some up sampling somewhere in the production chain.
In the case of the cover layout, unless the image is of unique content, chances are it'll be swapped out for another; in the case of the desktop print an unscaled down sampling to perhaps 240 dpi might do the job.
Image quality and composition aside, the most valuable commodity a photographer has is the number of pixels contained in his or her archival images - the more the better, as more pixels equals more flexibility or print output or indeed commercial viability.
Cropping for aesthetics is where the brick pile starts to fall down !
Obviously, any degree of cropping begins to erode away the pixel count of the image - which is certainly not a good thing. If you shoot with a very large sensor you have more pixels to begin with, so you can 'get away' with it to a degree, but cropping an image should always be regarded as a limiting factor.
The aesthetic reasons for a particular crop should be apparent to "the viewer" and not just the photographer!
After all, the viewer has no clue as to what's going on inside the photographers head at the time he or she processes the finished image.
The square (or near square) crop is something of a contentious issue amongst certain photographers; and I must admit to not being a general fan myself, unless it's used in context.
The square crop can be an immensely powerful aspect ratio when used correctly and is very suited to images with a strong graphic, or a large degree of symmetry.
Old imperial paper size aspect ratios like 10x8 or 12x10 and 16" x 20" have always been slightly odd, they were disproportionate to 35mm negatives or transparencies which were a 1.5:1 aspect ratio, as indeed are most modern full frame dSLRs - though Canon seem to favour the slightly "boxier" 1.47:1 aspect ratio with their new 1Dx.
The aspect ratio of a finalised image is as important a component of that image as the overall composition, its colour and tonality, and its visual depth.
As a photographer one should bare in mind that aspect ratio is the limiting factor of the viewers effective field of view, or "window", onto your image. If the viewers eyes are being drawn towards the centre of the image then the squarer crop will work.
But if the image is "handed" and the viewers eye is drawn to one particular side or the other then the squarer lower aspect ratio crop has the effect of making the viewer feel as if they are looking at the image in a constrained manner, rather like looking at the image with tunnel vision.
The average viewers eye subconsciously follows lines in an image, if it can't find the lines readily it switches its attention to what it perceives to be the main focus of the image, and then looks to follow lines emanating from there.
Portrait style shots of animals have a key focal point to which the viewers eye will instantly move to - the eye of the subject. The viewers eye then uses the perceived axis of vision of the subjects eye to move into the rest of the image - this is the "eye-line" of the subject that is usually said to require the negative space or "looking room". Curtail that looking room with a squarer crop and we are back at the tunnel vision thing again.
Cropping and aspect ratio should therefore be seen as something that helps convey the photographers ideas and emphasise the visual ethos of said image; and in order to achieve this the aspect ratio, or crop if you like, must suit the context of the image.
Good read Andy with key notes! Appreciate the time taken to write this, which in turn, sheds light on points made.
Posted by David Taylor on December 8, 2012 at 11:43 AM
A line from Garden Party a 1972 hit song for Rick Nelson and the Stone Canyon Band springs to mind.
Posted by Andy Astbury on December 8, 2012 at 12:09 PM
Ahh, now you've got me guessing David .....
I'm not planning on covering any Dylan songs soon, so hiding in his shoes is out....
I'm also guessing Yoko hasn't brought me to the party so I'm not her Walrus, even though the wife thinks I look like one......
So I'll go for "you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself"..............
Posted by Nick Mckeown on December 8, 2012 at 12:31 PM
A lot of what you say is common sense Andy but what got me confused is the fact that whilst one image gets critiqued for its crop other images which clearly do not follow the aforementioned guidelines, do not. Here is another example of a squarish crop (12x10) and before anyone thinks "more space to the right is needed" go put a grid pattern on it (as I always do incidentally) and refer back to Andy's comments on centre of image. Now you may have a conundrum because whilst it seems unbalanced it isn't if you apply the aforementioned guidelines. Interested in peoples thoughts.
By the way I am not looking at picking a fight with anyone just trying to learn from this and David T has hit it on the head.
Nick.
Posted by John Robinson on December 8, 2012 at 1:26 PM
Nick
Sorry but my eyes still ask for more canvas on the right. I don't profess to know why- just the way I was brought up I,ve started looking at TV stuff a lot since this subject came up and they often overdo the "thirds" bit for impact.- and the newsreaders are usually in ther middle - so there you go- there is no answer.
Great article Andy and all very true. I would argue though that nature photography of MOVING subjects is a different ball game.
