The first one is the image as shot... the second one is a tighter crop... Which do you think makes a better picture? Why? Thanks! 
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Which of these crops is better?
- Thread starter VirtualRain
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
I'd say #1 if the trees were illuminated. But since they just show up as a thick black frame, I'll go with #2.
The second is best to my eye. It has a more well defined subject area. The illuminated area in the upper right of the original creates too much competition for the main subject.
Dale
Dale
#2. It gets us in closer to the most interesting part of the photo. All of the black at the top and the extra 'window' at the right don't add anything to the image that we aren't already getting in the main opening. The second opening just lures the eye out of the frame. Also, the the sign catching light at the bottom in the first one is distracting.
#2
it really helps me focus on the scene, without wandering past the tree to catch the rest of the scene. Very simple.
it really helps me focus on the scene, without wandering past the tree to catch the rest of the scene. Very simple.
I prefer the second one because I find it more relaxing to view. I also like that I can identify the objects in the water as ships.
The first version causes me to scan more of the image. The two lit objects near the bottom are distracting. I agree with Designer Dale and Phrasikleia that the opening to the right is competing for my attention.
The first version causes me to scan more of the image. The two lit objects near the bottom are distracting. I agree with Designer Dale and Phrasikleia that the opening to the right is competing for my attention.
#2 works for me.
In #1 the tree is obstructing the subject. It's almost as if it's competing to be the subject itself, but can't because it's incomplete. Meanwhile, the seascape is chopped in two and meanders off aimlessly to the right hand side, taking the eye with it.
In #2 the tree takes a supporting role and frames the subject beautifully. Keeps the eye trained on the subject. It's quite striking.
In #1 the tree is obstructing the subject. It's almost as if it's competing to be the subject itself, but can't because it's incomplete. Meanwhile, the seascape is chopped in two and meanders off aimlessly to the right hand side, taking the eye with it.
In #2 the tree takes a supporting role and frames the subject beautifully. Keeps the eye trained on the subject. It's quite striking.
I prefer #1.
The best part visually is the contrast between the darkened foreground and the sky/mountain setting.
To me, #2 is just centering more on the water and boats which isn't all that interesting.
The best part visually is the contrast between the darkened foreground and the sky/mountain setting.
To me, #2 is just centering more on the water and boats which isn't all that interesting.
But then his horizon would not be straight, and it's really what matters as far as leveling goes.
I'll pull this down in an hour or two. It's how I would crop the pic.
http://www.adamlozo.com/Galleries/Random-Crap/13897255_8K5FX7#1451521754_Z5ZZ2GG
http://www.adamlozo.com/Galleries/Random-Crap/13897255_8K5FX7#1451521754_Z5ZZ2GG
^^I like it. I see the tree as creating less of a window here with the top gone, acting more as an interesting addition on top of the wonderful coloured scene behind.
I love the way the leaves and tree lean towards each other.
