Posted by Mel Ladewig on June 10, 2008 at 10:49 AM
Lately I've been posting into ESS and been wondering about a few things. I'd like some feedback about processing from the folks here. I'll post a couple photos first and then my questions will be below. Please take a moment to look at the photos first if you can spare the time.
Posted by Mel Ladewig on June 10, 2008 at 10:50 AM
Version 2
Posted by Mel Ladewig on June 10, 2008 at 11:29 AM
I've noticed lately that the photos posted by peers on ESS are typically much more saturated than those I've posted. In the past I've been very reluctant to use the saturation slider to a great extent, rarely above +8 or +9 on any color. Its not that I'm trying to "make the scene look just like I saw it" or anything like that. I just haven't felt that it fit my style that well.
I've watched the viewed statistics as well as comments and image saturation definitely has an impact on whether a person "walks in the door" so to speak. When I've viewed these images, they often look heavily processed to my eye, often with some channels blown. And this applies to high end photography galleries as well. I was recently in Key West and noticed the galleries there (Peter Lik and another guy who printed 35mm way to big IMO on canvas) tend to have pretty pumped up color. The same is true in many galleries here in Colorado.
My question starts here. I've been accepted in a juried show this month and I'm preparing additional bin works for sale. My personal style has been to have the photographs be fairly natural with a limited amount of processing in photoshop. For the most part I use blends with large soft brushes, selective and limited saturation, levels and contrast layers and few other tools. I've worked mostly in sRGB because I know what I produce can print well from this color space and it will be seen as I see it on your monitor. Some of this has to do with the fact that I've been using Elements and am stuck with 8 bit processing, but mostly its my preference. I will be moving off Elements to Lightroom and CS3 this year, but not just yet.
However, much of the goal of trying to get into the gallery shows is to sell my photographs. With that in mind, I've been reconsidering my stance on the images I'm going to take up, in particular on saturation. I figure the viewed count affects the possible sales count and I've seen a definite correlation between views and saturation and warmth, especially among photographers who are not as well known on NPN.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the two photos above. The first was my second pass at processing, with saturation and contrast increases from the scan. Both came from Provia 4X5 transparencies and even #1 is a bit exaggerated. I've found a way to use TK's luminosity and saturation masks in Elements. In the second, I used a type of luminosity mask from the red channel to selectively increase saturation and contrast in the warm areas of the photo.
Is the second moving in a good direction?
Thanks for your consideration and guidance on this rather long post.
Mel, i sympathize. Ive definitely moved toward more saturation etc in my posts in the couple years ive posted on ESS, it is generally what people prefer (although you most definitely can be criticized for oversaturated shots in ESS) Depending on the shot, i routinely add 10-15 saturation. My latest post is an exception--if i had added any saturation it would have looked horrible! I really think you have to remain true to your style and not compromise your personal vision, but i think it's possible for personal style and preference to evolve, after all, im not just taking photos for myself. As to your examples above, i don't think there is a huge difference between the two, although the difference is certainly obvious. It's a classic example of personal style preference. I think if forced to chose, id say #2 is an improvement, but not so much due to the change in processing technique, because i think the same process on a different shot might have made it worse. But from personal experience, a desert scene like this with this kind of light is going to have some high contrast and rich colors, that's just the nature of the lighting and surface. It looks perfectly natural to me. Hope this helps.
Opinions will certainly vary, but many pros I've discussed this with consider their photographs more as "art" - therefore they enhance the final product beyond what many purists consider as "good photography". Even Ansel enhanced his prints dramatically. I'm starting to change my beliefs, as well, to some degree. While digital cameras produce varying levels of contrast, sharpening, saturation, etc. I typically increase the contrast and saturation to mimic Velvia. You might consider switching to Velvia for more "punch" out of the box. I guess the bottom line is that if you wish to be successful selling prints you need to provide a product people want to buy.
It seems to me that you're struggling with the question about manipulation--how much are you really changing what you saw?
This is not an easy question to answer for anyone. Manipulation happens in so many ways--Guy Tal had a great article about LF that talked about all the different ways it can happen: optical, chemical, digital. Somehow, people have taken offense to the latter more than all of the former (think about how someone reacts to a fisheye shot, or something on Velvia, vs. a "digitally manipulated" image. Controversial doesn't cover it.
