# chop off the head / don't chop off the head thing



## mmaria (Sep 25, 2013)

For past few years I'm in photography I have never hear you're not suppose to chop the people's head in photos... 
.... until now on TPF.
Top of the someone's head is just not essential to be in a portrait f.e. If you crop this way you are directing the viewers eyes to the eyes, or some other more important features.
It seems to me that is there much disagreement about "chop off and don't" here and on every photo with the head chopped someone would comment on that...
Here is an example what is ok and what is not ok when cropping people in photographs. Maybe someone will find it useful

View attachment 56397


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

http://enticingthelight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Stages-of-a-Photographer.png


----------



## mmaria (Sep 25, 2013)

ok............ 
so your opinion is....




and I'll choose to respect your vision about my lack of knowledge...

great graph though...
 which is related with chopping heads, how?


----------



## mmaria (Sep 25, 2013)

ok... so no one else?
I thought that we could have opinion on this subject in one thread and not always when someone post a photo with chopped head, to discus about it.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

I don't worry too much about chopping anything anywhere. TPF contributors do see to have some rules they like to point out, but I neither know nor care if those rules are widely known or invented right here through the sort of game of telephone that many of the experts here seem to have used to get their expertise.

Portrait studios, for instance, seem to have had and presumably still have, standards for this kind of thing. Whether that's because these are in fact universal rules, or because they're standards that avoid occasional mishaps, or if they were simply looking for a uniform product, I do not care to guess.

Pictures either work or they don't. Sometimes a head chop is fine and at other times it's not. The resulting picture can be quite different with and without, but if you're trying to produce the the one you made, well, great.

The limb chopping thing is a mystery to me. I simply don't see the problem with most of the "limb chops" people complain about here. But I am just one man, one sample. Maybe it does bother other people.

If a chop just looks sloppy, lazy, or accidental, that's not gonna be a good thing. Not because of the chop, but because of the lazy/accidental.


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 25, 2013)

Um, yeah. As a basic rule of thumb, don't chop off someone's head.

But sometimes it's okay...


----------



## mmaria (Sep 25, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Portrait studios, for instance, seem to have had and presumably still have, standards for this kind of thing. Whether that's because these are in fact universal rules, or because they're standards that avoid occasional mishaps, or if they were simply looking for a uniform product, I do not care to guess.


 Formal portraits taken in the studio,  I can't remember if I saw any of that kind with chopped heads. 
 And ok, I understand if someone want an uniform product as you said but I don't understand how someone will be so "chopping heads is 100% wrong" in every type of photography...

corporate types of photos have chopped heads occasionally 



amolitor said:


> The limb chopping thing is a mystery to me. I simply don't see the problem with most of the "limb chops" people complain about here. But I am just one man, one sample. Maybe it does bother other people.


me too...



Steve5D said:


> Um, yeah. As a basic rule of thumb, don't chop off someone's head.
> 
> But sometimes it's okay...



there are basic rules and the "don't break the rule if you don't know why you are doing that" thing but chopping heads is just not in this category of rules, IMO.

there are times when the space above the head or a person's hair is just distracting, unnecessary in a photo, why not to lose it then?  

no one here defending "can't do it" really explained why is this wrong? why is someone's top of the head that important to be in the photo? how it is a basic rule?


----------



## Steve5D (Sep 25, 2013)

bmmision said:


> why is someone's top of the head that important to be in the photo? how it is a basic rule?




Q: Why is water wet?

A: It just is.


As Amolitor mentioned earlier, it's certainly okay to do, provided it doesn't look sloppy. I have an aunt who is could write a book on cutting off people's heads. We know she could write it because it's all she ever does. My brother and I call her "The Executioner". In every shot she takes, someone's head is cut off. Always.

It can be an effective thing, especially if you're doing a close-up of someone. If you're taking a photo of your friends in front of a National Landmark, though, and you cut off their heads, it's amateurish...


----------



## mmaria (Sep 25, 2013)

Steve5D said:


> Q: Why is water wet?
> A: It just is.





Steve5D said:


> As Amolitor mentioned earlier, it's certainly okay to do, provided it doesn't look sloppy. I have an aunt who is could write a book on cutting off people's heads. We know she could write it because it's all she ever does. My brother and I call her "The Executioner". In every shot she takes, someone's head is cut off. Always.
> It can be an effective thing, especially if you're doing a close-up of someone. If you're taking a photo of your friends in front of a National Landmark, though, and you cut off their heads, it's amateurish...



 thanks for the story and Q& A, it's been a great laugh!

I couldn't agree more with what you two said.


----------



## SCraig (Sep 25, 2013)

If you want to cut the tops of heads off then by all means do so.  If you want to cut off limbs then by all means do so.  Just don't be surprised when not everyone appreciates your artistic efforts.  Many people, myself included, see it as simply being sloppy and not artistic.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

SCraig said:


> If you want to cut the tops of heads off then by all means do so.  If you want to cut off limbs then by all means do so.  Just don't be surprised when not everyone appreciates your artistic efforts.  Many people, myself included, see it as simply being sloppy and not artistic.



The real question is, though, which comes first.


If you're simply dismissing pictures that have certain characteristics because you have a preconceived idea that they're "bad" that is one thing.
If you've noticed that a lot of "bad" pictures have certain characteristics, that's quite a different thing.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 25, 2013)

My wife:



I'm so sloppy!


----------



## kathyt (Sep 25, 2013)

Braineack said:


> My wife:
> 
> View attachment 56412
> 
> I'm so sloppy!


I actually like this picture.


----------



## kathyt (Sep 25, 2013)

I chop stuff all the time, but generally when I do so I am following another compositional rule to compensate. I am a tight shooter.


----------



## mmaria (Sep 25, 2013)

Braineack said:


> My wife:
> 
> View attachment 56412
> 
> I'm so sloppy!


----------



## jenko (Sep 25, 2013)

Like almost anything else, people can become dogmatic about certain ideas and rules in photography. It's the human condition.


----------



## astroNikon (Sep 25, 2013)

Did this come up from the photo of the bride yesterday, holding flowers ...
The top of the head was cut off.   Truthfully ....  she had some really pretty hair with a vail (I think) - I would liked to have seen all of it even if it had that artistic flair to the entire photo.  But if the objective was her eyes .. then I guess it's in the eyes of the beholder for the photo.  

What I don't understand was why it wasn't a vertical, then they could have gotten the entire head shot and kept the width to the shoulders. It was really nice either way to me.


----------



## PhotoWrangler (Sep 25, 2013)

There's a guy named Kevyn Major Howard I think, who has built a career as a head shot photographer, and pretty much cuts off the head in every single portrait he takes.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 25, 2013)

kathythorson said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > My wife:
> ...



My wife wanted to sell a few NWT shirts on ebay, so instead of on hangers, I had her put them on and I had her in front of an umbrella maybe 10-20° to the left of camera.


----------



## Devinhullphoto (Sep 25, 2013)

Can you clone stamp them out?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Maybe classical portraiture and composition has something to do the the fact that many of us consider head chopping to be a stupid sign of the times!

Did Leonardo chop Mona Lisa's head? NO.. I wonder why? (and would it be as famous as it is if he had... I doubt it) 

Looks amazingly stupid, doesn't it? (public domain image, btw, Mods!)




The current Junk Food Photography Style started by the New Breed of Amateur PRO photographers... will probably never produce an image that is a lasting as many of the classical paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc.. that are done in the classical fashion.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 25, 2013)

> NO.. I wonder why?



because he wasn't shooting a tight shot of her face with a camera in the horizontal position?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Braineack said:


> > NO.. I wonder why?
> 
> 
> 
> because he wasn't shooting a tight shot of her face with a camera in the horizontal position?



