Jeffery

[March411]

R6m2 - RF100-400mm F5.6-8 IS USM @335mm
1/125 - f8 - ISO 200

A4039 Giraffe.jpg

[stevet1 · Accepted solution]

Marc,

Just for my own purposes, I think this looks really good as a square crop of just his head.

Steve Thomas

[adamrainoff · Accepted solution]

The giraffe's calm expression and clean framing really work here. I like how the 335mm compression keeps the attention on the subject while preserving a natural feel.

[March411]

Not bad either, I appreciate the feedback. The original showed some texture, contrast with the highlight on the neck and I liked the mane but this forum was built for feedback so it's appreciated!

A4039 Giraffe Crop.jpg

[stevet1]

Marc,

Thank you for your kindness.

Steve Thomas

[LeeP]

You're really dating yourself. Only people of a certain age will know who Jeffrey is.

[LeeP]

The downside compositionally to a square image, is that the eye has no place to travel. The basic reason most art is rectangular is because the eye needs to move to "read" the image. I never had the desire to own a Hasselblad for that reason and for that reason went with Mamiyas (RB67 and 645).

[March411]

Leading lines in an image, such as the neck and mane will naturally pull your attention to the focal point which is the lumpy headed Giraffes face. I attempt, while not always successful to use that practice in photography. Portraits like the one Steve liked, honestly I still believe is impactful because of the range and color is equally as nice.

Like most images each person has their own taste and perspective which is one of the greatest things about photography.....there is a little something for everyone. I enjoy the feedback, it gives you the viewers perspective, well unless it is brash. It allows you to think about what your image means to others when you drop the shutter and again in post.  

Personally, I like this one best. 

A4039 Giraffe BW.jpg

[stevet1]

Lee,

You wrote, "The downside compositionally to a square image, is that the eye has no place to travel. The basic reason most art is rectangular is because the eye needs to move to "read" the image.". 

Marc wrote, "Like most images each person has their own taste and perspective..."

I was going to write, That's what makes art, art."

I find the square format to be more balanced and symmetrical. The eye does travel. It just travels in a circle instead of from left to right. Taking Marc's giraffe as an example, the most prominent feature in his photo is the giraffe's left eye. It grabs you and holds you, and everything flows from there.

Marc said he wanted to include the giraffe's neck and mane, and that's good.

For my own personal taste, the trees in the background are extraneous. They just blur away. They are part of the background and show the giraffe in his settings, but what's important to me is that left eye. It's mesmerizing and hypnotic.

Steve Thomas.. 

[LeeP]

The rectangular format begs for the use of lines either physical or implied. If you do a portrait of a person horizontally and put them in frame right, the eye creates a line that "finds" them. I have a KB that touches on this. The problem that the rectangular format creates is that people either "bullseye" the subject in the center of the frame because they don't know any better or the natural sense of lines and movement isn't "there". One of the advantages of Kodak's 126 Instamatic format was that it encouraged the bullseye and got rid of the linear movement. In square image, the eye does not move in a circle unless the person intentionally does so. With a  rectangular image the eye movement is automatistic. In a square image, the eye zeroes in on the bullseye, one and done. Sure the format is 100% up to the desire of the person creating the image, but art theory exists for a reason and it was derived from studying what artists did over time. A square frame has to have something bullseyed (sic) that causes the eye to linger beyond the one-and-done glance. And there are successful "square" artists to be sure. However art is not "art" just because someone says it is. Art that fits with art theory has permanence because it is part and parcel with brain cognition i.e. it looks "right", or "good", or "artistic", versus art that the artist says is art much less so. 100 years from now people are still likely to know Ansel Adams, Edward Weston, Henri Cartier Bresson, etc. while someone like Jackson Pollock already tends to fade into the white noise of other flick-the-brush painters.

I enjoy these sorts of "philosophical" discussions.