Many photographers just don't care about these reactions...Ansel Adams was no stranger to manipulation, but many consider his photos "accurate renditions of the scenes", for reasons that still baffle me. Maybe it's because they're just not familiar with the darkroom magic he had to go through to achieve his results...I don't know. Ansel's goal was to give the viewer an impression of what *he* saw. I try to do the same in my work through color. If I was wowed by something, I try to wow the viewer in a similar way without going over the top. And that's not easy.
I've had mixed feelings about it for a long time. If you read my website, I tell folks that I don't manipulate the images you see there...That's pretty much just marketing bullshit to be completely honest. The reality is, as soon as I crop an image with my viewfinder, I've already manipulated it to create emotion in the viewer. Same is true by choice of film. Your renditions above are no different, IMO. As a personal preference, I like the second one because it feels like scenes I've personally visited in the desert. I like the warm tones that the light gives on the rock. And I think that warmth gives more emotion to the photo.
Digital shots are just flatter in tones and color than their film counterparts, based on my very short experience with digital. That's why TK made those awesome masks...I don't have a problem with saturation increase in moderation. It can be overdone, and often is...But the bottom line from my art show experience: saturation sells. People like color. They like eye-catching color. And they like to see it pushed to the edge of believability, but not to the level of comical...
It's a tough edge to walk, but that's my $0.02 and worth less than you paid for it, I'm sure.
FWIW,
-D
Posted by Laurent Baig on June 10, 2008 at 12:49 PM
Mel, in the end, I think _you_ need to be happy with how your image _prints_.
That being said, I would say that version 2 is better than version 1 because the sunlit areas feel warm, which is how I'd expect the scene to look and feel to me if I were there. It doesn't look oversaturated at all. Remember that digital sensors/film aren't what the scene looked like, both are just impressions, it's up to you as the artist to make it look right and that is a very subjective and personal thing. Granted, Eliot Porter didn't live in the digital age, and who knows what his images would look like if he did, but his images are still successful without all the Vegas Saturation and Velvia colors (and I like Vevia). But again, I'd say, it's how you want your print to look. There really isn't a formula.
Personally, I think that what you photograph is more important than how much saturation you put in an image. The amount of saturation is just part of your style. What you photograph is your message.
I also feel a bit bombarded on ESS by bad "wide-angle pumped saturation" photography. It's like noone can make an image with a long lens anymore and personally many of the images are starting to blur together to me. Only a few photographers are really standing out with any sort of personality. Everything else seems to be copycat. I may sound elitist, but I think my stuff is crap, so there
For reference, this is the image as it was scanned from the Provia transparency and I think its pretty accurate to the scene as I saw it. Probably a bit flatter, and the orange color of the sandstone doesn't show as well. It was shot an hour or so before sunset as an upper section of the canyon causes the lower portion to drop into shadow early.
Thanks very much for the insight so far. As I indicated, I feel that I need to strike a balance between what I might print for myself and what will get people in the door. I don't feel like #2 is unfaithful to the scene, but #1 is what i would hang on my own walls. To me #1 is more calming, more inviting and more open. But there are things I like about version #2 as well.
I've never been in the no manipulation or photojournalism camp. I'm fairly well read on photography and its technology and artistry as well as art history. I understand very well that there is manipulation starting by putting a lens on the camera, continuing with the film and developer and printing. This does not cause conflict for me.
Its funny that Laurent mentioned Elliot Porter. I happened to have found a copy of "In Wildness" at a flea market recently. I've always struggled with Porter's work and I cannot say that its getting any better. But I've wanted to read this book and come to a better understanding of what he was about. I'm working on it.
I know I've got a long way to go as far as composition and vision are concerned. I think the "what" I photograph part is still quite coarse, blunt and unsophisticated. It takes time and effort, but also feedback to help build this skill. But hopefully with time this will work itself out.
I think your second interpretation has moved in the right direction. I prefer the higher contrast, and you did not push the saturation over-the-top, but I could be happy with either. The final decision must be made on what satisfies you, not a popular vote.
I think printing multiple interpretations and living with them for a while can be very helpful.
Or, put them away and look at them a month or two later. I know after working on an image for a while, it is hard to view it objectively.
To me, it sounds like it boils down to whether you want to please yourself, as an artist, or your critics and/or customers.
It's probably safe to say that, in general, customers tend to like (and buy) more saturated images. So if you're into photography to sell, then that's probably a safe direction to head. If you don't care whether or not you sell your images, then it doesn't really matter - please yourself by staying true to your style and inner vision, and be-damn the critics! Who's to say that one style is better than another? As Bill said, not even a majority of popular vote can really determine that. Of course, you can always produce stuff to sell and other stuff (or versions) that make you happy.