You are right... because he wouldn't do that... he knew what he was doing!


----------



## Braineack (Sep 25, 2013)

silly thing to say.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

If we could travel back in time to the 60's and look at snapshots  shot with film point and shoots... you would see heads cut off.  Especially if a "MOM" was using the camera. But back in the 60's.. Pros  didn't chop heads (or at least very seldom!

Same for the 70s,  80's, and most of the 90's. Then digital bodies got cheap enough so that  the average person could get one.... and this improved their  photography somewhat. But they still used the same crappy composition  that they always used, because they didn't know any better. As the  Interwebz became more usable, when even Grandma was using it... more and  more people saw these amateur images (thanks, facebook!)... did the Monkey see / Monkey do, and copied the style. 

Now it imbedded in our  culture.. and so called PROs (that were amateurs last week, or last month, and have  never had any clue about composition...) continued shooting that same  style. Now it is associated with PROFESSIONAL photography (by the public.. that has no clue about what is good photography)... and  many people think it is a good thing. NEW is not always good! There is a reason the classical artists did what they did... 

Headchopping was very, very rare prior to the so called MWAC explosion.... that is one of the things that started the adulteration of photography, with bad technique and worse composition. (but I am wasting my time... because those that don't know any better will not pay attention anyway, and those that do know.. will shake their heads and cringe, as I do!)


----------



## Braineack (Sep 25, 2013)

I will decide what makes a good photo and whether or not the head being cropped mattered or not.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

Photography isn't classical painted portraiture.

Just flipping through my copy of "Camera Work" and "The Photographer's Eye" I find many instances of heads clipped at the top. This is not all of photography, but it IS two quite different collections, each curated by one of the most respected scholars of photography that have ever existed.

Not be a dick, but if Alfred Stieglitz says it's OK, and some random TPF commenter says it's not OK, I'm gonna go with Stieglitz. No offense.


----------



## Designer (Sep 25, 2013)

Besides undisciplined photographers chopping heads at the forehead, another often-seen practice of this is in magazines and catalogs where the editor does the chopping, presumably to showcase the clothing or face while trying to maximize the image while minimizing page space.

So then people see that and proclaim that "the pros do it".


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Photography isn't classical painted portraiture.



Where do you think photographic compositional "rules" came from... maybe they just coalesced from thin air?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Braineack said:


> I will decide what makes a good photo and whether or not the head being cropped mattered or not.



like I said above ... I am wasting my time!   (see the last sentence in my diatribe above!)


----------



## Ysarex (Sep 25, 2013)

These shouldn't require attribution. Photos by Arnold Newman, Irving Penn, Philip Halsman, Richard Avedon, Annie Leibovitz and Yousuf Karsh. I think the head chopping precedent has been previously established.

Joe


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

Some random pictures from "Camera Work" (these are all out of copyright by now, I think, but whatever):

File:Gertrude Kasebier-Red Man.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
File:Steichen-SelfPortrait1903.jpg - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
http://upload.wikimedia.org/wikipedia/commons/c/c5/George_Seeley-Black_Bowl.jpg

You might also google up "Eye of Lotte" and "Portrait of Arp" for some more radical chops.

Steichen did it, Avedon did it. I dunno if Stieglitz did it, but he printed a bunch of 'em. I can't find any Walker Evans, though. He was a pretty foursquare guy, though, so it makes sense that he'd never select such a framing.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Photography isn't classical painted portraiture.
> ...



I know a great deal about where they came from, actually, and a surprising amount of it seems to have come from thin air, in fact. And only the "classical portraiture" parts came from classical portraiture, amazingly.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Ysarex said:


> These shouldn't require attribution. Photos by Arnold Newman, Irving Penn, Philip Halsman, Richard Avedon, Annie Leibovitz and Yousuf Karsh. I think the head chopping precedent has been previously established.
> 
> Joe



I never said it never happened... I said it was rare, especially when compared to the plethora of occurrences today. It has become the standard as it were... rather than the exception (at least among a certain class of photographers)! Pro's do use the technique.. and use it in a meaningful fashion, rather than the random, haphazard use that is so common today.

If you notice in the images you posted.. they are either square or vertical format, and strongly emphasize the features of the face. They are NOT horizontal images with a headchop because the photographer was too lazy (or something) to flip the camera! The single horizontal you posted... the hair is an integral part of the image, and the image would not be as strong in vertical format.


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Photography isn't classical painted portraiture.
> ...



Actually that's where pretty much all cultural rules and norms come from, They pretty much coalesce out of (seemingly) thin air.  Lots of people do lots of different hings, and over time more people like a few of the things and those end up being the cultural norms.  Like rain coming from clouds coming from clear blue skies, the "air" isn't as thin as one would think.  There's stuff out there.

Some of the rules and norms I like. Some them I don't.  But for me to say the ones I don't like are stupid JUST because I don't like them would be, well, stupid.  They may be stupid, or they may just not tickle my fancy.

For example, country music.   Stupid smarmy emotional salve for stupid people?  Or just not my thing?  When I was a kid, I knew it was the former.  It turned out that I was the stupid one... and not the entire country music industry and fan base.  Now I just accept that it's not to my taste.

I've also learned that when I am absolutely convinced that I know something and all those people who know the opposite are wrong...  chances are I know a lot less than I think I do.

Maybe it's a matter of maturity and emotional security to be able to accept things that are outside my preferences as still being potentially valid?


----------



## SCraig (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> If you notice in the images you posted.. they are either square or vertical format, and strongly emphasize the features of the face. *They are NOT horizontal images with a headchop because the photographer was too lazy (or something) to flip the camera!* The single horizontal you posted... the hair is an integral part of the image, and the image would not be as strong in vertical format.


Actually it's more technical yet simpler than that.  The only "Rule" that some of those so-called photographers have been able to learn is "Focus on the eyes".  When they get close and do that without using portrait mode the top of the head gets cut off.  Once it got started it was a short hop, skip, and jump to being "Artistic".


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

Head chops are perfectly fine--IF the composition is fundamentally sound. What is almost never appropriate is a head chop combined with an inch of space below the chin in a horizontal composition with a huge amount of dead space off to the left and right. The instance where I made my disdain for that type of amateurish, newbie-ish blunder was a couple weeks ago, and one poster in particular greatly overstepped his bounds in mis-categorizing my comments about this increasingly common, amateurish practice. As with any type of photo, there are compositions that work well, and there are also compositions that work poorly, and which reveal the shooter's poor design aesthetic and lack of artistic sensibility and lack of taste.And there are compositions in between.

Again: a head-chop, with a horizontal camera, and TONS of dead, useless, meaningless empty space left and right of a face, with no shoulders, AKA "A floating head", with the eyes poorly positioned, and the chin of the person dragging on the floor, so to speak, is the example type I was criticizing last week. And as I pointed out then, a trained, skilled photographer would not commit so many blatant rookie mistakes, and then proclaim it "a good shot". Because, no matter how well that person can run the controls of the camera, he or she has clearly made several very poor decisions (well, actually more like LACK of decisions, LACK of the proper actions). Perhaps people will "get a clue" and understand that it's much more complicated than JUST a check-mark question. It's not, "Is there a head chop,yes or no?" 

