Why or why not.

To me, what we call luminosity is an important way to convey things that are perceptable in nature, such as the impact lighting has on mood and feeling in one's images. Luminosity is an important part of my processing. I have experimented recently with ways to enhance what I call luminosity while simutaneously decreasing the apparent contrasts rendered by the camera (the camera sees things with more than twice the contrasts picked up by the human eye) in an effort to impart what I consider to be more interpretive images that capture not only the details of a scene as the camera sees them but also something of an enhancement to the mood and evocative power of the image.
Things like mood, of course, are totally subjective and what may be an enhnacement to one person may be a detrement to the next. I've realized this with recent postings on various forums, where I honestly have had no idea how perceptable these supposed enhancements have been. I've actually had no idea what people were talking about when it's been suggested something is different from my past work, but I'm now coming around to the concept that these adjustments are not for everyone, and for some it seems to decrease the natural appeal of the images.

With this in mind, I will present to you two variations of the same photograph - one processed in 2006 and the other processed with new techniques in question. I'd value your opinions on why you prefer one over the other.

Thanks!


Image 1: No adjustments other than dodge/burn, RAW.

Image 2: With new adjustments.

Marc,
I hope all is going well. It's been a while!
This is a very interesting post. I have had these discussions as well with friends regarding the impact of how new technology (as far as sensors go , increased contrast etc) in our equipment are effecting perception. ( You and I go back to the Galen school where.. I truly believe he was a master at the WOW factor, while keeping perception more realistic than lots of other masters of the time).
My thoughts here are pretty simple. Initially, I think most people just casually looking these images will 1st gravitate to #1 because of its contrast, sharpness. However after looking at both side by side for a few minutes, to me there is little doubt that the second images is much more pleasing. Both renditions convey almost two very different moods. The first is : Wow what a great shot, sharp, great color etc... just a great overall image... but #2 is the same with added feeling... I want to look at a lot longer and #2 and feel the texture, softness and overall warmer feeling. In #1 I can hear the water rising over the rocks, in #2 it's a trickle with a soft, warm feeling.
My background is in music.... You may or may not know what I am about to compare but I'll take a chance.....#1 would be played on a trumpet nice and clear, crisp and tonal, while #2 would be played on a flugelhorn, warmer sound, a tad more subtle.
#1 might be played on an electric guitar, #2 on an acoustic. make sense?
I'd love to see #2 on some fine art mat paper
All the best
JG.

Marc,
I really like to see you gravitate to this avenue. You used to be hard core photographs are photographs and anything else was OK for others, but not you. You are a great photographer, but with the second version and your latest processing...it shows you are now filling that artistic side. I would say that with both worlds in sync, your works (as well as anyone's) will appeal even more to the general public.

This is a great test because there are photographers everywhere that have perfectly technical images that are pretty...but because they are so into gear and rules, they cant really be called artists. Those folk will most likely prefer your first post...so it really will depend on which side of the brain is dominant for them.

New techniques come around daily for processing images, that doesnt make your second photo any less 'real' that your first image. We know you keep it simple, real, so i am to believe that your second image isnt what you saw? Not likely, unless you say so. Just a new technique to enhance what was there and now can evoke more of an emotional response from the viewer. Keep up new stuff, inovative and simple and real. :)

Marc,

I personally prefer the second treatment of this image for two main reasons. First, I feel the luminosity adjustment creates more of a "fine-art" look to the image. What I also feel this adjustment has become an excellent part of your personal style.

I have to echo those above in that the artistic side of photography is far more evident in the second version than in the first. There will always be those that consider only sharp technical photographs to be good images. To me however, many shots in that technical catagory only represent good "documentation" of the scene. IMHO landscape photography requires capturing mood, and evoking feeling / emotion. This doesn't mean stretching the limits of what is real in the image necessarily, it simply means adding artistic interpretation to each capture. Just my .02

#2 looks gauzy and to my sensibility much less appealing.

Rick, I am curious as to why you feel that Marc's work was void of having an "artistic side". Unfortunately I think that you are wrong in your assumption that the second image, being more artistic, would be more successful or appealing. I guess one has to ask how you are gauging success (monetarily, personal..), but on a monetary basis, I would venture to say that Mangelsen, being the highest grossing wildlife/landscape photographer in the U.S. (Nikon stated his photography income at around 11million) is "successful" because his photography showcases the beauty of nature while maintaining a sense of authenticity that the public easily relates with. I think Bryan's comment about the "artistic side of photography" is somewhat redundant--just read the quote next to Marc's signature. Here I raise some questions, is it possible to have a level of artistry within a category of art? Can one picture be deemed more artistic than another?

