Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 10 hours ago) and read 1808 times:
In the thread headed 'level discussion' by Thierry, at Reply 19 Psych raises an issue that is close to my heart, poor centring with a certain type of photograph and that is the gratuitous, unnecessary cropping of fins. This, much of the time is simply a fashionable but poor composition. I have often rejected for this reason but always with a personal. I am linking to two photographs below which illustrate my point both by another photographer. Before anyone goes screaming about such use, I have discussed this issue with Colin and have his consent.
You can see that in the Air Malta the fin has been cropped yet there is ample space below the aircraft to have included it. If we accept that the fin is actually part of the aircraft then it is hard to justify cropping it this way - the aircraft is in fact so high in the frame that part of it is missing. I stand by my comment that this is merely a fashion and if part of the nose was clipped in the same way, few would even consider uploading. Using the same criteria, the Lufthansa is a little high but acceptable - taken from the same spot this simply serves to demonstrate the unneccessary nature of the crop.
I will use one of Paul's (Psych) to perfectly illustrate my idea of what is acceptable with a fin crop - the nosewheel is close to the bottom of the frame with the fuselage filling the frame. One of my own is also shown here, from long before I started to screen
I expect howls about screener inconsistency here and have to accept that criticism. Colin felt confusion and I have addressed that with him I am hoping for some discussion and perhaps a chance to correct this problem. The rules are already there, motive and centring.
JumboJim747 From Australia, joined Oct 2004, 2462 posts, RR: 50 Reply 1, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 9 hours ago) and read 1784 times:
I'm with you on the centring and your examples are fine and justified in what your pointing out.
I have always uploaded shots with much the same criteria.
But i do have a shot that I'm to upload i would have to do what Colin has done in the first shot of the air Malta shot as part of the tail is missing from the original crop .
How would screeners tackle an issue when a proper crop is not possible.?
Ptrjong From Netherlands, joined Mar 2005, 3771 posts, RR: 20 Reply 3, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 7 hours ago) and read 1740 times:
Well, I think Mick is to be applauded for discussing, as a screener, an issue here on which screeners are obviously not flying 100% in formation.
Personally I agree with him. Cutting the tailfin is fine when the rest of the aircraft is filling the frame, just as cutting the wings is fine when the rest of the aircraft is filling the frame. But how can you justify cutting off a rather important part of a plane when there's dead space in the bottom of the frame? It looks most horrible on T-tailers because you lose the horizontail tailplane too, but it looks bad enough with any aircraft.
I think people do this in the mistaken belief that they're required by a.net or by whoever to vertically center the fuselage in their photos. Or it happens by accident, because you tend to keep the fuselage central in your viewfinder when that taxiing plane is coming closer and closer. Well, then you blew that shot.
[Edited 2007-05-29 15:26:43]
The only difference between me and a madman is that I am not mad (Salvador Dali)
It could be argued that Colins first photo of the Air Malta, the body is in the center of the frame and therefore is acceptable. When I am centering a side on shot I do not take into account, well not too much, the tail of the plane. I generally center the body. Here cutting the tail is unavoidable as are in yours and Paul's shot Mick but if you look, both the bodies are in the center of the frame.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 5, posted (5 years 12 months 2 days 1 hour ago) and read 1670 times:
Quoting Fergulmcc (Reply 4): It could be argued that Colins first photo of the Air Malta, the body is in the center of the frame and therefore is acceptable. When I am centering a side on shot I do not take into account, well not too much, the tail of the plane.
That is precisely the problem. It is difficult to justify the aircraft touching, indeed extending beyond the edge of the frame when there is so much space below it. I do not feel that centring using just the windows is acceptable, the whole aircraft, teh whole image needs to be considered. Ignoring the fin is to ignore a part of the aircraft
Quoting Lennymuir (Reply 2): Shouldn't you get a complete concensus with your fellow screeners before posting?
Gerry, there has been discussion amongst the screeners but no real concensus. The purpose of this thread was to seek the opinions of the people uploading. Your opinions are important to us !
I'm sure some would argue that these images are badly composed and are not balanced. However, my preference is to include all the tail.
At extremely shallow angles, it becomes difficult to crop close to the fuselage without chopping the tail. IMHO, the KLM looks more balanced (and somewhat more dramatic because of the closer crop) than the Aeroflot, but there isn't a lot in it:
In the end, if both options are acceptable motive, it comes down to personal preference. As stated, mine is to include the tail, however, I do appreciate in extreme circumstance, this can leave the shot open to criticism of being unbalanced.
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 9, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 21 hours ago) and read 1617 times:
I want to begin my post by heartily congratulating Mick on starting this thread, and Colin for consenting to allow his images to be picked apart. Far from any complaining about screener inconsistency I feel this shows a mature, non-defensive attitude and a preparedness to debate issues here where there is not 100% consensus. Oh for more of that - surely one of the fundamental reasons for this Forum.
As Mick stated at the outset, it seems he and I both share a view on this particular point. Personally I would go further and say I can see no justification - photographically speaking - for having the subject squeezed in to the top half of the frame, with nothing much in the bottom. My hunch is that many - as suggested by Thierry in his recent thread - assume that A.net require the fuselage to be centred. I would like to see some further guidance on this because, for me, having such variety of acceptable centring when the tail is complete, but right at the top of the frame, or cropped out, rather diminishes the rigour with which this criterion can be applied at other times.
Clearly the motive is central (excuse the pun) to deciding how to centre your image. But if the shot is basically of a plane on the ground, and it is not a motivated close up, then I vote for not chopping the tail off, and also not having much space below the wheels, like this:
...or balancing the space below the wheels with that above the top of the tail of the angle/crop does not allow. i.e. treating the aircraft as a complete object, from wheels to fin, not just as a fuselage, like so:
But I would go further and say that shots like the following are too high in the frame - and to show no bias I shall choose one from my esteemed colleague's excellent collection - Mick is big enough, in every regard, to take it:
Lennymuir From United Kingdom, joined Oct 2002, 434 posts, RR: 6 Reply 10, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1597 times:
I get the message Mick, but I know my opinion won't change your mind since you
already have a prejudice against certain types of composition, as you have shown.
You may call it gratuitous, unnecessary cropping of fins that is in vogue.
That's fine, for those who like that type of composition.
I also understand why you don't like it.
Are you trying to editorially drive an acceptable composition for such shots to form
a 'standard' for this site rather than allowing each picture to be judged on its merits?
Perhaps I am far too cynical, or I have lost my enthusiasm, but heaven forfend
I have to remind myself to take great care cropping a picture for a.net, yet allow
my creative juices to flow for 'other' sites and publications.
That is what was crossing my mind.
Things in here are tight enough, yet the noose is getting tighter still.
Dvincent From United States of America, joined Jan 2007, 1719 posts, RR: 12 Reply 11, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 19 hours ago) and read 1592 times:
Of course, the wings and horizontal stabs are part of the aircraft too, but we're all okay with cropping them out when necessary.
Myself, I can see cropping the tail when it plays a low importance in composition. There gets to be certain angles when the tail just isn't central, like on the two photos Mick put in his first post. I don't begrudge people who choose to show the whole airplane; it is their perogative and who am I to tell them not to?
Steve's KLM MD11 also shows a good case of where it's permissible to clip the tail slightly, because the tail just isn't a large part of the frame and he at least leaves the whole KLM logo. The arrangement of engines, wings, cockpit glass, and nose create the draw of the image, and the tail is a less important visual element, it can afford to be cropped out.
Paul's other 747 is a prime example where absolute centering would not, IMO, be permissible because it just has very excellent organization of elements in the frame, between the shape of the plane itself, the tail, windowline, et cetera. While the airplane is not "centered" in the strict term of bottom of fuselage to top of fuselage, it is a combination of lines and shapes that works well as a photograph, not to mention the placement of elements in prime frame areas. The overall fuselage is only one piece of the puzzle.
Let's not forget that the good use of "empty space" (not to be confused with dead space, which is a term I think gets manhandled around here) is a technique itself in art, and the proper usage of it helps create interest. Mick can like what he likes, but I think the choice of Colin's 757 as a "bad" fin crop isn't a fair one, as the nose/forward section is clearly the more important visual element. After all, portrait photographers do not get chastized for cropping below the bust.
WakeTurbulence From United States of America, joined Apr 2004, 1288 posts, RR: 18 Reply 13, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 17 hours ago) and read 1575 times:
For me it depends on the image. I have done both, but always feel that including the whole tail takes away from the focus of the body/nose of the aircraft, especially in a head on/close to head on shot. Including the whole tail makes the photo look unbalanced to me. This thread really seems to come down to personal preference. I don't think there should/could be a hardfast rule regarding this type of centering, especially with what seems to be many varying opinions.
Colin's shot looks great to me, being centered vertically can also be important from time to time.
Paul's shot, I also love it, but I could say there is too much sky and empty frame...