The question is, "Does cutting off the top of the head strengthen the shot or not?" The question is, "Does this entire composition make the most effective use of the space, or not?" The question is, "Does the person I am showing appear as a person, with at least some kind of body, or is her head 1/2 of an inch from the bottom edge of a horizontal frame?" The question is, "Why am I orienting the camera horizontally, and cutting this woman off right through both breasts? Is it so I can show more of the out of focus bright green lawn on both sides of her head, or am I too untrained to realize my Canon Rebel  will tilt tall-ways?" (lol)

There is a time and place for almost anything in composition. There are also rookie mistakes that self-taught people frequently make as they are learning to run the controls of their cameras. ALmost anything can be done successfully, if the shooter KNOWS HOW, why, and when to do it. And by the same token, there are millions of people whose ideas of portraiture are pretty new, unstudied, and often filled with fundamentals issues. If you think the issue of a head-chop is a ONE-part question, as in Yes or No, you are sadly, mistaken. If you want to defend beginner-level mistakes and say they are "good", well, go right ahead.


----------



## runnah (Sep 25, 2013)

Everything great and revolutionary has been done by breaking the "rules".


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

runnah said:


> Everything great and revolutionary has been done by breaking the "rules".



That's true. The Soviet Union's first successful manned space flight was made possible by using Kool-Aid to power the rocket engines!!!


----------



## runnah (Sep 25, 2013)

Derrel said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Everything great and revolutionary has been done by breaking the "rules".
> ...




Incorrect, they used "Kremlin-Aid". It's like Kool-Aid but it only came in one favor, oppression.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

runnah said:


> Everything great and revolutionary has been done by breaking the "rules".



yea.. tell that to the Russian Communists... they were great and revolutionary too...

and NO.. that isn't true!


----------



## runnah (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> runnah said:
> 
> 
> > Everything great and revolutionary has been done by breaking the "rules".
> ...



Ok be pedantic...

Everything great and revolutionary *in art* has been done by breaking the "rules".


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



If it is done from a firm grasp of composition, and based on choice and knowledge... it can work. 

If it is done from lack of knowledge, and because " Everyone shoots that way" or just a "I like it" with no other base, then it is probably not going to work, or at least not well. (no matter how hard all the amateurs argue for it! Or say that I am being resistant to change!)

Just because millions of amateurs are doing it, does not make it right! Millions of lemmings follow each other of cliffs too... with no thought or knowledge of what that long drop will do! Much like many new photographers!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

runnah said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > runnah said:
> ...



Only if you add a letter....


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 25, 2013)

I prefer chopping off a little bit from the top of the head IF it is just a very formal, empty background sort of headshot situation. But it looks fine either way, I think.  Examples would be pure color studio backgrounds, or very heavily blurred backgrounds with long lenses and wide apertures, and close crops.

Magazine covers are a perfect example of a situation where I think chopping off the head looks just fine: it's usually tightly cropped on just the person with background being unimportant, designed to allow you to identify the person easily and often pay close attention to their expression. AKA conditions where head chopping is fine IMO.

If the context around them actually matters at all, then I normally wouldn't chop off the top of their head, out of interest of framing them fully in that context. Unless maybe the context that matters only exists lower than the top of their head (like something happening directly to the side in an isolated patch, like a second person perhaps)


Here's part of a quote of mine from an earlier thread, with a list of popular magazine covers with chopped foreheads that are made by pros and look just fine (edited slightly to remove the context of the argument this occurred in.  Only the links):



> National Geographic covers with cropped heads:
> http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/national-geographic/1258-6.jpg
> http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/national-geographic/1218-3.jpg
> http://www.coverbrowser.com/image/national-geographic/1219-3.jpg
> ...


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 25, 2013)

I enjoy sitting back and watching these discussions unfold.

There is much to be said about an approach to teach and maybe to influence.

If I post a photo with a chopped off head in landscape orientation for critique; I would appreciate a simple question from the experienced TPF members "Why did you do that?"  
Then I could explain why, if it was intentional or not.  From that, I would be open to suggestions, opinions and examples of when it may or may not be appropriate.

That approach would work for me but perhaps may not work for others.
It would also work for me if I were the experienced one trying to help, educate or influence.


----------



## texkam (Sep 25, 2013)

Once again; de gustibus non est disputandum.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 25, 2013)

And here is one of my own photos that I really like, which includes a slightly chopped head in horizontal orientation without much important context around (still a shape to the right that balances a bit though):




If I didn't chop the head, her hat which was jauntily placed largely on top of her head and not really on it, would have looked cartoonishly ridiculous.

Also the blue color wouldn't have balanced as well with the amount on the bottom corner. Also there were distracting neon signs and stuff higher up in the scene that would have been a problem.

So there were reasons, not just willy nilly, but I think it looks just fine, despite being horizontal, "Dead space" on the side, and head crop.


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> nycphotography said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Ok, so who gets to decide who the "real artists" are and who is doing it "from lack of knowledge"?


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

Anyways.

There are certain not very good idioms that include chopping part of the head off. The thing that makes them bad is their badness, not specifically the head chopping.

The teaching of photography suffers enormously from this kind of nonsense. Photography attracts a high percentage of camera enthusiasts, who don't really care much about photographs. This population is used to and likes simple rules for things. How shall I get the right exposure? Follow these instructions and lo, it shall be the way you want it. How shall I develop my film? Lo, here are instructions. How to I use my camera? The flash?

Even, to an extent, where shall I put the lights, when I am taking such and such a kind of picture? This starts to flirt with unreliability, a step by step recipe won't always do what you want.

Quite naturally these chaps, and most of them are chaps, want step by step instructions for how to put the objects into the frame. They love their rule of thirds, and the little triangles and rectangles, and they love rules about where you may and may not clip things off. They want, demand, step by step instructions for making Good Pictures. This is quite new in the fine arts. People who aspired to become painters of sculptors or whatever would have considered it ridiculous to have a set of step by step instructions for making a Good Portrait or whatever. They tended to understand the difference between "look, this is how so and so did it and people kind of like that look, so maybe you should do it that way too" and "the human brain SIMPLY CANNOT PROCESS THE PICTURE when you cut the limb off at a joint!!!!!" (or whatever it is).

So you do get these step by step instructions for doing stuff, that actually produce pretty OK pictures. Unfortunately, they produce the same pictures over and over, and those pictures are pretty dull. Tons of people buy bog-standard portraits -- of themselves and family. Nobody ON EARTH buys bog-standard portraits of anybody else.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

The lemming thing is also wrong.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

Here are a few examples that make my point, which is that a successful composition is one that makes the most-effective use of the space. I've taken the liberty of head-chopping these off, so you can see the types of rookie mistakes I am talking about: FAILING to make the subject's orientation MATCH the camera's frame orientation.



Great portrait! Smiling face! NOT!



6'5" fishing partner, shown as he is--tall.



Cute girl! Channel 10 weekend news anchor! Nice hand-lop-off too, plus a head chop!



Oh, wait, shown on the family ranch with the vineyard in the background...standing up, so...shown in a portrait, standing tall...




I love to chop off the top of the head on a junior beauty pageant entrant's entry pictures. Makes it look like her mom shot the pics!



Turning the camera to the vertical orientation allows us to actually "see" her, and her clothing and stature, as she is at her age.



If you hold the camera horizontally, you lop off the top of the head, and BOTH hands! Woo-hoo! Awesome!



If you turn the camera to a vertical, the subject's tall positioning on the ladder that leads to the elevated fuel barrel is shown, and the subject, being "tall" is shown in harmony with the frame, which is also "tall".