Just my thoughts. I am totally open for discussion.

I'd agree that while the second one has more artistic merit and appeals more to me, I would think that the general populace would probably relate more to the first one both because they wouldn't understand what was done to the image and they weren't there to see it and thus can't grasp how the adjustments seen in the second version would actually reflect an accurate atmosphere.

It almost looks like the second version has had a little of an orton effect applied to it. I think if you could retain the perceived sharpness of the first version while still keeping the luminosity of the second, you'd reach a happy medium. I'm assuming they are both equally sharp (looks to me that way) but the lightening sort of negates the effects of the sharpening passes.

Marc,

I also believe that the second image is more pleasing due to the expanded contrast range. The first image in comparision is more subdued. If this were a black and white image I would say that the first image is muddy compared to the second.

Are you using some form of luminosity and/or saturation mask for the second image? And, are you willing to share your technique with us?

Thanks for sharing your images.

Phil Knouf

Definitely the second version, Marc. Except for the sharpness, it looks closer to what the human eye would actually see. It has more depth and dynamic range.
If painters from the Hudson River School Like Thomas Cole or Albert Bierstadt had access to the photo equipment of today, how close could they come to making their photos mach the vision of their paintings?
Coming from an art backround, I kind of look at it like that: If you were to paint a scene you were about to photograph where you have the freedom to make that painting exactly how you envision it (composition, light, objects, etc), how close can you come to that vision with your photo? I think photography is much more challenging because of the fact that you have to work within the confines of a given situation rather than being able to create that situation to fit your ideals.

Exactly what Rick said.

The second image has that uniqueness to it. When I see that sort of luminosity, I know without a doubt, that it's a Mark Adamus image. With that said, I personally like the first image better. I like the feel of the sharpness and not just from a quality standpoint. The second image gives off a much warmer feeling; I see the snow on the hill but I cannot feel it. The second image is incredible to dream about, but the first image puts me there.

I prefer the 1st photo. But I prefer the processing of the 2nd in some of your other images.

As has been noted, the first is sharper and harder it gives the appearance of being a real place that you can reach out and touch. The 2nd is also beautiful but it has a more dreamy look and is less sharp in appearance.

For most photos involving lots of color ranges, dramatic sky and/or mountains scenes, I think I would relate better to the photo with the processing done in the 1st one. In those scenes I think they are more effective with that sharp, hard, and "in your face" look. For scenes that do not involve the sun, sky, winter landscapes, or mountains, the treatment of the 2nd might be better (or maybe a scaled back version). I think your shots of waterfalls that do not involve any sky or sun could use that "dreamy" look to give them that extra special dreamy atmosphere that you feel when you are there. I really like the treatment of the 2nd in your "Fairyland" waterfall shots.

In the photos posted, the sun and the sun beams already give the photo a magical appearance, and that extra treatment is not necessary. However, if the scene above had 1) no sun beams and 2) very little extra color from the wildflowers, I may very well prefer the treatment in the 2nd image.

All of that said, I would be happy to hang either version on my wall.

Daniel Ewert

Marc
I definitely prefer the second image. For me the dynamic range is much more pleasing and adds that certain pop to the capture. With the second image it really makes me want to be there and hear the water and smell the wild flowers.

Ray Still

ARGH. This forum is completely frustrating. I wish the photos could be posted side by side or on top of each other for easier comparison..

I prefer #1. The general grassy green throughout the photo in #2 just looks odd. It looks like it is enhanced by light and yet your perspective is looking into the sun (albeit broken through trees). Aside from that, I actually don't see much else different.