Personally, over the last few years, my style has consistently been moving away from highly saturated images (although I still take a lot of those images). This is because my own tastes are changing and my day job (which usually just gets in the way of a lot of things) gives me the luxury of being artist first, entrepreneur second.
It is kinda funny that you are asking this question now as I just asked a similar question in the PNW forum regarding my Columbia River Gorge shots. I think I am having a similar dilemma in my processing of those shots. I processed like I normally do and tried not to overdo saturation. Here is one example: http://landandseaphoto.smugmug.com/photos/307459495_3WZJ4-XL.jpg
Then I viewed several PNW photographer's images of the 'same' location during the same timeframe and the color saturation is 'much' higher. So I am wondering if I have undersaturated all of my shots of the Gorge in an effort to keep things looking 'real.' The problem is the Gorge is so bright with green colors right now that it looks 'unreal' when experiencing it.
And I have to admit that some of the top PNW photographers whose work I admire have 'very' saturated colors with high contrast as well. So I guess my post processing outlook is changing a bit as well.
Lets face it, not many people/buyers are drawn as much toward low saturation, low contrast images. Now of course there are exceptions to this when a 'mood' is created keeping these elements low. But a lot of the high impact landscapes today seem to also achieve a nice balance of higher saturation and contrast without 'going over the edge.'
I thing for me the 'going over the edge' part is what seems very subjective. Neither image above looks like it goes overboard with saturation to my eyes.
my 2c.
Posted by Doug Andrews on June 10, 2008 at 3:29 PM
I think the second image is an improvement more because of the increase in contrast than any color saturation change. The others have done a better job than I could discussing the merits of making pics for oneself as opposed to making pics for sale.
One more tidbit. John Owens wrote an editorial on just this topic, "Beauty Treatment", in the June 2008 Pop Photo Mag. It's worth reading. "Go to any big photo-sharing website, and you'll see that some of the most popular photos have an almost otherworldly quality." Then he goes on to review "Rarindra Prakarsa's" (actually Budi Prakasa Karyadi's) technique of enhancing his images and why it works.
I think the best of these images is the one you like the best. Ultimately, a measure of success is reaching that point of indifference to opinion in the most subjective of mediums. We are, after all, our own worst critics ~ rarely remembering the many mind-blowing images; but instead focusing on the last screw-up. One of my biggest problems with an online forum is the endless "nits" that go with simply sharing one's best efforts. Sometimes we shoot, and post, just for fun. Sometimes images grow on us over time, and our best images don't sell. I guess the point to this rant is that other's opinions can be a heavy weight, if we allow it. I understand the need for affirmation and love being able to see amazing art by simply turning on my computer; but I'm certain there are many who are unwilling to share fine images because of the "constructive" criticism that comes - whether you ask for it, or not.
What does this have to do with your shot, Mel? I don't know - it's a fine image, and judging from the responses, I'd say many of us are asking similar questions. How real does this version look? And, will it sell? One thing is for sure: with today's technology, every single image is manipulated. That's not a bad thing, just the way it is. I agree with many of the comments; and think Scott nailed it ~ what it boils down to is how we view ourselves and whether we believe in our work. I attended a John Shaw seminar a few years ago, and was blown away when he boldly said something like "I don't care if you like this image - I made it for me." It was great of course; and I remember thinking that I hope to get to that point one day.......
"Some of this has to do with the fact that I've been using Elements and am stuck with 8 bit processing, but mostly its my preference."
Bit depth isn't relevant to this discussion at all. On a similar note, CS3 has exactly the same RAW processing engine as does Lightroom, so you may not need both programs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Like the majority, I prefer the second version myself. After years and years of photographing out in the desert, my eye tells me that your second image looks closer to the light that late afternoon bestows upon the landscape here.
However, (and as you're well aware) it takes much more than enhanced saturation and contrast to grab a viewer's (potential customer's) heart and mind. It takes a unique, powerful and/or well rendered scene to make that person say 'Wow' (aloud, or in the soul), and this particular example just doesn't have that quality.
The last thing I want to do is to offend you, but professional landscape photography is now a highly competitive field, and frank opinions are necessary in order to succeed.
I'll echo Scott's comments. The right direction for your prints depends on what you're trying to accomplish. If your goal is customer sales at a show, then the feedback about more saturated images selling better has to be heavily weighed, even if it's in conflict with your own proclivities.
If you're making images for yourself, then obviously you can take it in the direction that is most appealing to you.