Hard to decide, I would say there is no rule here, its all to the photographers criteria really, and that's what counts! Variety is important here, imagine a database with all the shots having the same crop rules.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 15, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 14 hours ago) and read 1552 times:
Quoting Lennymuir (Reply 10): Are you trying to editorially drive an acceptable composition for such shots to form
a 'standard' for this site rather than allowing each picture to be judged on its merits?
Let me start with this point, a good point.
Gerry. If an image works with an unusual crop or composition, then no, I am not suggesting that it should be rejected. What I am saying is that it rarely does - the Air Malta at the start is the perfect example of what I object to, even to the extent that the logo is cropped. Why ???
Juan calls that centred and I disagree with that comment. The fuselage is centred but not the aircraft. In Juan's thread he uses another of Paul's alnsgside the Air Malta. Yes,there is a lot more sky (as opposed to a lot more grass and concrete) but the image is balanced - the aircraft, not just its fuselage is centred.
Quoting Psych (Reply 9): But I would go further and say that shots like the following are too high in the frame
Touche - I agree that that one of mine is a bit high
Scbriml - I feel like I am preaching to the converted. Your cropped fin KLM is the sort of thing I do not mind at all - the nosewheel is near the bottom of the frame yet the fin is cropped - a perfectly balanced and good composition. This to me is similar to the cropped wing or tailplane that we all do with a tight crop. However, no one would say that the image below was centred yet turn the composition 90 degrees and many seem to think it is okay - this is effectively what we are looking at with the Air Malta of Colin's. I have simply chosen to chop off one wing rather than choosing to crop off the fin.
Could anyone possibly consider this centred ?
Quoting Mx330 (Reply 14): Or just invent the new bad_crop rejection
I am not suggesting a new rejection category, far from it, as the rules are already there, centre and motive. The problem is how they are applied
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 17, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 13 hours ago) and read 1534 times:
Quoting JumboJim747 (Reply 1): How would screeners tackle an issue when a proper crop is not possible.?
Sorry, I missed that.
Every image is judged on its merits, generally the finished product rather than the difficulty of getting it. A comment to the screener is by no means a guarantee that an image will be accepted but it does often help us come to a decision. If an image is poorly centred (within the rules) but is deliberate or for some other reason, say so and we will take notice. We might not agree, but if we do.....
Psych From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 2968 posts, RR: 60 Reply 18, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
This continues to be a genuinely interesting photography thread, as the focus is on ideas of composition, not just the normal editing/criteria/rejections. I was really looking forward to catching up on this thread today - that's a situation that has been all too rare recently on the Forum. So, once again, I want to congratulate all on this mature debate.
For me this is as much about motive as centring. I am in agreement with Mick again that a 'motivated' cropping is not what is being critiqued here - it is when a subject is placed particularly in the frame without any apparent positive merit. Thus, I would interpret A.net's criterion as saying that they want the subject to be centrally placed unless the motive of the image demands otherwise. I hate using other people's photos as examples so I will try to find something of my own....
Technically this is not centred, if you assume the whole formation is the subject - i.e. it is placed over to the right. However, I would argue that - as a photo - this is correctly composed, because the smoke trail, together with the formation shape, suggests a sense of movement from left to right, and thus the composition works - the 'movement' is part of the motive for the image. If I was forced to centre 'in the middle' there would be very little smoke, dead blue sky in front of the formation on the right, and that sense of 'travel' from left to right would be lost. That, to me, would be formulaeic centring. I am glad that this shot was accepted as it is.
So, going back to Juan's post (Reply 14) I see what he is saying about the amount of sky in my shot, but any negative with that is massively outweighed compositionally for me in that the subject - the whole plane - is centred. In my opinion, I cannot see any motive for Colin (sorry Colin for talking about what you were thinking without you being here in the debate - yet) placing his Air Malta plane as he has done, because we now have 'dead' tarmac at the bottom that serves no purpose compositionally, as the whole aircraft is not in frame - i.e. nothing 'makes up for' its presence in the shot. I simply want to pull the aircraft down in the frame to see it all. As I said above - my hunch is that Colin did this as he believed A.net require him to centre the fuselage.
Maybe that is the nub of my issue with all this - if I look at a photo and like what I see it 'works'; if I want to 'get inside the frame' and move the subject then something is not working for me. With aircraft with cropped fins and squeezed in the top of a crop I want to pull them down, just as I would want to pull Mick's PIA example above to the right to make it look okay. But I don't want to pull my Red Arrows formation to the left - it works as it is.
