Well, just goes to show how much I know! Congrats, deb!

I echo George's comments.

With no disrespect for this featured image of high technical quality, I find such cropping to be a gimmick and the extension of the frame to the left as "negative space" to be *another* gimmick. This could use, IMHO, some judicious cropping after inserting your subject back into the photograph.

Sour grapes? No...just my opinion. I'm trying to be honest here. I don't mean the word "gimmick" to be a put down any more than it is a put down to describe the work of great magicians as "tricks." The difference is in how well it is done.

no gimmicks here...this was shot specifically to have negative space to the left of frame.
the human subject found this to be their favorite shot out of many.

i think a lot of us know you don't like shots that are dramatic in traditional error. this is not the first time you have stated a dislike on a crop style of mine.

photography is trendy as well as classic. it would probably enhance your viewing experience and pleasure to embrace the diversity - instead of continually applying all the standard rules.

next time you are at Borders or Barnes and Noble - take some time and grab a Details, Wallpaper, Dwell, Bust and GQ Magazine - flip through the fragrant pages and take note on all the bending & reinvention of photography standards.

reality, and also with respect,

Gimmick to me, not a gimmick to you. Mine is just one voice in WS and I don't presume to speak for anyone else.

But now you insult me to suggest that I do not embrace diversity. The evidence is clear on WS that I do.

I clearly admit that I don't care for gimmicks or trendiness for the sake of trendiness. To be part of a trend is to discard originality, whatever that means to you. Life is too short.

Notice that I offered no criticism of the image portion of your photograph, although it could certainly be improved. My comments were related to the meaningless (to me) positioning of the subject.

Now in fairness, I will go (and look forward to going) to Borders and browse each of the five magazines you suggest, although I'm already familiar with GQ if you will, in turn, take the time to visit your library to browse the work of five photographers I admire whose work, I suspect, will long outlive the trends promulgated by Details, Wallpaper, Dwell, Bust and GQ Magazine.

The fact that your subject found this image to be "their favorite shot out of many" is irrelevant and probably the poorest reason to post this photo.

Did I click the wrong url? Is this FLICKR.COM, where only fatuous praise is expected or accepted?

ummm... flickr has groups where people can be way more blunt than what I see on this site...

I would call this composition "fresh" not trendy. the negative space has a simple function-- to make the beautiful subject stand out. the perfect tones on the person pop out against the black background. the partial crop of the subject serves to emphasize the features we do see. I might have nudged it just a tad to the right so the object on the neclace was completely in the frame, but that's not a big deal to me.

Deb,
We're having an ice storm here in Dallas today--an exellent time to drive carefully to Borders Books to browse the magazines you suggest--I'm looking forward to it.

I regret that I was so hard on you in my comments above. I was over the top. You'll see a similar frank exchange I had with George Illes over one of his images (spoiler follows) but one in which I hope I was more civil than I was with you.

http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/negative-space/response/3/

I didn't really feel insulted by your remarks (and know that you didn't intend any offense), but was responding to your suggestion that I had insulted Blizzard in my comments on her great featured image:

http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/negative-space/featured/68/

Please let my final remarks be nothing more than a mild disagreement over this style of cropping and no more than that.

Respectfully,

King

Okay, back from Borders, where I looked at every photograph of every page of every magazine you suggested. I recommend this exercise to everyone.

I found two images cropped similarly to the one above, both advertisements, where the negative space was devoted to copy and product. One was in GQ (January, page 25) and the other was in Dwell (Dec/Jan, Page 39). I saw two other product shots similarly composed.

All of the other photographs of people were surprisingly traditional (especially the editorial photos, where some art directors like to get out on the edge), with none that cropped out a major part of the subject's body. Most had the subject dead center or filling most of the center of the image. Off center subjects (i.e., people) were balanced by important compositional elements that contributed greatly to the photograph.

As an advertising photographer (ret.), I understand the need for copy and product placement, but the above is not an advertisement...it's a portrait. How much more we could have learned about this person to see his hands, for instance. The more-than-half of the photograph that is information-free tells us absolutely nothing about this person, but would be an excellent place to print his biography.

Again, with respect, and not wishing to offend, but simply to share ideas.