Would like to chime in here if that is ok (I do live in Washington). For me, the question boils down to: does the photographer make every effort to represent the scene before him/her in the most realistic manner possible or does the photographer make an image in which he/she interprets the scene before them,giving the viewer not only what was before her/him but also some sense of the feelings and emotions that perhaps guided or drew the photographer to make the image. I'm always reminded of Ansel Adam's idea that the negative is the score and the print the performance. While few ever question the validity (and end result in print) of manipulation in b/w, with color it seems that there is a whole spectrum of opinion which boils down to your point of view. Do both approaches constitute art?
Your first image to me is more of the realism approach and is beautiful in its own right. I think that this is what many color film-based landscape photographers have traditionally done in decades past. The transparency was the end result to be presented for publication. Sure there was some inherent "manipulation" (choice of film, filters,etc) but this was an acceptable part of the work; interpretation was found in the point of view, lens choice, maybe a little lens movement, etc. Any post-processing was very limited prior to the digital age. I still consider this art. The work of Muench, Dykinga, Clifton, to name a few in the 80's and 90's (whose name spellings I have likely butchered). They were and still are artists.
Your second image is more of your interpretation of what you saw before you. You still are representing what was before you but you have added an element through luminosity manipulation that gives the viewer a sense of the magic you felt at the time or perhaps the emotion you want to invoke in your viewer. Your approach of fogging a filter at time of exposure is also a means of interpretation to me. Some might consider this to be more along the lines of true art (what ever that is). I think your second image is just wonderful as I can get a sense of the magic of that sunlight filtering down, lighting up the water, grasses and flowers with a warm glow. The first image doesn't quite provide this but is still a beautiful image in its own right.
Both approaches, as well as numerous others of course, for me are valid and constitute art when done well. Depends on what your point of view is, what you are trying to accomplish with a given image.
I'm probably just reiterating what all you have read or heard countless times before. Old guys are allowed to expound and I must admit that the digital darkroom has opened up a whole new world to me and it is flat amazing.

Hands down the first version. That may be partly because its sharper (as Bryan says, maybe if #2 were sharp it might work) but also it just looks more realistic to me. I have nothing against art, i painted for years before i picked up an SLR, but making something artistic doesnt just involve manipulation, it starts with the comp and, most importantly in your case, a very good understanding of light and color. Realistic scenes can be filled with emotion and mood, no alterations or additons required! Of course, a lot depends on the audience you're targeting, and maybe the techniques in the second example might work for other scenes, but for me with this scene, the first pulls me in more because i can picture myself there. The light and subject speak for themselves.

Vance, very well said.

Marc, is one better than the other? Seems like you posted a "what we all have admired" image and then a "look where we can go" version. Almost sounds like a cop-out answer, but you've created two very different emotions from the same RAW file, much easier with today's available toolset. That's pretty exciting to me... So to say which is better, I'm torn. I like where it all was and I like where it's going, better yet, where the potential can take us all.

It's a great time to be a photographer.

I have definately noticed the change in your processing style of late. Personally, i think there is a time and place for each of the processing styles you present here. I like the second versions "luminosity" but I'm not a big fan of the softness. Particularly in rocks, tree trunks, and other objects we know to be hard or coarse. I pulled both images into PS and stacked them to compare better. Then I masked out the softer version in all of the rocky areas, and to my eye, it feels much better. It makes the softness seem less apparent, yet it still adds to enhance the mood.

So, to answer your question; I like both, selectively combined. Hopefully that helps more than it confuses you.

I am curious why you choose to ask this question. Are you catching flak? Second guessing your choices? Just searching for opinions? I love these types of discussions, but your art is your art. Do what feels right to you- whatever floats your boat. That's all that really matters in my book.

I prefer image 1 because of the loss of details in the rocks and the flowers. It's just not as crisp. However, the dynamic range in image 2 is great and I think if it had the same sharpness as image 1 it would be a winner. Image 2 looks a bit softened with a slight orton look which does look good but I love the extra crispness.

If you have some time and are willing, I'd love to know a little about how you are squeezing the extra luminosity and bumping up the DR a bit from RAW.

After reading everone's comments and comparing the two versions again, I still prefer the second image. When I thought about it, I guess it comes down the the emotion and sense of magic the second version imparts. I've always been a fan of fantasy novels starting with LOTR when I was 15. I guess I have an affinity for the fantastical settings often portrayed in fantasy literature, and images like this stir my imagination. The first may be a more realistic representation, but the second really captures the sense of wonder you must have felt when you came upon this scene.

Wow, I'm late to the party again.

After reading everyone's comments, Marc, I think #2 is more your style. Your shots capture the essence of an amazing nature scene. It only makes sense to massage this in PS to make it even more so. Image #1 is a pretty documentary rendition. Image #2 is almost a slight Thomas Kincaid or Orton type of treatment to show a more idealistic scene. Your comp, lighting, and technical photography has been prominent for some time. Your PS skills are starting to come into its own as well. It's fun to watch you and everyone else on this forum advance in their own way.