I personally favor the second image, by far. The first is a nice, pedestrian scene. The second is starting to elicit a more emotional response from me. Not having the benefit of having experienced that location as you did, I only have the power of image to get me engaged, and the color, contrast and saturation of the second would be more likely to get me engaged.
Hey Mel... great thread. I favor # 2. It sems to have a more refined "sense" of light. Adams referred to this as "adequte performance of the score". In his book "The Print" on page 126 he refers to "Winter Sunrise, Sierra Nevada, CA 1944" and said he had printed it in different ways over the years but had yet to make the optimal print. He describes the many steps he took to make this print. It is your tune, play it how you will! I entered some of my work in a juried show and one of the jurors thought I over did the satuaration. The curator over ruled him to my delight. All in the eye of the beholder!
John
Mel – all of the shots you have posted have been great…and, rather than trying to please others with your photographs, please yourself first. If that means more or less saturation, contrast, post processing, etc, so be it. A photograph is an abstraction of reality, and you will never be able to make a copy of the “real” with a photograph. Create the image how you would like others to see it.
One recommendation... By working in sRGB you are limiting yourself to a very narrow color gamut. If you are planning on making prints, I would recommend working in at least Adobe RGB. It doesn’t mean that your prints will be more saturated, but you will be able to retain more color gamut down-the-line.
Posted by D J Kuklinski on June 11, 2008 at 10:41 AM
Mel, first I'm in agreement with Rene; all of your images are great! And to echo what others have said, it's up to you whether you want to please the masses or please yourself. I like both versions of the image you posted; they each appeal to me in different ways. The first because it's refreshing to see an image that has little or no saturation; the second because it's not too saturated.
Mel, I also like the second image much better. It just has more "life" to it. How's that for a generality? I like saturated images, but that's just me. It seems so do most others as that's what gets the most views, comments, recommendations and ultimately sales.
If you are trying to sell your images, then you may have to change your style to live with those "requirements". I agree with Scott/Rick, the processing you employ depends on the final purpose of your images. For the most sales, higher contrast and saturation will in most cases be the way to go, but for personal use do whatever pleases you.
Having multiple versions of your images may be the way to go in the end. Luckily, that's trivial to do with today's technology.
With your stated goal, #2 is definitely the way to go. In fact, you could even bring out more blue in the shadows ... to enhance the contrast of color here.
But I have never sold anything in a show, so just one man's opinion here. I agree with general sentiments that colorful prints will keep you swimming with your current competition.
Mel: I think you're sorely mistaken if you think contrast and saturation is what makes or breaks a sale. Frankly, your images could be presented in the worst possible way and with completely amateurish post-processing, but when the image hits home for someone, they'll buy it regardless.
I think it's a big mistake to use NPN views and comments as a gauge for how you should present your work to buyers (photographers and actual buyers are two very different groups of people with different habits and demands). If you're concerned with standing out from the masses, make distinctly unique and honest images, market them well, and your buyers will find them. Forget about what other photographers are doing and focus on what is unique about a Mel Ladewig image ...
Discussion
21 repliesI've watched the viewed statistics as well as comments and image saturation definitely has an impact on whether a person "walks in the door" so to speak. When I've viewed these images, they often look heavily processed to my eye, often with some channels blown. And this applies to high end photography galleries as well. I was recently in Key West and noticed the galleries there (Peter Lik and another guy who printed 35mm way to big IMO on canvas) tend to have pretty pumped up color. The same is true in many galleries here in Colorado.
My question starts here. I've been accepted in a juried show this month and I'm preparing additional bin works for sale. My personal style has been to have the photographs be fairly natural with a limited amount of processing in photoshop. For the most part I use blends with large soft brushes, selective and limited saturation, levels and contrast layers and few other tools. I've worked mostly in sRGB because I know what I produce can print well from this color space and it will be seen as I see it on your monitor. Some of this has to do with the fact that I've been using Elements and am stuck with 8 bit processing, but mostly its my preference. I will be moving off Elements to Lightroom and CS3 this year, but not just yet.
However, much of the goal of trying to get into the gallery shows is to sell my photographs. With that in mind, I've been reconsidering my stance on the images I'm going to take up, in particular on saturation. I figure the viewed count affects the possible sales count and I've seen a definite correlation between views and saturation and warmth, especially among photographers who are not as well known on NPN.
I'd like to hear your thoughts on the two photos above. The first was my second pass at processing, with saturation and contrast increases from the scan. Both came from Provia 4X5 transparencies and even #1 is a bit exaggerated. I've found a way to use TK's luminosity and saturation masks in Elements. In the second, I used a type of luminosity mask from the red channel to selectively increase saturation and contrast in the warm areas of the photo.
