[…] this day last year: Boston again. Boston Recent posts on related topics:Tuesday January 19, 2010Wednesday November 18, 2009Tuesday […]
Hi Woody. Don’t know whether you saw this in the Leica thread on GetDPI, but here was my take on the various crops of this image you posted:
Interesting results from the varying crops. I agree with Tom about the tight crop, which tends to accentuate the contrast of the tree vs the formality of the building. The water on the building has a randomness that mirrors that of the tree, and I like that as well.
The second attachment, with more of the “back” visible creates a tension for me, that I can’t decide about. I appears that the front building is not level on the horizontal plane, but the line of the windows of the front structure seems to line up with the rear structure on the vertical plane. That is more apparent in the second crop vs your original. Also, the larger, washed out areas of sky in the second version are a little distracting, as the relative brightness of those areas draws the eyes away from the main subject. It’s true that there is some symmetry with the snow, but the effect really makes this a entirely different image than the tight crop, and suggests to me that maybe each of them stands alone as a successful image.
All that said, if I had to choose just one, I’d go for the tighter crop. Allowing the randomness of the tree, and of the water on the building, to be focus of the image seems stronger overall. In that version, the lines of the building just become a contrasting counterpoint to the the random lines, which makes the former all the more interesting. My $.02 worth anyway.
Here’s the tight crop that Lloyd is referring to:
Here’s the crop with more “back” that Lloyd mentioned:
4 replies on “Tuesday January 19, 2010”
[…] this day last year: Boston again. Boston Recent posts on related topics:Tuesday January 19, 2010Wednesday November 18, 2009Tuesday […]
Hi Woody. Don’t know whether you saw this in the Leica thread on GetDPI, but here was my take on the various crops of this image you posted:
Interesting results from the varying crops. I agree with Tom about the tight crop, which tends to accentuate the contrast of the tree vs the formality of the building. The water on the building has a randomness that mirrors that of the tree, and I like that as well.
The second attachment, with more of the “back” visible creates a tension for me, that I can’t decide about. I appears that the front building is not level on the horizontal plane, but the line of the windows of the front structure seems to line up with the rear structure on the vertical plane. That is more apparent in the second crop vs your original. Also, the larger, washed out areas of sky in the second version are a little distracting, as the relative brightness of those areas draws the eyes away from the main subject. It’s true that there is some symmetry with the snow, but the effect really makes this a entirely different image than the tight crop, and suggests to me that maybe each of them stands alone as a successful image.
All that said, if I had to choose just one, I’d go for the tighter crop. Allowing the randomness of the tree, and of the water on the building, to be focus of the image seems stronger overall. In that version, the lines of the building just become a contrasting counterpoint to the the random lines, which makes the former all the more interesting. My $.02 worth anyway.
Here’s the tight crop that Lloyd is referring to:
Here’s the crop with more “back” that Lloyd mentioned:
