Winter road

I saw this on the way into a nearby state park and had to stop on the way back out to take pictures of it. I was fortunate that no cars came by while I set up my 4x5 in the middle of the road and made several exposures.

I originally envisioned it cropped much more tightly, removing roughly the bottom third of the image and 1/4 from each of the sides (the little bridgelet and reflectors in the distance would have been about 1/3 of the way up and 1/3 of the way in from the sides), but changed my mind and included the shadows in the foreground.

What do you think? I'm interested in any comments or criticism people would like to share.

Hi Eric,

Based on my monitor, the image is 5.6 inches wide, by 7 inches high. I think there is little of interest in the foreground. so, keeping the top left hand corner the same, I would crop off the rh side, so the image was 5 inches wide, and crop the bottom, so it was 5.4 inches high. This gives a bit of foreground shadow in the bottom lh corner, which I would probably paint out, and also a light bit of branch, or something, on the ground at tree on rhs, which I would also remove. I think this is actually more or less what you were saying, axcept I was trying to offset the road from centre.

Best wishes,

Ray

I think this image works nicely square. I've played with it just chopping to bottom off to leave it square as well as cutting off most of the big tree on the right. In both cases the top-left corner stays anchored where it is. It's amazing how much that changes the image.

I like it. You're putting me in LF danger again....

Hi Aaron,

I'd played with square, too. It is interesting that the angle the tree on rhs makes with that side is similar to the angle that the remaining foreground shadow makes to the bottom edge when cropped more or less square, if you understand my not too geometrically correct description, but this is sacrificed in my attempt to keep to the same format as the original - not that Erik asked for that.

What is it about this image that makes you want to get back to LF? I suppose it is the detail, possibility of large prints, etc. I would like to see a side by side comparison of the same view, in lf and a 35mm (5d, say). Never having used MF, (or a 5d), it is a question that interests me. I have to admit, I had a vision of Erik stopped in he middle of the road, oblivious to the cars stacked up behind him - they didn't go by, 'cos they couldn't.

Best wishes,

Ray

Ray West said:

I'd played with square, too. It is interesting that the angle the tree on rhs makes with that side is similar to the angle that the remaining foreground shadow makes to the bottom edge when cropped more or less square, if you understand my not too geometrically correct description, but this is sacrificed in my attempt to keep to the same format as the original - not that Erik asked for that.

Click to expand...

It's interesting how we tend to stick to the original aspect ratio when we crop. I find myself doing it all the time. When I just shot 2:3 ratio I thought it was because I had taught myself to see things in that ratio and thus evidence of a virtue. Now that I'm shooting in more than one format, I find myself tending to crop images to the original aspect ratio that they started in.

I'm not sure why I do it. Is it because the smaller crop will echo the original composition I had in mind? That's a bit of a stretch, since I haven't learned to visuallize the 4:5 aspect ratio yet. Is it because it's easier to think of zooming in proportionately? If I was thinking ahead I'd remember the large stock of 2:3 matboards I have sitting around waiting for pictures.

I'm still playing with this image - one good thing about 4x5 is that cropping doesn't hurt very much Now that you've pointed out the square crop I'll probably have to make a print like that and see how it makes me feel. I know I like keeping the road in the center, which means either keeping the tree on the right or cropping in quite a bit. I'm not sure which I like better. Another possibility is a 2:3 crop tall and centered. The little bridgelet hits 1/3 of the way up and the foreground shadow crosses the left 2/3 of the bottom, echoing the branches in the upper right.

My primary interest in LF is movements. Having near infinite resolution (close enough to infinite for my purposes anyway) is certainly a plus as well. I'd also like to work in the slow, deliberate way that is required by LF. The small viewfinder on my 20D that shows less than 100% of the frame is not conducive to this.

It's terribly easy to stay with the original aspect ratio. It's also difficult to break away from the "standard" image sizes, which Alain Briot calls cropping to the mat instead of the image.

I've got an image I'm working on at the moment with which I'm struggling to find the aspect ratio I like. In this case it really comes down to whether to keep a bunch of very featureless sky to include the rising moon. Of course trimming 10-15% off the top of the image gives it a different feel too.

Damn this artistic stuff, I'm an engineer!