Thats why I allow for a crop in many cases before I take the shot ! You have to in my view.(PS I' m not on about a bug on a rock, or a flower in on a twig, by the way)
Just my method and personal view.
Thanks for the recent help by the way.
JR
Posted by David Taylor on December 8, 2012 at 1:50 PM
Spot-on, Andy.
An excellent 2½ D image, Nick. More than enough space for me as I like 'em BIF.
Nick, your crop works because the body of the main subject pretty much lies along one of the diagonals, and the eye and beak are not too far from the diagonal too, nor from the power/nodal 1/3 point.
Good starting points Andy .
Regarding cropping and subject positioning, In general, I simply look to see if the image is 'balanced' and 'harmonious' to the eye - if the eye finds it 'easy' to read the image and the eye can 'rest' easily without having to continually look around the image, then that image is fine. If the eye finds the image 'uneasy' to read and it needs to rove/bounce around looking for a point of focus, then the image needs changing. Of course, you can also use the 'uneasy' crops to increase the viewers unease/disquiet, or make or emphasise a particular point - depends on what you want to say with your imagery...
Posted by Andy Astbury on December 8, 2012 at 4:52 PM
I didn't see this previous image Nick - if I had then I'd have had the same question - great capture & processing, but what is the reasoning behind the aspect ratio?
To me it brings nothing to the table - like John I'm yearning for more space right. Perhaps I'm missing something..........
If I was able to see the uncropped image then perhaps I'd understand your pov a little better.
As I said at the beginning of my original post these are just my personal musings based on 1/3rd of a century flogging images.
Spider Nick is bang on with uneasy crops to heighten the viewers unease or disquiet - Tim Page and Don McCullin are two of my photographic heroes who were both great exponents of just such practice - but social documentary and war photography are hardly the same as tits on sticks; as I said before, due to the power and influence of the final crop it should be used in context with the image subject.
But at the end of the day Nick it's like i always say, you do what makes you happy - they're your images; just don't be quite so surprised when others all question the same thing - this is, after all, a critique forum.
JR - you touched on something quite interesting; comp for video doesn't always follow the same rules. If the contents of the frame are still then stills comps work fine, but if the frame is moving, say for instance panning a bird in flight, it's easier to view with the bird somewhat more central in the frame. Cross disciplining between stills and effective movie shooting can be really difficult and very few people can do it - Martyn Colbeck being just about the very best imo.
And you are spot on with the moving subject for still too - trying to shoot hand-held a favourite bird of Mr.Unwins ( ), a White-tailed Eagle stooping at god-knows what speed from a rolling boat is hard enough without trying to maintain an ROT comp; it can be done but by heck you need to have a few hundred in the can already before you try it, otherwise you'll be homeward bound with hundred of beaks and hundreds of tails and bloody in between bits!
Yep, when things get tricky like that go a bit more central and give yourself the wiggle room
Posted by Barry Southon on December 9, 2012 at 4:07 AM
Andy
A very interesting topic, most people seem to vary slightly their own interpretations. Maybe the explanation would be enhanced still further with an original then a an explained crop demonstrated.
Posted by Andy Astbury on December 9, 2012 at 6:33 AM
Nick, I hope you don't take umbrage at me doing this
Nick is a Nikon user so his sensor has an aspect ratio of 1.5:1
All I have done is re-pad the images, very crudely, back to their original aspect ratio and then thrown an RoT grid over them.
Now if I'd been shooting these then raw files would look pretty much like this as wherever possible I try to shoot the final comp in camera, thus minimising the need for cropping.
The negative spaces would improve both the images "viewability" and commercial value - that is a fact, not just my opinion.
An image that obeys either the Rule of Thirds or The Golden Mean will very rarely, if ever, illicit crop/comp/aspect ratio queries from other forum members, or anybody else come to that; simply because compositions based around either just sit so well in the viewers eye that the question never arises.
But, as I've said numerous times before guys, YOUR images are YOUR images and you can do with them exactly what you like.
This is a CRITIQUE forum however, so if you post an image with an element that "jars" with other forum members then it's a case of either taking the comments on board and changing the image, or justifying what you have done so that others can understand your actions and perhaps learn from them.
Again, I apologise to Nick if he feels I have over stepped the mark by reworking these 2 images - I've only done it Nick to try and illustrate my point.
Posted by Nick Mckeown on December 9, 2012 at 10:37 AM
Thanks Andy. Now perhaps you wouldn't mind explaining to me why you think Steve K's shot of the snowy owl works when there is clearly no negative space for the bird to look into? That way I might lose some of my confusion!