Of course, we're curious how this is done. But that's another story...

Kevin

The greens in #2 look overworked to me, and I like the sharpness in #1 better. That being said, #2 would make a pretty, artistic print on good rag. They are both nice. If I was going to purchase one over the other, I'd go with #1. It's all quite subjective from person to person.

I prefer the second version. The new process is right for this particular subject: a green meadow in it's flowery prime, gently suffused with soft, low angle sunlight. The first version appears harsh by comparison, so I think this new technique is scene-appropriate. The overall effect for me is softness, not fuzziness, and I would liken it to a painting. I would think it would have much appeal to the general public.

Thanks all for the responses. I ask because I have been experimenting more lately with different ways of processing and it has seemed as though my techniques have been noticeably different from my past works, and in return I've had many pointed comments and questions directed at this 'softer' style. I'm genuinely interested which people prefer and why, that's all. I thought it would make for good discussion.

A tutorial on the techniques involved would be time consuming, but it's a combination of adding different layers of color, contrast, texture, etc. onto the base image which is all mixed into my own variation of 'Orton'.

I would ask those who have likened the 'softer' image to painting and those who have described the first image as more true to life one thing - if a master painter was to take this scene and paint it as closely as possible to what they saw, do you think it would look more like #1 or #2? I ask, because I think a lot of painters would choose something closer to #2 to represent realism. Do you think the definition of realism might change from one medium to the next, as #1 is more akin to 'traditional' photography and #2 is more akin to traditional painting? I would dare say #2 actually feels more 'realistic' to my eye, especially so if a large print could be seen that showcases the details better - one huge limitation to web presentation of less contrasty images.

Steve - open two browser windows.

Thanks all for the responses.

Personally I prefer the second, it feels like more of an experience to me than the first. I've been absolutely loving your new work, while the compositions may not be as tight as some of your other work, I enjoy them more, as I feel as though I can just walk into the scene and it explore it. I think your new processing has a lot to do with this as well making your images so much more than just a photo.

As for the painting question, I'd definitely say number 2 is probably a lot closer to how someone may paint the scene. I love to paint landscapes with oils, and from my experience it would be incredibly difficult to attempt to paint every single blade of grass and so you really have to rely on the viewers eye to fill in some of the detail. (Probably the reasons most paintings are meant to be viewed from 3 or 4 feet away) You also see a lot of the same color showing through in paintings to tie the scene together. ( I worded that poorly but hopefully the idea comes through) and I've noticed this in your work as well.

Your newer work is really starting to remind me of a lot of some of the Hudson river paintings and I love it. Seasons gone by and Time Stands still are probably two of my favorite Landscape Photos I've ever seen. (I remember being absolutely floored when I first saw Seasons Gone by on Timecatcher, so much that I actually stopped with my own photography for a bit as it seemed so insignificant in comparison.

The artist is limited by his/her medium. Most painters would render the scene like #2, however I recall reading (seeing) decades ago about a then new school of painting that did photo-realistic works. The examples, esp. if you held them at a distance from the eye, looked just like a super-sharp photo, more like #1. Sort of hyper-realistic. I suppose a good CGI painter would render the scene like #1 as well.

Which is more realistic? It depends on what aspect of reality your are attempting to depict. For the straight and narrow mechanical aspects of reality, #1 for sure. But to express some of the more esoteric, but no less realistic, qualities of a scene, then #2. I don't feel that the #2 technique is necessarily more artistic, although perhaps more expressive. I'm not sure those are the same thing. As you implied (I think), Marc, if #2 showcases the details more then it's a better presentation of a two-dimensional, limited luminosity work of a three dimensional, high-range luminosity reality. I would think it does that by emphasizing certain aspects through control of light, color, sharpness, etc. in a masterful way.