Is the second moving in a good direction?
Thanks for your consideration and guidance on this rather long post.
Ken
It seems to me that you're struggling with the question about manipulation--how much are you really changing what you saw?
This is not an easy question to answer for anyone. Manipulation happens in so many ways--Guy Tal had a great article about LF that talked about all the different ways it can happen: optical, chemical, digital. Somehow, people have taken offense to the latter more than all of the former (think about how someone reacts to a fisheye shot, or something on Velvia, vs. a "digitally manipulated" image. Controversial doesn't cover it.
Many photographers just don't care about these reactions...Ansel Adams was no stranger to manipulation, but many consider his photos "accurate renditions of the scenes", for reasons that still baffle me. Maybe it's because they're just not familiar with the darkroom magic he had to go through to achieve his results...I don't know. Ansel's goal was to give the viewer an impression of what *he* saw. I try to do the same in my work through color. If I was wowed by something, I try to wow the viewer in a similar way without going over the top. And that's not easy.
I've had mixed feelings about it for a long time. If you read my website, I tell folks that I don't manipulate the images you see there...That's pretty much just marketing bullshit to be completely honest. The reality is, as soon as I crop an image with my viewfinder, I've already manipulated it to create emotion in the viewer. Same is true by choice of film. Your renditions above are no different, IMO. As a personal preference, I like the second one because it feels like scenes I've personally visited in the desert. I like the warm tones that the light gives on the rock. And I think that warmth gives more emotion to the photo.
Digital shots are just flatter in tones and color than their film counterparts, based on my very short experience with digital. That's why TK made those awesome masks...I don't have a problem with saturation increase in moderation. It can be overdone, and often is...But the bottom line from my art show experience: saturation sells. People like color. They like eye-catching color. And they like to see it pushed to the edge of believability, but not to the level of comical...
It's a tough edge to walk, but that's my $0.02 and worth less than you paid for it, I'm sure.
FWIW,
-D
That being said, I would say that version 2 is better than version 1 because the sunlit areas feel warm, which is how I'd expect the scene to look and feel to me if I were there. It doesn't look oversaturated at all. Remember that digital sensors/film aren't what the scene looked like, both are just impressions, it's up to you as the artist to make it look right and that is a very subjective and personal thing. Granted, Eliot Porter didn't live in the digital age, and who knows what his images would look like if he did, but his images are still successful without all the Vegas Saturation and Velvia colors (and I like Vevia). But again, I'd say, it's how you want your print to look. There really isn't a formula.
Personally, I think that what you photograph is more important than how much saturation you put in an image. The amount of saturation is just part of your style. What you photograph is your message.
I also feel a bit bombarded on ESS by bad "wide-angle pumped saturation" photography. It's like noone can make an image with a long lens anymore and personally many of the images are starting to blur together to me. Only a few photographers are really standing out with any sort of personality. Everything else seems to be copycat. I may sound elitist, but I think my stuff is crap, so there
Thanks very much for the insight so far. As I indicated, I feel that I need to strike a balance between what I might print for myself and what will get people in the door. I don't feel like #2 is unfaithful to the scene, but #1 is what i would hang on my own walls. To me #1 is more calming, more inviting and more open. But there are things I like about version #2 as well.
I've never been in the no manipulation or photojournalism camp. I'm fairly well read on photography and its technology and artistry as well as art history. I understand very well that there is manipulation starting by putting a lens on the camera, continuing with the film and developer and printing. This does not cause conflict for me.
Its funny that Laurent mentioned Elliot Porter. I happened to have found a copy of "In Wildness" at a flea market recently. I've always struggled with Porter's work and I cannot say that its getting any better. But I've wanted to read this book and come to a better understanding of what he was about. I'm working on it.
I know I've got a long way to go as far as composition and vision are concerned. I think the "what" I photograph part is still quite coarse, blunt and unsophisticated. It takes time and effort, but also feedback to help build this skill. But hopefully with time this will work itself out.
Thanks again for your feedback.
I think printing multiple interpretations and living with them for a while can be very helpful.
Or, put them away and look at them a month or two later. I know after working on an image for a while, it is hard to view it objectively.
To me, it sounds like it boils down to whether you want to please yourself, as an artist, or your critics and/or customers.