Nick.
Posted by Andy Astbury on December 9, 2012 at 11:57 AM
Nick, what you are most likely unaware of, is that I know Steve and his work well, and because he has a rep with me for not cropping very much at all but does sometimes get a bit close (look at his techs) I just assumed that was the case, and he'd taken a sliver off the left. So basically I assumed there was nothing he could do about the lack of "looking room" and he was stuck with it - no point telling someone to correct the impossible.
With a tight image I always personally feel that the eye should not pass the vertical centre line, that way the bird still has 50% of the frame width to "look into" - Steves image falls short of that somewhat.
Your Mrs.Blackbird gives more than 50% looking room, though your other image does not.
But looking room is NOT and NEVER has been the point with my initial comment on your blackbird shot, and I'm staggered that you think it ever was.
My single query was ASPECT RATIO - all I wanted to know was WHY you chose to crop so damn tight and squarish - that's all
You can crop the very bejesus out of an image and still maintain the original camera aspect ratio - the two are not the same.
Steve's image is tight, there was never a doubt about that, but he has maintained the original aspect ratio.
Your confusion over this Nick has me ....erm........confused
Posted by Nick Mckeown on December 9, 2012 at 12:34 PM
My confusion Andy is simple, my image receives critique for being "tight" as you put it and yet another image which is even tighter, does not. I have absolutely no problem with receiving criticism for my images in fact you can print as many of them off as you like and wrap your fish and chips in them if you so desire and it will not upset me, believe me. This however appears to me to be double standards and as you rightly say this is a critique forum, so critique it!
For the record I cropped the image because I like variety and if all images maintained the original ratio it would get pretty boring. The blackbird image works I believe because it looks balanced and there is very good eye contact with the subject and as I said what is wrong with a squarish crop if the image does not look out of balance?
Here you go Nick to show the ratio. Now the second post is FF.
Personally I like working to a set size 1024 x 724 (kind of magazine format A4, or DPS A3), but we all have our own favourite ratio format and Andy's comment about the Nikon is spot on. In addition, after 28 years in advertising and graphics running a highly successful agency, I kind of have a gut feeling on how I like things cropped, like we all do. Now looking at the FF I could have gone wider, but then I would have had too much sky as I wanted to avoid too much perch. Changing the crop was not for me and I still feel comfortable with the post, otherwise I would not have posted it.
This thread could run and run and we can all disagree, however the points Andy has made are very valid points, with solid foundations, stemming from a wealth of knowledge and some industry standards in my book.
As you say, this is a positive thread that people, if they want, can learn and understand from, and why people make the observations and comments they do. Just my take.
Posted by Nick Mckeown on December 9, 2012 at 2:32 PM
Thanks Steve, as you say this thread could run and run and everyone has their views and no one is right or wrong. This is a 12x10 crop and looks more balanced to my eyes with more space to the right of the bird and the eye more central and still leaving space above it. A squarish crop.
Thanks Nick, I think if anything, this thread illustrates how, as individuals, we ALL see things differently and how we interpret things. However, any you will know, I tend to have 'howevers', just try cropping next time in the manner Andy has illustrated. I'm not trying to bang on, but just occasionally try things, you may be surprised in what you see, and we NEVER stop learning.
Enjoy and, good luck.
Steve
Posted by Nick Mckeown on December 9, 2012 at 6:12 PM
Steve, just take a look at my posts and you will see that I do generally follow the so called rules but I also have many squarish crops too. It's nice to have a change now and again, we can all get stuck in a rut, and I crop to suit the image not to any set ratios.
Nick.
Posted by Andy Astbury on December 10, 2012 at 3:07 AM
Nick, go back and check your Blackbird thread; I never said it was "tight" at all, I just questioned your reasoning for the near square crop that's all
Here's my crop of Steve's owl from the full frame - it's not quite RoT but the centre 9th of the image is near perfect RoT; it's a commercial crop that gives plenty of room for overlay text etc:
However, if the image was mine I actually wouldn't crop it at all when submitting to stock; this gives the buyers maximum flexibility to do what they like in order to suit their purpose.
My stock sales numbers are well into 4 figures annually and I find the few 1:1 images I have in my catalogue only really end up selling to either websites or as CD covers, whereas the 1.5:1 images sell to all sectors of the stock market.
However, the print sales side of things is a different story and square crops sell equally as well - indeed, my second best selling print for 2012 is a square image.