Marc, I am initially drawn to the 2nd image with its dreamy soft light. The contrasts, though more realistic, in the first cell, lack that rare sense of filtered light filling-in the shadows. I have often thought that lighting which ultimately projects an embodiment of 'glowing-light-from-within' rather than light from an outside source is attractive. There is consistent evidence of its superiority, I believe, seen in strong emphasis of the golden hour lighting...and in the master painters whose portrait subjects 'glowed'. I also read of this in the Bible's description of the transfiguration, Moses coming from the mountaintop, the glow of the new earth and heaven from Revelation ....a glow in which there were no need for sunlight. In fact, one would argue that we long to see the face of man and the earth renewed with that God-given glow. There is a vein in all of us which yearns for that purity of light from within.... tap into that yearning. But, when I return to reality and away from my dreams....I like the first image...it shows me what this earth really looks like today...more harsh and hard...

in a very simplified way, the old method feels like it was an evening scene to me and the new method feels like morning scene to me

I think the definition of realism is all relative to the medium. #1 is definately close to what could be called "traditional" photography, but in my opinion #2 is nowhere close to being called a "traditional" painting. It's apples to oranges.

There is a local here painter named Don McMichael whos work you probably have seen along the coast. He paints incredible sea life images with great attention to detail, and lighting control. Standing in front of one of his original works is very impressive and does give the sense of realism; Probably as "real" as any painting I have ever seen first hand. But all you have to do is avert your attention, and look around the room to realize that is not that realistic at all. It's still awesome, but definately a painting - and definately not real. Trying to compare a realistic photo to a realistic painting is pointless. A photo can have a dreamy, or painterly feel; same as a painting can seem realistic, but they are two totally different animals. I do agree though that #2 "feels" more real emotionally, but not literally.

I really think you are on to something with your processing. I don't always agree with it, but you are moulding your own unique sytle. It stands out - not just from a technical standpoint, but I could probably pick out one of your photos from a small section of an image, just by the processing and colors alone. And that's a good thing, as Martha Stewart would say.

Like I said before, do what feel right to you. There will always be someone who loves it, and someone who's doesn't.

Good discussion going here, peeps!

The second image appears to have a soft focus touch to it and this is what I personally prefer.
My opinion is that art photography is not supposed to reflect the reality in 100%. It's supposed to reflect the photographer's emotion, his/her state of mind. Through the image the photographer connects his/her mind with the viewer. I am more towards creative, almost painting, style of photography, rather than sharp and true colors projection of reality.
The image #2 is closer to my vision of the photography and this is why I prefer it.

Aaron, just to clarify, I wouldn't want to compare photography to painting or painting to photography. Just musing on the variations between mediums and how that may or may not effect our perception of realism.

I didn't read the previous responses.

1 will please the gear heads, tech junkies, etc. a great study in web sharpening
2 will please the art crowd, the less technical, a beautiful illustration in an individuals artistic touch and craft

2 will generate better print sales to the non-photographer crowd, you know, the ones that have money.

1 could be duplicated easier by the masses, a more known recipe
2 will puzzle the masses a bit, kind of like figuring out the work of andrej dragan

Most importantly, which one pleases you ?
Which one pays the bills ?
Many times those previous two don't coincide with the same processes.

Life's too short and pressured. Do what makes you feel good, seriously.

Number 2 is my favorite, by a large margin. (makes me feel like I had one of those ole' college brownies at UW Madison) I love the dreamy feel on it.

If we all PP'd exactly like the scene was to 1 delta e, how boring is that ?
PP with your interpretation is your craft as well.

(sits down and shuts up)

if a master painter was to take this scene and paint it as closely as possible to what they saw, do you think it would look more like #1 or #2?

A fair question, so ill answer:
If the Master came from the school of "ultra realists", it would probably look like #1.
If the Master were more traditional (ill use one of my faves, Frederic Church, as an example) id say probably closer to #2.

But neither Master had a camera at their disposal. The camera (especially a 20+ MP one) is going to capture detail that no painter will ever get in the same way. So, i say, Orton sucks and it's better to stay less manipulated if possible (to present the scene as it appeared). Of course, a lot dpends on your goals and mindset. Personally, i spend almost as much time on my "Photo Art" as i do my regular photography, because to me the two are very seperate. So, for me it's easy to distinguish, i might actually start off shooting the scene wearing either my "photographer's cap" or "artists cap".

If a gun were held to your head, and you were only permitted one response or another, would you say you shot this photo as a "photographer" or as an "artist"? An artist can be a photographer, and a photographer can be an artist--but there is a distinction!