It's probably safe to say that, in general, customers tend to like (and buy) more saturated images. So if you're into photography to sell, then that's probably a safe direction to head. If you don't care whether or not you sell your images, then it doesn't really matter - please yourself by staying true to your style and inner vision, and be-damn the critics! Who's to say that one style is better than another? As Bill said, not even a majority of popular vote can really determine that. Of course, you can always produce stuff to sell and other stuff (or versions) that make you happy.
Personally, over the last few years, my style has consistently been moving away from highly saturated images (although I still take a lot of those images). This is because my own tastes are changing and my day job (which usually just gets in the way of a lot of things) gives me the luxury of being artist first, entrepreneur second.
It is kinda funny that you are asking this question now as I just asked a similar question in the PNW forum regarding my Columbia River Gorge shots. I think I am having a similar dilemma in my processing of those shots. I processed like I normally do and tried not to overdo saturation. Here is one example:
http://landandseaphoto.smugmug.com/photos/307459495_3WZJ4-XL.jpg
Then I viewed several PNW photographer's images of the 'same' location during the same timeframe and the color saturation is 'much' higher. So I am wondering if I have undersaturated all of my shots of the Gorge in an effort to keep things looking 'real.' The problem is the Gorge is so bright with green colors right now that it looks 'unreal' when experiencing it.
And I have to admit that some of the top PNW photographers whose work I admire have 'very' saturated colors with high contrast as well. So I guess my post processing outlook is changing a bit as well.
Lets face it, not many people/buyers are drawn as much toward low saturation, low contrast images. Now of course there are exceptions to this when a 'mood' is created keeping these elements low. But a lot of the high impact landscapes today seem to also achieve a nice balance of higher saturation and contrast without 'going over the edge.'
I thing for me the 'going over the edge' part is what seems very subjective. Neither image above looks like it goes overboard with saturation to my eyes.
my 2c.
Ken
What does this have to do with your shot, Mel? I don't know - it's a fine image, and judging from the responses, I'd say many of us are asking similar questions. How real does this version look? And, will it sell? One thing is for sure: with today's technology, every single image is manipulated. That's not a bad thing, just the way it is. I agree with many of the comments; and think Scott nailed it ~ what it boils down to is how we view ourselves and whether we believe in our work. I attended a John Shaw seminar a few years ago, and was blown away when he boldly said something like "I don't care if you like this image - I made it for me." It was great of course; and I remember thinking that I hope to get to that point one day.......
Bit depth isn't relevant to this discussion at all. On a similar note, CS3 has exactly the same RAW processing engine as does Lightroom, so you may not need both programs.
_____________________________________________________________________________
Like the majority, I prefer the second version myself. After years and years of photographing out in the desert, my eye tells me that your second image looks closer to the light that late afternoon bestows upon the landscape here.
However, (and as you're well aware) it takes much more than enhanced saturation and contrast to grab a viewer's (potential customer's) heart and mind. It takes a unique, powerful and/or well rendered scene to make that person say 'Wow' (aloud, or in the soul), and this particular example just doesn't have that quality.
The last thing I want to do is to offend you, but professional landscape photography is now a highly competitive field, and frank opinions are necessary in order to succeed.
If you're making images for yourself, then obviously you can take it in the direction that is most appealing to you.
I personally favor the second image, by far. The first is a nice, pedestrian scene. The second is starting to elicit a more emotional response from me. Not having the benefit of having experienced that location as you did, I only have the power of image to get me engaged, and the color, contrast and saturation of the second would be more likely to get me engaged.
John
One recommendation... By working in sRGB you are limiting yourself to a very narrow color gamut. If you are planning on making prints, I would recommend working in at least Adobe RGB. It doesn’t mean that your prints will be more saturated, but you will be able to retain more color gamut down-the-line.
If you are trying to sell your images, then you may have to change your style to live with those "requirements". I agree with Scott/Rick, the processing you employ depends on the final purpose of your images. For the most sales, higher contrast and saturation will in most cases be the way to go, but for personal use do whatever pleases you.
Having multiple versions of your images may be the way to go in the end. Luckily, that's trivial to do with today's technology.
But I have never sold anything in a show, so just one man's opinion here. I agree with general sentiments that colorful prints will keep you swimming with your current competition.
I think it's a big mistake to use NPN views and comments as a gauge for how you should present your work to buyers (photographers and actual buyers are two very different groups of people with different habits and demands). If you're concerned with standing out from the masses, make distinctly unique and honest images, market them well, and your buyers will find them. Forget about what other photographers are doing and focus on what is unique about a Mel Ladewig image ...
Just my opinion....