Glen wrote:
Sorry, but I liked the first version better. Not cropping the bollard,
puts the helmet in the middle of the frame and kills some of the
"kinetic" properties of the composition. With the original cropping,
my eye tended to start at the top of the frame and scan down the row
of bollards to nearly the bottom of the frame, where the helmet
occupied the photo's most prominent location. Now my eye starts at the
top of the image, but only goes half-way down the frame before
stopping on the helmet. Trying to look lower than the helmet feels
"awkward" and the lower half of the frame is practically ignored as a
consequence.
The original cropping effectively showed me only what my eye was
interested in seeing anyway.
If a picture is worth a thousand words, then I suppose you could call
it a "short story". Edgar Alan Poe always insisted that every element
(ideally every single word) of a great short story must make a
positive contribution to the whole of the story. In a Poe short story,
there isn't room for the extraneous. I think photographs usually work
better when treated similarly.
take care,
Glen
Glen,
Many thanks for your input. I prefer the 1st version too, but couldn't
quite describe why. You've put it very succinctly. It's been an
interesting exercise comparing the 2 versions.
Ciao,
Peter in Sydney