But at the end of the day it all a case of "horses for courses" really and what sells 'sells' and what makes you happy 'makes you happy' - the two do not necessarily go together!
I have the same attitude as you Nick; you can indeed wrap your cod 'n chips in my images too - just as long as you've paid for them first!
Posted by Neil Burton on December 10, 2012 at 11:55 AM
I always try to keep the original aspect ration, using the shift key in PS crop tool to keep it so, then moving it if necessary to compose the subject. Many stock agencies ask for the original aspect ratio, knowing customers will crop if they find the need.
Posted by David Sewell on December 10, 2012 at 2:42 PM
This has been a great thread, and to me is what fora such as UKNP are all about. Great stuff Andy, and everybody else who has contributed.
David
Posted by Andy Astbury on December 10, 2012 at 4:11 PM
Cheers David - it's been interesting
Nick - we'll have to try and meet up near a chippy - I'll treat you to Cod 'n Chips matey, that hake bone is no damn good at all, so it'll be Cod, Chips 'n Mushy Peas all round
Posted by Nick Mckeown on December 10, 2012 at 4:17 PM
Your on Andy....I'll get the Dandelion and Burdocks!
Nick.
Posted by keith mitchell on December 11, 2012 at 3:29 PM
Andy thanks for starting this i have been reading this with great interest and found it very useful maybe i will make a decent job of my next crop
Just to add this has been an excellent tread and very though provoking.
I also guess that most pros, given the oportunity, will take a small subject mid level to the right for the cover, a small in the frame at the bottom right for the content page, a close up for the USA, a classic landscape etc (or is this all done in CS6)
However Andy is totally wrong...........................................Haddock all the way unless you are in Mallaig were i recomend the pint of langoustine.
All the best
Ian
Posted by Andy Astbury on December 13, 2012 at 3:36 AM
Shooting multiple comps Ian - bang on, assuming you get the chance of course.
Haddock - belongs smoked in Kedgeree, but the more you guys eat it and Hake then that just means more Cod for me
Langoustine - now there's a small but very famous restaurant in Gothenburg that has a rather unique way of delivering these to your table - only been once years ago, a return trip is now on the old bucket list
I LOVE COD, as indeed I do Cow and cured Pig - though I fear I consume far too much of the latter and not enough of the former!
Discussion
26 repliesWhy would an image need cropping; after all, everything we do to an image must have a purpose, point or reason..
Making a vertical crop from a horizontal image has always been something of a "sketchy" process simply because you are attempting to make the 'short side' of the image into the 'long side'.
If you are just using the image as a low resolution web jpeg then the exercise is usually unnoticed by the viewer, but if you send the image to print then it's another story.
A typical magazine cover is A4 vertical - 11.7" which equates to 3510 pixels @ 300dpi. Add to that a layout "wiggle room" factor and edge bleed, the vertical dimension of the required image exceeds 13", or 3900 + pixels @ 300dpi.
A 16Mb sensor image is typically sub 3300 pixels on its short side, a 12Mb sub 2900.
So no matter if the image is going to be used as a front cover, or it's just going to border less A4 desktop printing, if it's a vertical crop from a horizontal image then there's going to be a need for some up sampling somewhere in the production chain.
In the case of the cover layout, unless the image is of unique content, chances are it'll be swapped out for another; in the case of the desktop print an unscaled down sampling to perhaps 240 dpi might do the job.
Image quality and composition aside, the most valuable commodity a photographer has is the number of pixels contained in his or her archival images - the more the better, as more pixels equals more flexibility or print output or indeed commercial viability.
Cropping for aesthetics is where the brick pile starts to fall down !
Obviously, any degree of cropping begins to erode away the pixel count of the image - which is certainly not a good thing. If you shoot with a very large sensor you have more pixels to begin with, so you can 'get away' with it to a degree, but cropping an image should always be regarded as a limiting factor.
The aesthetic reasons for a particular crop should be apparent to "the viewer" and not just the photographer!
After all, the viewer has no clue as to what's going on inside the photographers head at the time he or she processes the finished image.
The square (or near square) crop is something of a contentious issue amongst certain photographers; and I must admit to not being a general fan myself, unless it's used in context.
The square crop can be an immensely powerful aspect ratio when used correctly and is very suited to images with a strong graphic, or a large degree of symmetry.
Old imperial paper size aspect ratios like 10x8 or 12x10 and 16" x 20" have always been slightly odd, they were disproportionate to 35mm negatives or transparencies which were a 1.5:1 aspect ratio, as indeed are most modern full frame dSLRs - though Canon seem to favour the slightly "boxier" 1.47:1 aspect ratio with their new 1Dx.
