1. Squares tend to be less dynamic so his side ways glance is ‘blocked’ by the early introduction of the frame edge?
    Because of the height of the frame, the length of the shadow becomes disproportionately shorter, less effective?
    In this one, I wonder of the depth of field is a little too deep (possibly an effect of the small scale), as I find the guy on the bench a real eye puller, as do the couple to a lesser extent.
    Does the height of the frame add real value, it’s not particularly negative space, as it’s full of detail, especially the reflected light of the distant building.
    (just my tuppenth worth)


    • Not sure I understand what you mean by “his side ways glance is ‘blocked’ by the early introduction of the frame edge” since he is looking left…

      I did this at the suggestion of another photographer friend of mine, but I’m not sure I like it. I prefer the wider view I had on the original.


  2. 🙂 I only ever give my point of view, with no claim to being ‘right’.
    I see the ‘boundary’ of the gentleman to include his shadow, so the immediacy of the left frame edge to the end of his shadow tends to ‘restrict his view;. For example, if we were to snip the right hand side off the frame, to include the small tree and gentleman on the far bank, and place them on the left side – bringing your principle subject further to the right and allowing his gaze to pass through the end of his shadow, the image becomes much more about his gaze. I admit that I am presuming this ‘virtual representation’ is the intended subject of the frame. Unfortunately, my suggestion then brings the well lit, well exposed tree into the centre of the frame, which it then dominates.
    If the main subject of your image were the figure and it’s shadow, then cropping tighter and burning in the far bank and tree a little would allow the foreground to ‘hold’ the eye better (which may also be of use in the existing composition?)


    • Thanks. That’s helpful. I like getting critiqued! As I mentioned, I did this at the suggestion of a friend. I’d love to hear others critiques as well. I prefer my original photograph to this one.


  3. Much stronger than the original which was rather cluttered. The man is now immediately the center of attention, as should be the case.
    There is a story here now which was obscured somewhat by the cluttered nature of the original.
    The figure has a past and a future which allow interesting speculations. The present also prods some questions: Is he waiting for something? How did he come to be there? How long will he be there? Does he have somewhere he has to be? Is his day full or empty? Is he between “appointments”? Where is he sleeping tonight? What’s he considering now?
    The background figures also contribute: The single person on the right is alone, as is the subject; the couple on the left have some sort of relationship and hence contrast with the lonely nature of the other two figures. Placing them at the outer edges of the frame emphasises the central figure of the photo, who is the point of the entire exercise.
    The rigid square crop may not be quite necessary; perhaps a tight slightly rectangular crop might be a bit stronger.
    There is no right or wrong when it comes to cropping. It comes down to what works.
    This crop works for me.


I'd love to hear your thoughts!

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s