*Get it now???*


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> And here is one of my own photos that I really like, which includes a slightly chopped head in horizontal orientation without much important context around (still a shape to the right that balances a bit though):
> 
> View attachment 56427
> 
> ...



And I would square crop (or 4x5) to get rid of the unnecessary space to right... that hot bright highlight is very distracting...


----------



## Braineack (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> amolitor said:
> 
> 
> > Photography isn't classical painted portraiture.
> ...



That's not the point. The point is, who will stop me?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

nycphotography said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > nycphotography said:
> ...



If you can't tell the difference, which camp are you in?


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The lemming thing is also wrong.



Really? Consider all the amateurs to be like lemmings... consider Facebook and Instagram to be cliffs... 

that should make a point even you can understand...


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 25, 2013)

Did you actually try square cropping? I think it looks way worse.  It SEEMS cropped, and cramped, and too centered, and just doesn't hold my eye as well, I don't think:



You may disagree. But it just feels much less dynamic to me.

Also, the bench stops being a contributing shape to the photo that echoes her arm and such, and just becomes a weird arbitrary line in the background.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Braineack said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > amolitor said:
> ...



No one.. you are allowed to do it anyway you want! But if you want to improve.. that attitude won't help!


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 25, 2013)

Also Derrel, you didn't actually post any pictures.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Did you actually try square cropping? I think it looks way worse.  It SEEMS cropped, and cramped, and too centered, and just doesn't hold my eye as well, I don't think:
> 
> View attachment 56437
> 
> ...



then try 4x5 instead of square...


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

The lemming thing is wrong: lemmings do not commit suicide by flinging themselves off cliffs.

I understand the idiom just fine, it's just a particularly stupid figure of speech in these modern times when we know things about other things.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

amolitor said:


> The lemming thing is wrong: lemmings do not commit suicide by flinging themselves off cliffs.
> 
> I understand the idiom just fine, it's just a particularly stupid figure of speech in these modern times when we know things about other things.



You no understand allegory? Ahhhhhhh.... too bad!


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> then try 4x5 instead of square...



Why??  This seems like just "guessing and checking" random aspect ratios at this point. 

Also, 4x5 would _still _be a "horizontal photo with a head crop and 'dead space'" so even if 4x5 does end up looking better, I'm not sure how it's relevant to any discussions in this thread whether it's better or not.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 25, 2013)

Uh. the word you're looking for is idiom, not allegory. And, hey, there it is! Right in the quoted text, that I typed!

Ok, that's enough from me. We've beat this one down pretty thoroughly, and I even had a chance to slip in my "pedagogy in photography is AWFUL" rant!


----------



## bentcountershaft (Sep 25, 2013)

All of these "rules" are and always have been a place to start from and nothing more.  If you don't know how to do something you learn the fundamentals of it and then branch out as you learn.  If you lose yourself along the way you return the fundamentals and start over.  That's all they are, but they need to be there.


----------



## o hey tyler (Sep 25, 2013)

This thread delivers.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

amolitor said:


> Uh. the word you're looking for is idiom, not allegory. And, hey, there it is! Right in the quoted text, that I typed!
> 
> Ok, that's enough from me. We've beat this one down pretty thoroughly, and I even had a chance to slip in my "pedagogy in photography is AWFUL" rant!



I MEANT Allegory!    As in mental picture.. mental image.... something every photographer should be able to conceptualize...


----------



## Braineack (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Braineack said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



Then I should probably listen to Derrel when it comes to this subject.


(btw, that response was a quote from Howard Roark if you didn't get the reference; that's what made it so clever and ingenious)


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Braineack said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Braineack said:
> ...



who is Howard Roark?  

Edit: (Oh.. a fictional character with fictional quotes!)    Not really an Ayn Rand fan... Zelazny or Heinlein is more my style


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 25, 2013)

Let's go to the score cards...

Issue reduced to single binary black and white pixel by ideologues? CHECK

Chest thumped vigorously to defend black or white, on or off, yes or no status of personal pixels? CHECK

Looks like this one is over folks.  But be sure to tune in for the next episode of "My Way or the Highway" where we'll be exploring the use of selective color in wedding portraits.  As usual, the only correct answers will be "Always" or "Never".  Should be a hoot!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

One can frame, and show, a person so that they appear as a dignified person, with a body, and a personality...OR, one can basically point the camera straight ahead and frame the person so that the subject of the ostensible "portrait" is shown with his or her head chopped off, and with no body, with no physical posture, as basically just a "*floating head*". It's all about using the space WELL. Let's at least try to gain a bit of understanding, shall we, people?

View attachment 56441View attachment 56442View attachment 56443View attachment 56444View attachment 56445View attachment 56446View attachment 56447View attachment 56448


----------



## JacaRanda (Sep 25, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Here are a few examples that make my point, which is that a successful composition is one that makes the most-effective use of the space. I've taken the liberty of head-chopping these off, so you can see the types of rookie mistakes I am talking about: FAILING to make the subject's orientation MATCH the camera's frame orientation.
> 
> View attachment 56428
> 
> ...



I like this.  But the next chapter could be the opposite - when horizontal and head chops work.  Then, a wet behind the ear photographer like myself would have a "wow, now I get it moment" and totally appreciate you showing me the differences.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Isn't it cute the way they cheer each other on!   YAAAY!


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 25, 2013)

Derrel, you're obviously cherrypicking some of THE most obviously vertical portraits I've seen in a long time, and then cropping them horizontally, which doesn't really prove the point terribly well.

You're also adding in other errors like centering the subject for no good reason and such.  For instance, that last image of the lady in the sweater actually would be fine probably in horizontal if you got rid of the space to the right of her. The corrugated guard rail thing adds horizontal energy, as does her arm, to the left, that would make it look perfectly fine.

The girl in pink would also be fine if the crop committed to empty space only on the left side. Her face and shoulders are squarish and have no obvious vertical energy in that crop, yet her pose is open to the left which allows for some horizontal energy to make that a reasonable crop.  Not slightly off centered, though.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Derrel, you're obviously cherrypicking some of THE most obviously vertical portraits I've seen in a long time, and then cropping them horizontally, which doesn't really prove the point terribly well.
> 
> You're also adding in other errors like centering the subject for no good reason and such.  For instance, that last image of the lady in the sweater actually would be fine probably in horizontal if you got rid of the space to the right of her. The corrugated guard rail thing adds horizontal energy, as does her arm, to the left, that would make it look perfectly fine.
> 
> The girl in pink would also be fine if the crop committed to empty space only on the left side. Her face and shoulders are squarish and have no obvious vertical energy in that crop, yet her pose is open to the left which allows for some horizontal energy to make that a reasonable crop.  Not slightly off centered, though.



Sorry, I just took about one minute and grabbed a few portraits I had made, and cropped them the way an unstudied beginner/newbie/self-taught-camera-operator would likely aim and fire.

I've not "added" any errors. Can you NOT see the "*tons of empty dead space*" on either side of each person? Are you unable to envision these as examples unless the aspect ratio and final size is EXACTLY the same as in the original verticals? LMFAO.

I think if we were to take a beginner with a 3:2 aspect ratio d-slr and have me with my 3:2 aspect ratio d-slr in a head-to-head portrait shooting event, that my framing would reflect 40 years' worth of people picture making and study, and the newbie/beginner/self-taught-camera-operator would make many choices that would be much,much worse than the butchered shots I made and used as quick examples.

I'm sorry that you seem to repeatedly fail to show understanding of my attempts to elevate the discussion. Frankly, since you are the person who attempted to inflame and incite this discussion a week or two ago, your comments in reply to my post are meaningless blathering to me. Please, move along. If you want to make comments, use your own examples.


