Sorry to differ but I prefer the wider view. I think showing his uniform shows more of his character and it gives me more information about him. I think the close up is too close. To me the mustache looks sharp, but the eye is a tad soft. Is that right?
Agreed Peter. I would say that another problem is that it is not a close-up, it is an enlargement and thereby hangs a tale. How vital is quality in club photography? How much can we crop a picture and not run the risk of an unacceptable fall in quality.
This is something we can discuss tonight at the meeting.
<p style=”text-align: left;”>I prefer the wider view Wallace, but would be tempted to crop in just a little at the bottom, top and lhs without being too tight or clipping the collar or helmet for a little more impact. At the moment he is looking very round shouldered.</p>
Thank you all for your comments. I think there is not enough character in his face, together with a lack of sharpness in the eyes for the close crop to work.
It was interesting taking the photo as the subject would not look directly at me, but I kept the camera up and he just gave me a very furtive look. Only one shot possible, the focus point was his nose, so the eyes were not as they should be, it was f4.5 though.
This thread gives an excellent opportunity to consider the effects of cropping. With more and more pixels in our sensors we are inclined to think we can crop with impunity. It is true that there is more scope but a rule of thumb is not to drop below 300pixels per inch for really good quality. You might get away with 200 but loss of quality will be noticeable.
You also run into problems with focussing. The more you enlarge the more you realise how little of your shot is in focus.
I would have liked to get on to this topic at the last meeting, but there was insufficient time.
Another interesting factor is digital enlargement. We were always told to avoid this but software is improving and Ps has a beta version of an enlargement procedure which may prove useful – see the front page.