Presenting images. There are numerous rules that have been researched and suggested for the presentation of images. For some purists, they are all but immutable, and must be adhered to. I do not hold with this. They are, for my intent, guidelines. All images will have elements inherent in them that will not lend to maintaining conformity to the "rules". With this in mind, why was this image cropped the way it is?
Guidelinge (1) the rule of thirds. This guideling suggests deviding the image into third both vertically and horizontally. This will form a loose grid of two lines dividing the image into three equal vertical zone and three equal horizontal zones. Where the lines intersect are called the "nodes". By the "rules" the primary subject (in this case the bird) would be place on the furthes right vertical line with the head where the node is formed in the upper right area.
Guideline (2): negative space. This guideling suggests that if the subject is facing in a particular directio, the eye of the viewer will be lead in that direction as this is where the "unseen" object of interest is ( what is subject looking at?). In this case more spase is allowed on the left side of the frame (the negative space, the bird occupies the positive space). This was done, but not addhering to the letter of the law. Again I think in terms of guidelines, not strick rules.
Guide line (3) aspect ratio of 3:2. This means that, depending on the orientation of the image (portrait vs landscape) the image should be cropped such that there is a 3:2 ratio of the long axis to the short axis i.e. if the long axis is 3 in. the shor axis is 2 in. etc. This I did not do. I went with a nearly square crop because of the diagonal line created by the perch which balaces the image by bi-secting the frame in equal zones. The bird occupies one zone while the plumes of the reed occupy the other zone. My reasons. Using the basic principle but not adhereing strictly to them.