----------



## uhtred (Sep 25, 2013)

I am fairly new to all this but surely it depends on what you want to be the focus.. If you are doing a headshot and chop of part of the head.. then you have failed.. If you just want to Photograph part of someones face then its fine to chop the some of the head off.. 

Anyway thats my two pence...


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 25, 2013)

Derrel said:


> I've not "added" any errors. Can you NOT see the "*tons of empty dead space*" on either side of each person? Are you unable to envision these as examples unless the aspect ratio and final size is EXACTLY the same as in the original verticals? LMFAO.



Darrel, I like what you did to illustrate your point.

However, I think you've successfully argued against "tons of empty dead space".  But you've fallen short of arguing persuasively against cropped heads in landscape orientation.

If I was framing (as in printing, not shooting) those shots...

AND I was putting them in a 4x6 frame on my desk at work, I'd choose the vertical ones.

HOWEVER, if I was blowing them up to frame on a wall, in 2 of the cases, I'd frame the horizontal crops (though I would take a moment to crop correctly).  The one of the girl I might still crop some, but I'd keep it vertical because the pose is as cute as the expression.

But ESPECIALLY the shot with the fish, the crop is way more interesting and charismatic than the original.  He has an interesting expression and he's holding the fish. That's about the only thing interesting in the original picture.  By cropping out all the uninteresting stuff, you focus on the interesting part, and by omitting the uninteresting part, you invite (force?) the viewer to construct their own context which will almost always be more interesting than the reality of the white tshirt and outboard motor.  I'd crop just a TAD lower to show just a tiny bit more fish, and I might crop a little, but I'd definitely go horizontal, and probably on a 2:3 ratio.

I don't even agree that these are the most obviously vertical portraits I've ever seen.

I dunno, this just isn't really black or white.

Now add in a poor exposure, a tilted horizon, out of focus, and poor lighting, and maybe those crops would look awful.  But would it really be due the crops?  Or all the other factors.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 25, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Derrel, you're obviously cherrypicking some of THE most obviously vertical portraits I've seen in a long time, and then cropping them horizontally, which doesn't really prove the point terribly well.
> ...




You're missing my point.

You can't take photos that were originally conceived and shot in the field as portrait orientation shots, and then just crop them horizontally at whatever position it happens to be possible after the fact, and then claim "SEE? They look horrible!"

Duh, ANY photo cropped drastically different than it was shot should look horrible.  _Cropping horizontally is not the same thing as changing to a horizontal aspect ratio in the field.

_If I were to shoot the picture of the lady in the sweater on the fence, I would do something like the following:



Notice that the empty space is mainly just on the left, not on both sides, which looks way way better, because that's where her body is facing and her arm is, so it makes sense. Actually, I'd probably push it even more left than this. That white space would then also actually be filled with image, because making the decision in the field would mean that it fell on the sensor, unlike in the actual photo. When you recrop, you constrain yourself to the pixels that exist, but if you did it in the field, any pixels anywhere exist, because it's an actual world in front of a real lens. In addition to the above, I would ALSO have gotten lower with my perspective, so that the fence isn't right in the middle, but instead hits at roughly 1/3 of the way up to act like a sort of artificial horizon line. her body would look about the same (probably actually a little more proportionate if anything), and the fence would contribute more than distracting like it does here.  I would also have made it straight, since it becomes a prominent anchor shape.

I can't show you what most of these changes would look like without having BEEN there and taken the photo intentionally horizontally.





Bottom line, you can't just take a vertical photo and recrop it and then attempt to use that as some sort of "proof" that the horizontal orientation is bad. You are creating unnatural problems by removing normal human common sense that would have been in place if it was taken that way to begin wtih. In other words, if you were intending to take the horizontal orientation, you would have done a whole bunch of things differently, and_ in the process, would fix most of the problems that exist in your recrop!
_
The only way you can properly compare is to actually get a model and do both ways to the best of your ability while the model is there, in the camera, makign choices each time appropriate to that orientation. Even then, it's biased. Ideally, you'd want two people on either side of the debate in the same room with the same model doing the different crops, in several situations that may be more or less amenable to different orientations.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 25, 2013)

> _I think if we were to take a beginner with a 3:2 aspect ratio d-slr and have me with my 3:2 aspect ratio d-slr in a head-to-head portrait shooting event_



Also, the horizontal crops you did in your examples were NOT 3:2 anymore.  You made the last one, for example, 1:2 in the horizontal but 3:2 in the vertical, actually, which helped contribute (unfairly and artificially) to the horizontal looking weirder.

You speak of an equal aspect ratio comparison, but don't follow through in your actual samples. yet another example of creating problems that wouldn't have actually existed with a real shooter intending to do horizontal all along.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...



Really... Not to malign Derrel's shot.. but I strongly question your conjecture that the crop you suggested works. It looks terrible! WAY too much dead space.... and WAY too much distracting background!


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 25, 2013)

How is the background any more distracting than it was in Derrel's shot? If anything, it is less distracting, because the higher magnification of the framing introduces _more _background blur.

Also, what you just posted is not what it would look like. Remember I also said that the perspective would have to change, lowering the camera to make the bar not ridiculously cutting right through the middle of everything, but instead providing a nice stable horizon-like anchor nearer the bottom of the shot.

I would probably also, if intending to shoot horizontally, have had her move her arm to lie further along the fence (about half as bent at the elbow). And the whole shot would need to be straightened differently than the vertical version, due to the dominance of different lines than before.

No amount of recropping or cloning will tell us what it would have looked like. Which is exactly why this method of simply recropping old photos is a terrible, terrible method for demonstrating anything about this discussion. These decisions have to be made IN THE FIELD.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> lowering the camera to make the bar not ridiculously cutting right through the middle of everything, but instead providing a nice stable horizon-like anchor nearer the bottom of the shot.



??? Lowering the camera... would lower the position of the bar (fence rail?) ... Now I AM confused...


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > lowering the camera to make the bar not ridiculously cutting right through the middle of everything, but instead providing a nice stable horizon-like anchor nearer the bottom of the shot.
> ...




Lowering the camera _while still maintaining the slight head crop on top_ (requiring angle change) would lower the bar. Sorry for not being specific enough. Diagram should be unambiguous.

I didn't get the angles perfect in the stick drawing, but you get the idea.


----------



## Heitz (Sep 25, 2013)

bmmision said:


> ok............ so your opinion is....  <img src="http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/attachment.php?attachmentid=56398"/>  and I'll choose to respect your vision about my lack of knowledge...  great graph though... which is related with chopping heads, how?



HAHAHAHA. The HDR hole!!  Fantastic


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

Once again, for the slow on the uptake crowd.

It is not JUST about chopping off the top of the HEAD! For goodness sakes...it is ALSO about showing the person, minus their shoulders, minus any kind of "body", "torso", or "trunk", and also with TONS of dead, empty, meaningless space on the left and right hand side, AND with the chin of the person "dragging the bottom of the frame". THAT is the context of the "incident" that kind of blew up here last week. THAT is the description of the photo that caused all this ruckus. Shooting what is supposed to be a head and shoulders pose, MINUS the top of the head, and minus any shoulders at all, and with tons of dead space, with the camera oriented horizontally, is what the issue was about last week. Some people seem to have difficulty placing my criticism in the actual context of the image shown. Again, it's not a single-point question of "head chop, yes or no?", but about GOOD compositional strategy versus poor, unplanned, unstudied, self-taught, zero-background-in-portraiture, zero study-of-compositional-theory.