Here's a recent PA post of mine. It is exactly how i viewed the scene! Seeing is pretty subjective, aint it?
PhotoArt

Matt,

Interestingly, (not true for everyone) from my business perspective I'd definitely say #1 is more saleable. #2 is my preference as well, but honestly, a lot of people (the majority I would say) who buy photographs want something they can relate to - not artistic interpretation, and not even spectauclar sunsets for that matter. That's not true for the fine art gallery crowd, but it's true of many others. Photography for sale still falls under the publicly constructed concept that a photo should be documentary first and foremost, in all likelyhood becuase public opinion has yet to catch up with the state of the art. I've had innumerable people tell me it's not a photo if it's manipulated beyond the initital capture - and they really believe this! Afterall, documentation is usually the reason why the public themselves take photographs.

Saleability comes down to your own business model and structure. Since I sell large quantities of images for such things as calendars, posters, postcards, books, lots of advertising, etc. my clients don't want a heck of a lot of creative interpretation in the image. Art enthusiasts who may buy prints, however, that's a different story. And then I have to appeal to photographers too of course, as I lead 100+ on tours every year and get three times that many requests. Most of us photographers, particularly the more experienced/advanced, prefer stronger and more unique artistic styles and interpretations - like #2.
It's all a balancing act and quite frankly, you can be easily decived into thinking being a professional is all about pleasing the greatest number of people at the right times. It's not. Art forms change, and public expectations/interpretations of various mediums change. I totally agree you have to follow your heart first and just see where it goes.

Stan, all I can say is that for me, any distinction between artist and photographer is lost on me. I want it all. I want to show people where I've been and what I've seen, but also how I feel and how it all makes me feel. It's simutaneously about emotion, mood, etc. and the actual subject matter. The HOW, in how people see and interpret a scene is so different for everyone, as you describe. I want to show people both the place and myself at the same time. The camera has no soul, so it can never be an end-all tool for me. If that makes me an artist first and foremost, then that's definitely what I am.

Thanks for the elaboration on the painting question. Having no painting history background myself, I feel I inadequetely posed the question.

So i take that as "artist" since i dont want to shoot you
Fair enough, since you clearly understand that different buyers are looking for different things, youll do fine!
In all seriousness, i highly recommend taking a half day sometime and try capturing a scene with a canvas and paintbrush; i think that would give you an enhanced idea of what kind of a tool the camera really is.

I have, Stan. I didn't mean to say I've never painted, just that I don't have any background on the history of the art. Sorry for the confusion there. I've spent time working on canvas. It would take me hundereds of hours to do a 20x30 half as detailed as I can get it with a camera, and I'm aware of the inherent differences in look and feel. Anni paints quite a bit too, and I've learned a good deal from her about what goes into the art.

if a master painter was to take this scene and paint it as closely as possible to what they saw, do you think it would look more like #1 or #2? I ask, because I think a lot of painters would choose something closer to #2 to represent realism. Do you think the definition of realism might change from one medium to the next, as #1 is more akin to 'traditional' photography and #2 is more akin to traditional painting?

Interesting question because most painters didn't try to duplicate "true" realism. Instead they created an image of their interpretation of the subject.

An interesting read on this on Rembrandt's painting style change throughout his life. When young he supported himself as most painters of the day by painting portraits (sounds like photography don't it). He was a master at this with very fine brush strokes which created excellent detail and true to life images of his subject. As he grew older and more experience his brush stroke became coarser and coarser. His light play or his use of light in the painting was still like no other, but his work became much more interpretive. This was shown by his own self-portraits.

While landscape photography seems to always have to pass a realism test so maybe this isn't a factor, but keep in mind realism isn't black and white so it too can be stretched. I say #2 looks best to me including all my normal biases (including what I would expect out of realism).

I agree Mark, most painters would come closer to version 2. It's funny, but I have never concentrated on landscapes in my art, it was more about people. I was also more into pencil than paint as well. I once dreamed about being a fantasy artist ala' Frank Frazetta. As I stated earlier, I think version 2 conveys more feeling and emotion rather than being just documentative. Creating a feeling or emotional response is what good art is all about, whether it be painting, writing, music, dance, or photography. Art should "move" you.
I used to be more of a purist when it came to my tastes in photography, but now that I am taking photos myself, the artist in me is seeing things more from an artist's perspective.
Version 2 looks a bit "magical" without looking unrealistic. Always let your inspiration guide you.

