Which pic to you like better?

Here are a couple from the North Window in Arches. I'd like to hear which image people like more and why - I go back and forth on the images myself. I also realize that the fully lit version is just a little over-sharpened which I'll correct later.

And window (I mean door ) number two...

My eyes (I've read this is true for others as well) tend to see the light areas of a photo over the dark areas first and continue to revisit those light areas on extended viewing of a photo, thus the light areas tend to have more impact. My vote is for the 2nd photo since the rock formations grab my eye and lock on, in the 1st photo the lightest area is the sky which takes my eyes away from the rock formations. Two thumbs up on the 2nd one!!

I like the first one. Very interesting shadowplay on the rocks. It looks more fleeting and less like most other photos I've seen from here, which I like. But the second one's certainly a classic, too.

leaning on #1. i never see any clouds in the AM there either.

richieV

I think number 2 has more potential, but it looks a little overexposed, expecially in turret arch. You might consider bringing down the brightness of the some of the hotspots but keeping the sky where it is.

I got some clouds last time I was there. http://landscapetony.smugmug.com/gallery/2491587#137390849-L-LB

For me the first draws me in and has the qualities i find more preferrable. The second is a bit harder and less inviting.

I like the first one a lot better. The second one looks overexposed and too bright on my monitor.

I think peope can see my dilemma. I tend to like the first one as well, just because the lighting is different. No luck with clouds on that morning - but the two nights before they excessive and were ruining sunsets so I was happy at least to come away with something. As I thought, the over-sharpened image is affecting the look of the second image. I have attached a new version that was converted to web from CS3 rather than Elements 3.0. I think the highlight issues were addressed with the new conversion.

Much better job on the post processing of the second image this time!

I actually like this one a lot now too. This is a great example of how much PP can either make or break an image.

- Derek

I like the first one better. I like the interplay between the shadow areas and the warm light.

Hi Steve, nice shots! I like the second one more... I like the bold colors. And your second version is much better.

2nd version of 2nd one is awesome

I like the first one better (both are good), I found myself exploring the image more, the second one didn't hold my interest as much.

I was going to say the 2nd one if it wasnt oversharpened. The repost is a LOT better!! I was just there 2 weeks ago and took the same image. One of these days I'll get to process it and post it!! Nice shot!!

Thanks everyone. While there are things to get used to now having a full version of CS, I think I'm going to like the extra bells and whistles. The new post to web feature helps, as well as trying to get this sharpening thing down for smaller posts.

Mike, I look forward to seeing what you came up with. Also - Tony, I like your panorama image. I would have tried that but there were 5 of us crammed up on the ledge like sardines and it just wasn't possible to get the wider comp. All of our tripod legs were intertwined as it was - but everyone was nice and we worked together. Sounds different from the nightmares I've heard of at Mesa Arch - which is exactly why I chose this local on that morning rather than Mesa.

Steve, they are both great images, but #2 does it for me as there's too much shadow in the 1st. I'm not seeing the burned out areas that others are complaining about either. Maybe oversharpened, but not burned out. At least on my calibrated monitor.

Your redo of the 2nd version seems soft to me, but the 1st version seems a bit oversharpened. Somewhere in between on the sharpening would work best I think.

I'm sure this will really look nice in a large print,
Craig

Craig - I admit I simply resized to 720 pixels without additional sharpening. I wanted to stay away from it entirely for the second go around. This was taken with a Pentax 67ii, so there's definitely plenty of detail - probably why I oversharpened the first time as I get used to trying to post on the web. How do you represent a 280MB file reasonably in a 200KB file?

Version 1 is significantly better in my opinion. It has a much more dramatic and mysterious mood and unique lighting that I have not seen before. Version 2 is nice but is no different than hundreds of postcard shots of the same spot.

Guy

Both are excellent. I'd have to go with #1 for the reasons already mentioned. If all I came back with was #2, I'd be really happy, but the shadow/light play in #1 sets it apart. To nitpick, I'd like to see the shadows opened up just a scoche as the LLC is a bit heavy. Sweet shots!

I like #1 best, nice images!