Again, the idea is simple: make the BEST use of the available space! If that means rotating the camera, and thus including some shoulders, and giving the neck a bit of visible means of support, THEN even the most half-assed attempt is elevated from "mindless snapshot" to "portrait effort".


Millions of American children call spaghetti "psss-ghetty" for two or three years, until they learn how it's pronounced. If you ask them if what they are saying is correct, they will maintain that YES, it *is* pronounced *pss-ghetty*. Of course it's *pss-ghetty and beat-malls*!!! Of course it is, because they say it is so! We train and educate our children every day, for years and years on end. And yet, we seem to think that a person with zero training in the visual arts can buy a camera, learn to operate its controls, and within a year, know how to make good portraits. ALL without any study, and without any training in theory, concept, strategy, or execution.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Once again, for the slow on the uptake crowd.
> 
> It is not JUST about chopping off the top of the HEAD! For goodness sakes...it is ALSO about showing the person, minus their shoulders, minus any kind of "body", "torso", or "trunk", and also with TONS of dead, empty, meaningless space on the left and right hand side, AND with the chin of the person "dragging the bottom of the frame". THAT is the context of the "incident" that kind of blew up here last week. THAT is the description of the photo that caused all this ruckus. Shooting what is supposed to be a head and shoulders pose, MINUS the top of the head, and minus any shoulders at all, and with tons of dead space, with the camera oriented horizontally, is what the issue was about last week. Some people seem to have difficulty placing my criticism in the actual context of the image shown. Again, it's not a single-point question of "head chop, yes or no?", but about GOOD compositional strategy versus poor, unplanned, unstudied, self-taught, zero-background-in-portraiture, zero study-of-compositional-theory.
> 
> ...



Derrel,

You can't tell Big Mac lovers that McDonald's doesn't make good burgers... they won't listen, and will just give you that blank, glassy-eyed bovine stare!     Lost cause here... I suspect!

When someone doesn't know enough about something to know it is bad... well, to them.. it isn't bad! lol!


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...



yea.. sure... uh uh...

I guess I don't remember how perspective works... lol!


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 25, 2013)

Yes Derrel, I agree that if a photo does all of the following things, then it is bad:
1) Eliminates shoulders
2) Has dead space on both sides for no reason
3) Crops the head
4) Crops near the chin


However, unfortunately, *that's not what this thread is about*. The OP (and most of the other content) is just about chopping off the top of heads, that's all. You seem to be making up your own thread and then posting in it (or posting in response to the OP in particular of a completely different thread, as the case may be).

And if all you know about a photo is "is the head chopped off?" then you have no idea if it's good or not.  Even if you know "it was chopped off and it is horizontal" you still don't know if it is good or not.  Which are the questions the OP and most people seem to be addressing.



> Some people seem to have difficulty placing my criticism in the actual context of the image shown.


What image? The one from last week that is not in this thread? Why would we care about restricting our discussion to only that now?




> yea.. sure... uh uh...
> 
> I guess I don't remember how perspective works... lol!


Sorry, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. If so, just grab a camera and try it out. It works as long as the thing you're pivoting the top of the frame off of (her forehead in this case) is closer to the original camera position than the rail, which it is.

If the head were further than the rail, the opposite would happen (lowering and angling up would bring the rail higher in the frame).


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Sorry, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. .



What? Me.... Sarcastic? I'm shocked!


----------



## Derrel (Sep 25, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Yes Derrel, I agree that if a photo does all of the following things, then it is bad:
> 1) Eliminates shoulders
> 2) Has dead space on both sides for no reason
> 3) Crops the head
> ...



Ummm, sorry dude, but this thread has references to the thread last week, the one in which you attacked my position, mis-stated my position, and in which you acted like a ****. Sorry Gav, but you've been an agent provocateur for days on this now. It's about time somebody addressed your blathering head-on. Before we have yet another post on you trying to design a 4x5 rollfilm back, or creating a camera that you can use to take X-ray or radio wave photos with...or something else on which you're the first guy in the history of the world to 'discover'.

And this thread has references to the thread begun last night, the horizontal bride with the flowers, complete with a Post #1 reply by texkam referring to the "chop the head off brigade"...

You can t*ry and spin this allllll you want*, but you know EXACTLY what this thread is about, where it comes from, and who the parties involved are. Nice try Jar-jar... But when you, specifically, tried to mis-state my position on this subject, and have continued to yammer on about it, it's only fair that "your part" in the head-chop brigade be brought to light.

Now go back to your pss-ghetty and Big Mac.  Mmkay???


----------



## o hey tyler (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. .
> ...



Being sarcastic was giving you the benefit of the doubt, he could have certainly said "intentionally ignorant" based on your reaction.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Gavjenks said:
> ...



Thank you for the compliment! I am sure that is how you meant it, right? I thought  you left..... I know I remember a Flounce post!


----------



## o hey tyler (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Thank you for the compliment! I am sure that is how you meant it, right? I thought  you left..... I know I remember a Flounce post!



That is likely the closest thing you'd receive to a compliment so by all means, bask in it.


----------



## manaheim (Sep 25, 2013)

I hate to say it but I'm with Gav on this one.

Oh and that woman with the brown shirt?  Jesus she's hot.

Oh I'm sorry was that terribly off-topic and potentially derailing this wonderful thread?

Silly me.

Hawt.


----------



## Robbo521 (Sep 25, 2013)

sometimes i cut a little off and sometimes not.depends on what i am doing.


----------



## cgipson1 (Sep 25, 2013)

o hey tyler said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > Thank you for the compliment! I am sure that is how you meant it, right? I thought  you left..... I know I remember a Flounce post!
> ...



Funny.. I get compliments all the time... on what counts! My images! From people I actually respect... that means something! Your comments mean nothing!


----------



## texkam (Sep 25, 2013)

> Ok, so who gets to decide who the "real artists" are and who is doing it "from lack of knowledge"?


The one holding the money.


----------



## kathyt (Sep 25, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> Gavjenks said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry, I can't tell if you're being sarcastic or not. .
> ...


That is why I like you so much Charlie!


----------



## mmaria (Sep 26, 2013)

You chatted nicely guys... 

this is going to be a loooong post, maybe you might as well skip it....




cgipson1 said:


> Maybe classical portraiture and composition has something to do the the fact that many of us consider head chopping to be a stupid sign of the times!
> Did Leonardo chop Mona Lisa's head? NO.. I wonder why? (and would it be as famous as it is if he had... I doubt it)
> Looks amazingly stupid, doesn't it? (public domain image, btw, Mods!)
> The current Junk Food Photography Style started by the New Breed of Amateur PRO photographers... will probably never produce an image that is a lasting as many of the classical paintings, drawings, sculptures, etc.. that are done in the classical fashion.


This is a very unappropriated example for what are we talking about. And I think that even "current Junk Food Photography style started by the New Breed of Amateur PRO photographers" wouldn't crop this like you did.




cgipson1 said:


> If we could travel back in time to the 60's and look at snapshots  shot with film point and shoots... you would see heads cut off.  Especially if a "MOM" was using the camera. But back in the 60's.. *Pros  didn't chop heads (or at least very seldom!*
> 
> Same for the 70s,  80's, and most of the 90's. Then digital bodies got cheap enough so that  the average person could get one.... and this improved their  photography somewhat. But they still used the same crappy composition  that they always used, because they didn't know any better. As the  Interwebz became more usable, when even Grandma was using it... more and  more people saw these amateur images (thanks, facebook!)... did the Monkey see / Monkey do, and copied the style.
> 
> ...


