Off-balance crop - thoughts?

[Joe Copalman]

Putting aside the washed-out/gradiented processing, let me know what you think about the framing on this.  It seemed to work at oh-dark-thirty this morning when I edited it, but now I'm having second thoughts.  It's typically not the more-balanced framing I go for, but lately I've been feeling a bit too dogmatic and A.netty.  And actually, let me know what you think about the processing as well.  Another outside-the-comfort-zone thing for me.

[Jeff D. Welker]

Hey Joe:

For me, 3/4 oncoming shots are tough. My typical default is to go tight and eliminate everything beyond the prop arc. That being said, I over-use that approach and have been wondering about this same issue and how to achieve a good image. Most of the time, I like to leave some space ahead for the plane to "fly into" (I hope that makes sense). If that is what you were going for on this crop, I think it works. Maybe you could post an alternative crop where you balance it on both sides. It would be an interesting comparison.

Here are my 2-cents on the processing. If you darken and desaturate the background slightly; I believe it adds "depth" to the image. Of course, this works best when you have good saturation on the aircraft (310?). I would also suggest you try darkening and increasing saturation in the foreground. Like anything, this is a personal thing - season to taste. As usual, you've panned nicely and got excellent prop blur. I think you could almost achieve a "3-D" like rendering of the image by creating a contrast between the background and aircraft saturation.

Just my 2-cents.

[Lynn Evans]

In my opinion, with the horizon level, the right wing is lower than the left, the close crop on the same side as the low wing makes it appear that the airplane is turning toward the point you shot from instead of passing by you. Does the perspective seem different with less crop on the side? Of course it may just be me that doesn't know how to see the photo properly.
I agree with Jeff on darkening the background.
Lynn

[Jeff D. Welker]

In the spirit of full disclosure; the processing suggestions I made came from a "webinar" recently conducted by the folks at Nik Software. Using a landscape image, they demonstrated how you could create more depth by creating a visual contrast between the background saturation versus the foreground/primary object saturation. While they were certainly promoting their software, you can accomplish the same effect via actions in Photoshop, Lightroom, Aperture, or other image processing software.

[Joe Copalman]

Well, I level off the horizon, which is static, and not the aircraft, which is dynamic.  Sometimes it does result in bizarre framings, as with Harriers turning onto the ramp at Willie, where one gear strut compresses and makes the shot look crooked, even though it is not.  

With this shot, the birds in the background are really the detail I was after, which is why I left all the open space in front of the aircraft.  If it weren't for the birds in the background, I would have passed on this shot.  They just give a bit more flow to the image, if that makes any sense.

Attached is an edit with the suggestions made.  I like it both more and less.  It's a more intriguing image, but it also LOOKS much more heavily-processed.  I'm a bit schizophrenic on the organic vs. synthetic shot thing, with my default allegiance being to more natural-looking images.  Let me know what you think of this one.  

[Jeff D. Welker]

First, regarding this "natural-looking" thing - do you also performing post processing "au naturale" 

Seriously, I think you nailed the processing on the 310. The thing that makes me feel it is slightly over-processed is the flora in the background. If you could desaturate that aspect of the image (not a bunch) and maybe ever-so-slightly reduce the opacity of your gradient filter in the sky, I think you would have it nailed. I'd also clone-out those red reflectors along the runway - they distract me from the 310 and birds. To help emphasize the birds, you might want to try brushing/painting in some additional contrast and detail (just on the birds) so they standout more from the background vegetation.

Just the ramblings of a guy that wears bi-focals  

[Lynn Evans]

Sometimes my thoughts and typing are not working together. I mentioned the level horizon because I seem take too many photographs that have to be leveled. While looking at the wings, the thought to check the horizon entered my thoughts and wound up in my typing. I level the horizon unless it means losing an important part of the photograph. I like the second edition. It's personal choice. Sometimes I just can't find the adjustments to make the photo match what I saw, (or what I remember?) when I took it. It seems that I gain some good ideas when I participate in these critiques. As time goes by maybe my comments will be more coherent and helpful.

[Matt Ottosen]

I have actually been having trouble with this very same thing.  I have always tried to keep the entire aircraft in the photo, but as I progress as a photographer I am starting to feel that the crop and balance is much more important.  I posted this photo of the BA 744:



And, while I really liked it at first, every time I look at it I just feel like it is way off-balance.  So, I did this re-edit/re-crop of the original, and I'm more pleased with this result:

[Lynn Evans]

I think the second is a much better photograph. The crop reduces the distortion of the long and short wing, it's much better front to back, and the plane fills more of the photograph showing more detail.

[Jeff D. Welker]

I like the improved crop Matt. Especially as it helps emphasize those four big engines and the bulk/size of the fuselage in front of the wing - well done.

[jslugman]

Agreed on #2 Matt. Good looking Jumbo and well-balanced.

[Jay Beckman]

Literally the first time I've fired up the PC since getting over the flu...  

@ Joe: IMO, I really like the "pano-esque" aspect ratio crop but I think you've got too much dead space at camera right.  I'd pull that side in some more.  Just my theory but the more head on you are, the less "motion space" needed.

@ Matt: Big Thumbs Up for Version #2 as well.