Which crop is better?

[bhavik_k]

I took this shot during a photoshoot which i was helping out at, but not sure which crop is more effective and thought some critique may help.

Also would this be classified as portrait?





Camera: Canon 500D
Shutter Speed: 1/125
Apeture: f/3.5
Focal Length: 50mm
ISO: 100

[autofocus]

I prefer the vertical crop. Don't like the landscape version that has the subject too centered

[autofocus]

portrait definition straight from wikipedia:

A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant. The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the person. For this reason, in photography a portrait is generally not a snapshot, but a composed image of a person in a still position. A portrait often shows a person looking directly at the painter or photographer, in order to most successfully engage the subject with the viewer.

Based on this definition, your photo is not considered a portrait

[SusanH1970]

Originally Posted by autofocus

portrait definition straight from wikipedia:

A portrait is a painting, photograph, sculpture, or other artistic representation of a person, in which the face and its expression is predominant. The intent is to display the likeness, personality, and even the mood of the person. For this reason, in photography a portrait is generally not a snapshot, but a composed image of a person in a still position. A portrait often shows a person looking directly at the painter or photographer, in order to most successfully engage the subject with the viewer.

Based on this definition, your photo is not considered a portrait

Vinnie, you know I love ya, but I have to disagree. Wikipedia is great for some things, but it's also something that anyone can add to. From their "about" section: "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism). Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity, if they choose." So I pretty much take wiki's information with a grain of salt in a lot of cases.

However, according to dictionary.com, which is Webster's online dictionary, a portrait is "a likeness of a person, esp. of the face, as a painting, drawing, or photograph: a gallery of family portraits."

The term "especially of the face" to me means that a portrait can certainly show a person, but not necessarily have to include his/her face.


Ducks and runs...

That being said, I'm with Vinnie and prefer the vertical/portrait crop for the same reasons. The composition works much better in that one.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by SusanH1970

Vinnie, you know I love ya, but I have to disagree. Wikipedia is great for some things, but it's also something that anyone can add to. From their "about" section: "Wikipedia is written collaboratively by largely anonymous Internet volunteers who write without pay. Anyone with Internet access can write and make changes to Wikipedia articles (except in certain cases where editing is restricted to prevent disruption or vandalism). Users can contribute anonymously, under a pseudonym, or with their real identity, if they choose." So I pretty much take wiki's information with a grain of salt in a lot of cases.

However, according to dictionary.com, which is Webster's online dictionary, a portrait is "a likeness of a person, esp. of the face, as a painting, drawing, or photograph: a gallery of family portraits."

The term "especially of the face" to me means that a portrait can certainly show a person, but not necessarily have to include his/her face.


Ducks and runs...

That being said, I'm with Vinnie and prefer the vertical/portrait crop for the same reasons. The composition works much better in that one.

so we use two different sources to get the same results..and you disagree with me??

[Misiu Kolorowy]

I really like the second one because on that one it looks like you are concentrating on the subject which in my opinion is a arm and holding an object. The first picture just doest look right it kind of looks like you tried to do something but it didn't really come out.

[bhavik_k]

Originally Posted by Misiu Kolorowy

I really like the second one because on that one it looks like you are concentrating on the subject which in my opinion is a arm and holding an object. The first picture just doest look right it kind of looks like you tried to do something but it didn't really come out.

I think I will go with the vertical one also. I want the viewer to think about the person holding the bat and cap, what type of person it would be, espically with the graffiti background.

Originally Posted by autofocus

so we use two different sources to get the same results..and you disagree with me??

The one from dictionary.com suggests that the face doesn't have to be included for the photo to be classified as a portrait.

[wulf]

Originally Posted by bhavik_k

The one from dictionary.com suggests that the face doesn't have to be included for the photo to be classified as a portrait.

As, in fact, does the Wikipedia one. I think a portrait should convey something about the subject though, depicting them even if somewhat tangentally.

Does this image work? I'm not sure. Perhaps the concept is that the subject wants to be anonymous and is too menacing to disagree with. However, the clothes look pretty clean and new; it could just as well be a badly framed shot of an assistant holding some props.

I think the vertical one gets so close that it becomes very obvious the focus is off and that is also true of the other version if you look at a larger version. Therefore, while I am definitely of the "no faces is fine" school, I'm not sure I would retain either version of this shot.

Wulf

[SusanH1970]

Originally Posted by autofocus

so we use two different sources to get the same results..and you disagree with me??

Only because Wikipedia can be added to by any Tom, Dick or Harry. Webster's is Webster's. LOL, don't get offended, it's just my English teachers yelling in my head.

ETA: Wiki's says the face must be included, Webster's says it's not necessary, in a nutshell. LOL I'm going to shut up now.

[autofocus]

Originally Posted by SusanH1970

Only because Wikipedia can be added to by any Tom, Dick or Harry. Webster's is Webster's. LOL, don't get offended, it's just my English teachers yelling in my head.

Well Susan, I guess you set me straight and told me how uniformed I am.