Average persons, amateurs, so called PROs, Monkeys... it seems to me that you have other, bigger issues with someone "picking the camera and maybe try to learn something" or just "picking the camera up" people, then chopping heads by a real PROs.
All I hear in your post is calling names and hte bolded part of your post. 



Designer said:


> Besides undisciplined photographers chopping heads at the forehead, *another often-seen practice of this is in magazines and catalogs where the editor does the chopping, presumably to showcase the clothing or face while trying to maximize the image while minimizing page space.*
> So then people see that and proclaim that "the pros do it".


You've just said when it's ok to chop the head. and... more about some people's proclaims that "the pros do it" and undisciplined photographers...



Ysarex said:


> These shouldn't require attribution. Photos by Arnold Newman, Irving Penn, Philip Halsman, Richard Avedon, Annie Leibovitz and Yousuf Karsh. I think the head chopping precedent has been previously established.
> 
> Joe................* some really good examples, wouldn't you agree?....*





cgipson1 said:


> *I never said it never happened... I said it was rare*, especially when compared to the plethora of occurrences today. It has become the standard as it were... rather than the exception (at least among a certain class of photographers)! *Pro's do use the technique.. and use it in a meaningful fashion,* rather than the random, haphazard use that is so common today.
> If you notice in the images you posted.. they are either square or vertical format, and strongly emphasize the features of the face. They are NOT horizontal images with a headchop because the photographer was too lazy (or something) to flip the camera! The single horizontal you posted... the hair is an integral part of the image, and the image would not be as strong in vertical format.


and again, pros vs amateurs talk which is not the point of this thread.



SCraig said:


> cgipson1 said:
> 
> 
> > If you notice in the images you posted.. they are either square or vertical format, and strongly emphasize the features of the face. *They are NOT horizontal images with a headchop because the photographer was too lazy (or something) to flip the camera!* The single horizontal you posted... the hair is an integral part of the image, and the image would not be as strong in vertical format.
> ...


some more about so called photographers....



Derrel said:


> *Head chops are perfectly fine--IF the composition is fundamentally sound.* What is almost never appropriate is a head chop combined with an inch of space below the chin in a horizontal composition with a huge amount of dead space off to the left and right. The instance where I made my disdain for that type of amateurish, newbie-ish blunder was a couple weeks ago, and one poster in particular greatly overstepped his bounds in mis-categorizing my comments about this increasingly common, amateurish practice. As with any type of photo, there are compositions that work well, and there are also compositions that work poorly, and which reveal the shooter's poor design aesthetic and lack of artistic sensibility and lack of taste.And there are compositions in between.
> 
> Again: a head-chop, with a horizontal camera, and TONS of dead, useless, meaningless empty space left and right of a face, with no shoulders, AKA "A floating head", with the eyes poorly positioned, and the chin of the person dragging on the floor, so to speak, is the example type I was criticizing last week. And as I pointed out then, a trained, skilled photographer would not commit so many blatant rookie mistakes, and then proclaim it "a good shot". Because, no matter how well that person can run the controls of the camera, he or she has clearly made several very poor decisions (well, actually more like LACK of decisions, LACK of the proper actions). Perhaps people will "get a clue" and understand that it's much more complicated than JUST a check-mark question. It's not, "Is there a head chop,yes or no?"
> 
> ...


So you said it, chopping heads is perfectly fine.
that is this thread about.



cgipson1 said:


> *If it is done from a firm grasp of composition, and based on choice and knowledge... it can work. *
> 
> If it is done from lack of knowledge, and because " Everyone shoots that way" or just a "I like it" with no other base, then it is probably not going to work, or at least not well. (no matter how hard all the amateurs argue for it! Or say that I am being resistant to change!)
> 
> Just because millions of amateurs are doing it, does not make it right! Millions of lemmings follow each other of cliffs too... with no thought or knowledge of what that long drop will do! Much like many new photographers!


Again chopping heads can work and a talk about amateurs.....




JacaRanda said:


> There is much to be said about an approach to teach and maybe to influence.
> If I post a photo with a chopped off head in landscape orientation for critique; I would appreciate a simple question from the experienced TPF members "Why did you do that?"
> Then I could explain why, if it was intentional or not.  From that, I would be open to suggestions, opinions and examples of when it may or may not be appropriate.
> That approach would work for me but perhaps may not work for others.
> It would also work for me if I were the experienced one trying to help, educate or influence.


Got it? someone wants to really understand? would you help with explaining why and why not?.... guess not...because someone with a real desire to learn belongs to a group of people who are not born with knowledge you are born with.



Derrel said:


> One can frame, and show, a person so that they appear as a dignified person, with a body, and a personality...OR, one can basically point the camera straight ahead and frame the person so that the subject of the ostensible "portrait" is shown with his or her head chopped off, and with no body, with no physical posture, as basically just a "*floating head*". It's all about using the space WELL. Let's at least try to gain a bit of understanding, shall we, people?*.....some really bad examples......*


those are really not the examples people need to see about this subject. I dare you to show us at least one example of your work with chopped head that actually works, because you're a pro and you admit that pros knows how to do it, so it shouldn't be a much problem for you.



JacaRanda said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Here are a few examples that make my point, which is that a successful composition is one that makes the most-effective use of the space. I've taken the liberty of head-chopping these off, so you can see the types of rookie mistakes I am talking about: FAILING to make the subject's orientation MATCH the camera's frame orientation..... some bad examples.....
> ...


Would you do what you've been politely asked to?





nycphotography said:


> Now add in a poor exposure, a tilted horizon, out of focus, and poor lighting, and maybe those crops would look awful.  But would it really be due the crops?  Or all the other factors.


 exactly. 



Derrel said:


> Once again, for the slow on the uptake crowd.
> *It is not JUST about chopping off the top of the HEAD! For goodness sakes...*it is ALSO about showing the person, minus their shoulders, minus any kind of "body", "torso", or "trunk", and also with TONS of dead, empty, meaningless space on the left and right hand side, AND with the chin of the person "dragging the bottom of the frame". THAT is the context of the "incident" that kind of blew up here last week. THAT is the description of the photo that caused all this ruckus. Shooting what is supposed to be a head and shoulders pose, MINUS the top of the head, and minus any shoulders at all, and with tons of dead space, with the camera oriented horizontally, is what the issue was about last week. Some people seem to have difficulty placing my criticism in the actual context of the image shown. Again, it's not a single-point question of "head chop, yes or no?", but about GOOD compositional strategy versus poor, unplanned, unstudied, self-taught, zero-background-in-portraiture, zero study-of-compositional-theory..... And yet, we seem to think that a person with zero training in the visual arts can buy a camera, learn to operate its controls, and within a year, know how to make good portraits. ALL without any study, and without any training in theory, concept, strategy, or execution.



What is this thread about, I said it clearly and simple, about chopping heads. No other elements of composition weren't involved, and no particular photo critiquing. 

I've noticed that in every photo with chopped head, posted here, someone was critiquing just that and dismissing a photo for just that reason.

If a photo doesn't work then it doesn't work, simply as that. There are more elements involved there, sure we can all agree on that. But that's not what this thread is about.



cgipson1 said:


> Derrel,
> You can't tell Big Mac lovers that McDonald's doesn't make good burgers... they won't listen, and will just give you that blank, glassy-eyed bovine stare!     Lost cause here... I suspect!
> When someone doesn't know enough about something to know it is bad... well, to them.. it isn't bad! lol!