Joe

Marc, that's good to know, most photographers i know have never tried other art forms. I largely gave up painting because it was too draining and time consuming to achieve what i was after, i can do it in a fraction of the time with a photo. Your remark about the hours it would take to paint a 20X30 is exactly what im talking about. At some point, if we spend so much time with pp, it sort of degrades the original strength of the camera, that ability to quickly give us an objective highly-detailed depiction of the scene. That's how i distinguish my photography from my photo-art. With the art, anything goes to get my emotions and message across. With the photography, since most people wont give a darn about my feelings (they want to feel something themselves from the scene) i'm gonna try to be as faithful as i can to the original scene. Of course, that still requires a lot of post-work because the camera is imperfect. Since many if not most here are saying they think #2 still looks quite realisitic--it looks like you're well within bounds! But, it could be a slippery slope.

Hey, Joe--i remember Frazetta quite well, with me it was Boris (but that's because he had hotter models ) and the Hildebrandt Bros (they painted the Lord of the Rings calendars).

In my opinion (typically humble ), it seems that #1 is in fact more "raw" and unmanipulated - which is probably not the case, as there was some pp done to the image. But what makes #2 jump out at me, is it's depth. It really feels 3D to me, almost as if I could walk into the scene - I can only imagine how much more I'd feel this way in front of a large print of #2.
I also agree Marc, for me - photography is all about emotion. And you rightly stated, the camera has no soul - it's up to us, to find a way to impart our own impressions to our viewers. But our impressions of the scene (our own emotional connection) can be a two-edged sword. As we've learned from this thread, some gravitate towards "realism" (I could get deep here and ask, what really is "real") which might be #1 (in their eyes). But they might also be drawn to #2 (as I am) because for me, there is a more emotional response to the image. In essence, the emotion I draw from #2 makes this image more "real" for me, because of my attachment to it. Galen Rowell once said (and I'm paraphrasing), "When I shoot, I look for that emotional attachment. If I don't look at the scene and say 'wow'... why would anyone else?" So, in the end, photography (the art of it anyway) is all about emotion and what draws us to a scene. If we aren't drawn to our subjects, why are making an image? If we feel the need to do a little (or a lot) of post on the image, it's all good to me - as long as we are willing to disclose that the image has been worked on. The truth is, we are ALL in a constant state of editing our images - pre & post. We edit when we chose a location to shoot, a time of the day, conditions, framing, tripod height, lens, format, focal length, color space, etc. Why should this all end once the photo has been taken? Someone who's done pretty well with his photography once said, "The negative (or RAW file for us) is the equivalent of the composer's score, and the print the performance." Who are we to argue with Ansel Adams? Other than his peers... maybe not as accomplished or recognized, but our opinion of our own work & style is just as important.
And by the way, beautiful artistry in these photographs.

Ansel's analogy is a good one, Dave, but as many have pointed out, Digital enables "manipulation" to an extent never dreamed of in film days. You don't alter the composer's score--you interpret it! Musical performers, especially classical ones (recall that Ansel was a classical pianist) are extremely careful to be faithful to the original score and its intent. Using Orton on a shot is like changing presto to adagio! But ive already said i think Marc is within bounds with his interpretation.

Frazetta is probably my favorite, Stan. Boris paints more realistically, but his paintings always seemed too posed or "static" looking (sort of a similar comparison to what we've been discussing) Frank's paintings always show dynamic movement, they seem to jump off of the canvas! After surviving six strokes he had to switch hands and now paints lefty! Still hanging in there at 80 something! I still have some of his old calenders from the late 70's and early 80's as well as some Hildebrandt LOTR calenders (they were the definitive Tolkien artists IMO).
Back to photos, Marc's second interpretation looks otherworldly while still looking like it was taken on this planet, both visually and emotionally stimulating.

I'm glad that's settled. I think this is one of those trick questions that doesn't have an answer. I'm all about mood and emotion (since I'm a shrink), and vote for #2. The world is what our mind, not what our eyes, makes it. What's reality, anyway. How do you really know that #1 is more "realistic?"

#2, because for me the "mood" is intimate and soft fits that better for my tastes. I'm not sure I would like it as well in a broad scenic.

#2 for me as well. To me it was an easy choice, I go much more by feel than technical perfection, and #2 conveys more emotion to me, it's as if you found a way to share how you felt when you were there; that makes if more effective IMO.

Cheers

#2 for me too, I love the emotion and feel of it over the 1st one.