That's a great image Yegor but there's too much black space for me.
I think I would go for a square crop.
Very creative. I like it but have to agree it needs cropped.
Really like the idea but I agree with the crop but not to lose the effect.
There is some hidden details in the blackspace that could be brought out with a little processing while maintaining the current composition.
I really like these images. The square crop looks OK but there is something missing that the first shot had. The black space is actually the key component for me because your can either interpret it as darkness encroaching on light or vice versa. Either way the blackness is the primary focal space. That sounds like bovine do do's but if you think about it the human brain automatically hunts the lesser detail in order to seek out the missing information (that is why you need to clone out the faded detail that still peeps through).
Rather than a square crop why not try cropping a third from the left edge and add it to the right hand side of the image. You break all the rules but you maximise the primary focal space and decentralise the compositional structure, hopefully giving it 'edge'
The image below is very different subject matter but the black focal space principle is the same
I like both the original and the square crop, and I think it's just a matter of taste, Yegor. The square crop does heighten the detail in the darkness, especially the two little bright spots, which I would clone out. But it's a very well-done picture -- great capture, with lots of feeling!
I'm of two minds about darkness -- one teacher I had said you should always leave some detail in darkness or silhouette -- would others agree with that? I can't decide whether I agree or not. I guess it depends -- in Steve's picture (great one, by the way) it makes no sense to have detail in that darkness.
Yeah,thanX!!! It from first my photos! I then did not know much! But in this picture, I think, two persons, instead of details are important! Sense in persons!
mmm...I think the inclination to leave detail is essentially the same instinct that makes our minds hunt out detail where it does not exist. We have a natural tendency to provide as much information as possible since our intelligence drives us to over-communicate. The great thing about minimal images is that they challenge the mind to substitute intelligence for imagination and for me at least this provides far more stimulation than mere recognition. The same applies to distortion or simplification of form and I expect this is why I find Nash, Nevinson and Spencer far more exiting than Constable. I can appreciate the technical competence of Constable as I can a good landscape faithfully captured by photograph but artists that break form take us to the next level and (if we let it) allows our mind to transcend the base response to beauty or admiration.I'm of two minds about darkness -- one teacher I had said you should always leave some detail in darkness or silhouette -- would others agree with that? I can't decide whether I agree or not. I guess it depends -- in Steve's picture (great one, by the way) it makes no sense to have detail in that darkness.
God that was a hard slog for a simple Northern lad. I think a chip butty and bottle of dandelion and burdock may be in order to bring me back into the Orwellian order of things
I really like the image...dramatic and a bit mysterious.
I like the first or top image. I like the colour in Wirefox's image and space. The psychology seems to be a lot of prejudice and not based on science but then psychology isn't.
I think they are still drilling victims brains, will things ever change.
Deeply! I have not cut off a picture, 'cause i think, that dark space around is ....... pressing.So,u can see men in this dark like fish in the water. Thus a crop spoils an atmosphere