Well, because you two know everything it doesn't really matter that some of NOT PROs  know a bit, have some taste and don't like McDonald's.




Gavjenks said:


> Yes Derrel, I agree that if a photo does all of the following things, then it is bad:
> 1) Eliminates shoulders
> 2) Has dead space on both sides for no reason
> 3) Crops the head
> ...


exactly. 



Derrel said:


> Ummm, sorry dude, but this thread has references to the thread last week, the one in which you attacked my position, mis-stated my position, and in which you acted like a ****. Sorry Gav, but you've been an agent provocateur for days on this now. It's about time somebody addressed your blathering head-on....
> And this thread has references to the thread begun last night, the horizontal bride with the flowers, complete with a Post #1 reply by texkam referring to the "chop the head off brigade"...
> You can t*ry and spin this allllll you want*, but you know EXACTLY what this thread is about, where it comes from, and who the parties involved are. Nice try Jar-jar... But when you, specifically, tried to mis-state my position on this subject, and have continued to yammer on about it, it's only fair that "your part" in the head-chop brigade be brought to light.


Here is the OP talking. I'm not aware what kind of relationship you two have but I can assure you that this thread isn't about the thing you were implying.

Summary, we all agree that chopping heads works 

And also we agree that there are PROs here who dislike NOT PROs here and use every opportunity for calling names and disrespecting NOT PROs.


----------



## o hey tyler (Sep 26, 2013)

cgipson1 said:


> o hey tyler said:
> 
> 
> > cgipson1 said:
> ...



I think we all know that just because you get likes on your facebook photos doesn't mean they're good. 

It's cool, just use smilies and an unnecessary amount of exclamation points for no apparent reason. That'll really show me.


----------



## Newtricks (Sep 26, 2013)

Good read.


----------



## runnah (Sep 26, 2013)

This thread makes my ass itch.


----------



## Braineack (Sep 26, 2013)

My ass itches, but not from this thread.


----------



## runnah (Sep 26, 2013)

Braineack said:


> My ass itches, but not from this thread.



Herpes?


----------



## Braineack (Sep 26, 2013)

anal fissures.


----------



## amolitor (Sep 26, 2013)

Braineack said:


> anal fissures.



So, basically, you're saying "too many *******s"


----------



## Braineack (Sep 26, 2013)

no, i'm just an aggressive wiper.


----------



## Stevepwns (Sep 26, 2013)

The whole point to art is to provide work appealing to the eye.   If cropping a head, placing the subject in the middle or anything else that breaks these imaginary composition rules still allows for the piece to be enjoyed by another person,  then who cares.  

Personally, I think people that put too much effort into these "rules"  no matter the discipline of art you are in, THEY are the ones following someone elses lead.  Not the people that break these so called rules. 

I find it very amusing that the ones arguing for these so called rules are the ones that call other people the lemmings.  Lemmings follow other lemmings because they don't have the independent thought to do their own thing.   Those that break these so called rules are the innovators.  

If it looks good and the message is passed, why should anyone care what "rules" are broken.  There is only one rule in art, do what pleases YOU.  If someone else enjoys it as well, then great.


----------



## Stevepwns (Sep 26, 2013)

Braineack said:


> no, i'm just an aggressive wiper.




Better to much than not enough......


----------



## cbarnard7 (Sep 26, 2013)

This thread sucks. Huge pissing contest between dumb and dumber!


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 26, 2013)

cbarnard7 said:


> This thread sucks. Huge pissing contest between dumb and dumber!



I dunno about that, the parties involved seem reasonably bright. 

Hmmm but they aren't being brightly reasonable.

Maybe it's the pissing match itself that turns us into dumb and dumber?


----------



## play18now (Sep 26, 2013)

Derrel said:


> http://enticingthelight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Stages-of-a-Photographer.png



I had a good chuckle with this Derrel.  Thanks for sharing.  I'm glad to know there's a upward trend after the "Dammit, I suck" hole haha.

Now after reading this thread.... Well I guess that's why they call it art.  And why each photograph is taken the way the photographer envisioned it, and normally if they take it they way they think is best, and don't like it, they'll do it differently next time.  It's all part of this phenomena called learning.  Now as many of you have pointed out, there are great examples of photographs that head-crop, and great examples of photographs that don't.  When done with purpose and executed in a way that still maintains good composition, both framing techniques can produce good photographs.  By all means! Try it! It may or may not work, but you still learn from it.  That's how you get better.  

And I again direct you to the timeline Derrel posted, and the journey we are all on to become better photographers.


----------



## Gavjenks (Sep 26, 2013)

Derrel said:


> Sorry Gav, but you've been an agent provocateur for days on this now.



Hah, right. I don't know how I'll sleep at night with the guilt of having provoked somebody as naturally _quiet _and _reserved _and _non-opinionated_ as Derrel* into an argument. I'm a bad, bad man. 

*The author of such eminently non-provocative posts as this one:
http://www.thephotoforum.com/forum/...nteracting-bright-clothing-2.html#post3059550


----------



## nycphotography (Sep 26, 2013)

play18now said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > http://enticingthelight.com/wp-content/uploads/2010/01/Stages-of-a-Photographer.png
> ...



But I couldn't find the "TPF Hole" on the chart.


----------



## Derrel (Sep 26, 2013)

Gavjenks said:


> Derrel said:
> 
> 
> > Sorry Gav, but you've been an agent provocateur for days on this now.
> ...






Derrel congratulates Jar-Jar Gavbinks on his development of a combo X-ray and radio wave camera! Way to go Gav!! The Nobel prize committee will soon know your name!


----------



## amolitor (Sep 27, 2013)

This isn't chopped, but it does have a lot of dead space.



(this isn't mine, but it's also not copyrighted and never was)


----------



## Braineack (Sep 27, 2013)

I was searching through 500px and found a photographer with a bunch of examples of good and bad head chopping: 500px / Sergey Beletskiy / Photos


These I dont mind: 500px / Untitled by Sergey Beletskiy & 500px / Untitled by Sergey Beletskiy & 

Close up portraits; really showing off the eyes and beauty of the face.


These I do: 500px / Untitled by Sergey Beletskiy & 500px / Untitled by Sergey Beletskiy

I would have much prefered them to be vertical and the face fully framed and show off the unique makeup.


This one kills me: 500px / Untitled by Sergey Beletskiy

No reason to crop off his head here.



he seems to know when to turn the camera veritcal: 500px / Untitled by Sergey Beletskiy

But still lopes off the head in a lot, and I honestly don't agree with it: 500px / Untitled by Sergey Beletskiy & 500px / Untitled by Sergey Beletskiy & 500px / Untitled by Sergey Beletskiy


I also hate that all his shots are untitled, but that's another thread


----------



## Braineack (Sep 28, 2013)

sad this conversation died after my last post...


----------



## usayit (Sep 28, 2013)

Braineack said:


> My wife:
> 
> View attachment 56412
> 
> I'm so sloppy!



Intro to how men's brains are wired......


----------



## kathyt (Sep 28, 2013)

I am surprised this thread is still hanging on. Bottom line is sometimes it works. Sometimes it doesn't. Some people like it. Some people don't. If you don't like it, don't do it. If you do like it, do it. Bam!


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 1, 2013)

Braineack said:


> My wife:
> 
> View attachment 56412
> 
> I'm so sloppy!



Is this the before shot for on/off?


----------



## DiskoJoe (Oct 1, 2013)

Sometimes it works....




xmas party by DiskoJoe, on Flickr


----------