We are back in familiar territory with this thread - 'photography' site vs. 'database'. This debate is all about 'photography'.
Linco22 From United Kingdom, joined Jun 2005, 1379 posts, RR: 18 Reply 19, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 12 hours ago) and read 1523 times:
Sorry for my late entry to this thread as I've been on holiday for the last few days. Mick discussed this with me and I was more than happy to put my images forward to show his point. I explained that some of my images do look a little uncomfortable with the fin cropped off but I thought it seemed okay to do so.
I still have a few photographs I want to upload and I will consider more carefully how I crop. I do admit that when I took the originals I was trying to show the fuselage and engines as a close crop without emphasis on the fin. I'm glad that Mick has brought up this thread as clarification and discussion is only going to do us all good.
ThierryD From Luxembourg, joined Dec 2005, 2021 posts, RR: 52 Reply 20, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 10 hours ago) and read 1501 times:
AIRLINERS.NET CREW HEAD SUPPORT
First of all thanks to Mick for starting this thread!
As with the levelling being discussed in this thread: Level Discussion (by ThierryD May 19 2007 in Aviation Photography) centering can be a rather subjective decision.
Colin's shots in comparison with Mick's and Paul's have been thoroughly discussed and I've to agree that the AirMalta to me would look much better with the tail included as (besides the centering) it would include the whole logo and more importantly would add more color in an otherwise rather grey photo. Which leads me to relations; I think that if the tail of a plane only occupies a relatively small portion of the photo and/or is a relatively small part of the airplane it can be cropped out without hurting the balance of the whole photo. That's also why I don't for instance like Mick's Mirage photo above; in my opinion the tail is too big a part and contributes too greatly to the lines of the aircraft to be cropped away like that. For that let's compare it to a similar shot from a master of photo compositions:
All in all, I don't think we'll come to a perfect consensus here but if people could be motivated to take a little more care of the balance of their photos and less of the A.net formula and if they could be encouraged to try out new and/or less conventional crops the thread will have served its purpose.
KMB From , joined Dec 1969, posts, RR: Reply 22, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 5 hours ago) and read 1451 times:
Quoting Dendrobatid (Reply 5): Gerry, there has been discussion amongst the screeners but no real concensus. The purpose of this thread was to seek the opinions of the people uploading. Your opinions are important to us !
It would be interesting to hear the views of other screeners and not just Mick, in the past I have received rejections for the aircraft not being centered in the frame and to avoid inconsistency the screeners need to have similar views.
In trying to get acceptance by one screener, that may bring a rejection from another.
I also believe this could result in too many images looking the same with less photographic creation.
UA935 From United Kingdom, joined Feb 2004, 610 posts, RR: 7 Reply 23, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 2 hours ago) and read 1420 times:
I personally dislike the images with the fin almost touching the top of the picture and dead space below the gear.
I agree with the inclusion of the fin but the above is purely done to fit with the laid down criteria in that the fuselage of the aricraft should be centered.
It would find it more appealing to have the same distance between the gear and the bottom of the frame and the tail and the top of the frame like pauls Embraer.
Asthetically pleasing crops - no issues here they look great but cropping for the sake of getting a shot on when the original is unusable is wrong.
Mick I think you recently rejected one of mine with a personal comment for cropping the fin, I agree the image looked terrible and I had considered pulling it.
Conversely I had a head on image tightly cropped to almost the bottom of the fin which was rejected, I appealed and it was added.
I like the tight crops and again images can work when cropped halfway up the fin but I feel that there is too much emphasis on having the fuselage centred, as stated above I would rather see an equal distance between the highest point and the top of the image and the lowest and the bottom or a crop which lends itself to an artistic image.
Dendrobatid From United Kingdom, joined Nov 2004, 1605 posts, RR: 64 Reply 24, posted (5 years 12 months 1 day 1 hour ago) and read 1410 times:
Quoting UA935 (Reply 23): Mick I think you recently rejected one of mine with a personal comment for cropping the fin, I agree the image looked terrible and I had considered pulling it.
That does sound like it had my fingerprints on it. I do not think I have rejected any without a personal and I do not recall the other. I actually like tight crops myself and do not mind a cropped fin when there is a good reason for it as with Paul's or Steve's above. The crop of the fin is not the issue, it is when it is gratuitous, unnecessary. That point seems to have been lost - it is not the crop of the fin in itself, it is when that is accompanied by poor centring like the Air Malta at the start of this thread.