The aspect ratio of a finalised image is as important a component of that image as the overall composition, its colour and tonality, and its visual depth.
As a photographer one should bare in mind that aspect ratio is the limiting factor of the viewers effective field of view, or "window", onto your image. If the viewers eyes are being drawn towards the centre of the image then the squarer crop will work.
But if the image is "handed" and the viewers eye is drawn to one particular side or the other then the squarer lower aspect ratio crop has the effect of making the viewer feel as if they are looking at the image in a constrained manner, rather like looking at the image with tunnel vision.
The average viewers eye subconsciously follows lines in an image, if it can't find the lines readily it switches its attention to what it perceives to be the main focus of the image, and then looks to follow lines emanating from there.
Portrait style shots of animals have a key focal point to which the viewers eye will instantly move to - the eye of the subject. The viewers eye then uses the perceived axis of vision of the subjects eye to move into the rest of the image - this is the "eye-line" of the subject that is usually said to require the negative space or "looking room". Curtail that looking room with a squarer crop and we are back at the tunnel vision thing again.
Cropping and aspect ratio should therefore be seen as something that helps convey the photographers ideas and emphasise the visual ethos of said image; and in order to achieve this the aspect ratio, or crop if you like, must suit the context of the image.
I'm not planning on covering any Dylan songs soon, so hiding in his shoes is out....
I'm also guessing Yoko hasn't brought me to the party so I'm not her Walrus, even though the wife thinks I look like one......
So I'll go for "you can't please everyone, so you've got to please yourself"..............
By the way I am not looking at picking a fight with anyone just trying to learn from this and David T has hit it on the head.
Nick.
Sorry but my eyes still ask for more canvas on the right. I don't profess to know why- just the way I was brought up
Great article Andy and all very true. I would argue though that nature photography of MOVING subjects is a different ball game.
Thats why I allow for a crop in many cases before I take the shot ! You have to in my view.(PS I' m not on about a bug on a rock, or a flower in on a twig, by the way)
Just my method and personal view.
Thanks for the recent help by the way.
JR
An excellent 2½ D image, Nick.
Good starting points Andy
Regarding cropping and subject positioning, In general, I simply look to see if the image is 'balanced' and 'harmonious' to the eye - if the eye finds it 'easy' to read the image and the eye can 'rest' easily without having to continually look around the image, then that image is fine. If the eye finds the image 'uneasy' to read and it needs to rove/bounce around looking for a point of focus, then the image needs changing. Of course, you can also use the 'uneasy' crops to increase the viewers unease/disquiet, or make or emphasise a particular point - depends on what you want to say with your imagery...
To me it brings nothing to the table - like John I'm yearning for more space right. Perhaps I'm missing something..........
If I was able to see the uncropped image then perhaps I'd understand your pov a little better.
As I said at the beginning of my original post these are just my personal musings based on 1/3rd of a century flogging images.
Spider Nick is bang on with uneasy crops to heighten the viewers unease or disquiet - Tim Page and Don McCullin are two of my photographic heroes who were both great exponents of just such practice - but social documentary and war photography are hardly the same as tits on sticks; as I said before, due to the power and influence of the final crop it should be used in context with the image subject.
But at the end of the day Nick it's like i always say, you do what makes you happy - they're your images; just don't be quite so surprised when others all question the same thing - this is, after all, a critique forum.
JR - you touched on something quite interesting; comp for video doesn't always follow the same rules. If the contents of the frame are still then stills comps work fine, but if the frame is moving, say for instance panning a bird in flight, it's easier to view with the bird somewhat more central in the frame. Cross disciplining between stills and effective movie shooting can be really difficult and very few people can do it - Martyn Colbeck being just about the very best imo.
And you are spot on with the moving subject for still too - trying to shoot hand-held a favourite bird of Mr.Unwins (
Yep, when things get tricky like that go a bit more central and give yourself the wiggle room
A very interesting topic, most people seem to vary slightly their own interpretations. Maybe the explanation would be enhanced still further with an original then a an explained crop demonstrated.
Nick is a Nikon user so his sensor has an aspect ratio of 1.5:1
All I have done is re-pad the images, very crudely, back to their original aspect ratio and then thrown an RoT grid over them.
Now if I'd been shooting these then raw files would look pretty much like this as wherever possible I try to shoot the final comp in camera, thus minimising the need for cropping.
