Oliver...I see you have a featured image in this theme, also strangely cropped. Okay. Tastes differ.

Why do you think that type of cropping makes a better photograph? Really. I just want to know if you have thought it out or if you are just copying what I consider to be a gimmick.

Oliver...may last remark may sound harsh and I don't mean it to me. My remarks relate to this discussion I had some time ago with "reality", which you can read in its entirety here:

http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/negative-space/featured/49/

Here's an excerpt:

reality said 86 days ago: 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.

King said 86 days ago:

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....

King said 82 days ago:

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.

Self-portraits are, for my part, experiments. They are certainly not product shots and they are not done for advertisement purposes. Thus, I tend to show good tones and texture. In the picture above, everything is dark. It was definitely made on a black background for a reason... it feels dark. It feels angry, and somehow greedy. I cropped so my eyes could be in dead center, showing just what was needed to feel this intriguing anxiety. The roundness of my face would have made me look a bit softer, like in my previous featured selfportrait.

Oliver...excellent. I like your thinking and your explanation. Notice that I didn't remark on the technical aspects of the photo...just the crop.

I understood, I think, what you were getting at with the darkness. I also appreciate that in your featured image you looked "pretty" in the way that some men do...I'm not hinting a sexuality, just physical beauty...and that this image doesn't carry that same curse (or blessing, depending on your pespective).

Now, back to the crop. Brant had a very good and interesting reason for cropping his portrait as he did:

http://www.weeklyshot.org/theme/self-portrait-3/featured/11/

Sometimes we, the audience, cannot tell from what we see whether another crop would make the image have more *subjective* appeal, or less. We can't compare A to B.

My issue with eccentric cropping is when it is thought-less or simply cropped in such a way as to resemble other (edgey, trendy) photos. I crop my images the way I *want* to crop my images, but, like you, I make thoughtful decisions about it.

Thank you!