The negative spaces would improve both the images "viewability" and commercial value - that is a fact, not just my opinion.
An image that obeys either the Rule of Thirds or The Golden Mean will very rarely, if ever, illicit crop/comp/aspect ratio queries from other forum members, or anybody else come to that; simply because compositions based around either just sit so well in the viewers eye that the question never arises.
But, as I've said numerous times before guys, YOUR images are YOUR images and you can do with them exactly what you like.
This is a CRITIQUE forum however, so if you post an image with an element that "jars" with other forum members then it's a case of either taking the comments on board and changing the image, or justifying what you have done so that others can understand your actions and perhaps learn from them.
Again, I apologise to Nick if he feels I have over stepped the mark by reworking these 2 images - I've only done it Nick to try and illustrate my point.
Nick.
With a tight image I always personally feel that the eye should not pass the vertical centre line, that way the bird still has 50% of the frame width to "look into" - Steves image falls short of that somewhat.
Your Mrs.Blackbird gives more than 50% looking room, though your other image does not.
But looking room is NOT and NEVER has been the point with my initial comment on your blackbird shot, and I'm staggered that you think it ever was.
My single query was ASPECT RATIO - all I wanted to know was WHY you chose to crop so damn tight and squarish - that's all
You can crop the very bejesus out of an image and still maintain the original camera aspect ratio - the two are not the same.
Steve's image is tight, there was never a doubt about that, but he has maintained the original aspect ratio.
Your confusion over this Nick has me ....erm........confused
For the record I cropped the image because I like variety and if all images maintained the original ratio it would get pretty boring. The blackbird image works I believe because it looks balanced and there is very good eye contact with the subject and as I said what is wrong with a squarish crop if the image does not look out of balance?
Nick.
Personally I like working to a set size 1024 x 724 (kind of magazine format A4, or DPS A3), but we all have our own favourite ratio format and Andy's comment about the Nikon is spot on. In addition, after 28 years in advertising and graphics running a highly successful agency, I kind of have a gut feeling on how I like things cropped, like we all do. Now looking at the FF I could have gone wider, but then I would have had too much sky as I wanted to avoid too much perch. Changing the crop was not for me and I still feel comfortable with the post, otherwise I would not have posted it.
This thread could run and run and we can all disagree, however the points Andy has made are very valid points, with solid foundations, stemming from a wealth of knowledge and some industry standards in my book.
As you say, this is a positive thread that people, if they want, can learn and understand from, and why people make the observations and comments they do. Just my take.
Now, off to turn the Xmas lights on.
Nick.
Enjoy and, good luck.
Steve
Nick.
Here's my crop of Steve's owl from the full frame - it's not quite RoT but the centre 9th of the image is near perfect RoT; it's a commercial crop that gives plenty of room for overlay text etc:
However, if the image was mine I actually wouldn't crop it at all when submitting to stock; this gives the buyers maximum flexibility to do what they like in order to suit their purpose.
My stock sales numbers are well into 4 figures annually and I find the few 1:1 images I have in my catalogue only really end up selling to either websites or as CD covers, whereas the 1.5:1 images sell to all sectors of the stock market.
However, the print sales side of things is a different story and square crops sell equally as well - indeed, my second best selling print for 2012 is a square image.
But at the end of the day it all a case of "horses for courses" really and what sells 'sells' and what makes you happy 'makes you happy' - the two do not necessarily go together!
I have the same attitude as you Nick; you can indeed wrap your cod 'n chips in my images too - just as long as you've paid for them first!
David
Nick - we'll have to try and meet up near a chippy - I'll treat you to Cod 'n Chips matey, that hake bone is no damn good at all, so it'll be Cod, Chips 'n Mushy Peas all round
Nick.
Thanks Keith.
I also guess that most pros, given the oportunity, will take a small subject mid level to the right for the cover, a small in the frame at the bottom right for the content page, a close up for the USA, a classic landscape etc (or is this all done in CS6)
However Andy is totally wrong...........................................Haddock all the way unless you are in Mallaig were i recomend the pint of langoustine.
All the best
Ian
Haddock - belongs smoked in Kedgeree, but the more you guys eat it and Hake then that just means more Cod for me
Langoustine - now there's a small but very famous restaurant in Gothenburg that has a rather unique way of delivering these to your table - only been once years ago, a return trip is now on the old bucket list
I LOVE COD, as indeed I do Cow and cured Pig - though I fear I consume far too much of the latter and not enough of the former!