Sleeper or dud?

Thanks again to everyone who provided feedback on the summer images I posted here http://www.agpix.com/platform2/AGPix_GlRa12/. There were several late-breaking votes for 1381, which I'll post here. However, no one picked out 1377, a similar composition but in different light which I'll post in the first "reply" to this post. To my eyes, 1377 is certainly not as dramatic as 1381. It is, however, very peaceful in feeling, non-threatening, the epitome of the "gentle wilderness." So here's the question: which shot would a tourist from Indiana buy? Is 1377 a sleeper that would actually sell well even though connoisseurs of Colorado landscape photography might snub it? Or is it simply a boring dud?

So here's 1377, the "sleeper." Or is it a dud?

Though I wouldn't use the word "dud" I don't think I'd promote it if it were mine. The light is too flat and uninspiring.

I definitely like number 1 better. That being said, I don't know if it's the compression or not but both backgrounds look soft to my eye. Number 2 just looks flat like Pam said.

Glenn, if I had 1377 in my portfolio I'd be pretty pleased, and it's certainly no dud. If I were a tourist from Indiana with a choice between the two, it would be 1381 hands down. It is extremely nice. I especially like the cool feeling of the foreground. For me 1377 needs a hint of reflection and a little more sunlight on the main peak to come up to the same level as 1381.

Defintely not a dud and I would be happy most days with that as my success, but in the end 1377 is a tad too flat for my tastes. I agree with Jack that I would tweak the background on 1381 to sharpen it and perhaps up the contrast there a bit, and a slight bump on peak's saturation.

If it's a dud, please forward all your duds to toddcaudle0913@...

I think the better image is 1381 with the sun on the peak. I like the sun, the clouds are nicer and there is a bit of reflection color in the lake, all of which makes it a more interesting image to look at IMO.

Defintely not a dud and I would be happy most days with that as my success, but in the end 1377 is a tad too flat for my tastes. I agree with Jack that I would tweak the background on 1381 to sharpen it and perhaps up the contrast there a bit, and a slight bump on peak's saturation.

Thanks to everyone who took the time to comment on this pair of images. Everyone who commented (including me) prefers 1381, with its more dramatic lighting. But does that mean the tourist from Indiana would agree? To everyone who hangs out on this forum, the Maroon Bells from Maroon Lake are a cliche. Only the most unusual Maroon Bells shot would generate much praise here. But my in-laws from Indiana have never heard of the Maroon Bells and never seen a photo of the Maroon Bells. To them, the Maroon Bells are the epitome of the beauty of Colorado. My best Maroon Bells shots are top-ten sellers. To take another example: the shot I've posted here, which I call Columbine Along the Trail to Arapaho Pass, has been in my line since 1996. It's my number one best-selling image of all time and is still a top-5 seller based on 2011 data. Would anyone here have predicted that back in 1996? I certainly didn't. It certainly wasn't shot at sunrise, but somehow it seems to say "Colorado" to a lot of people. I guess the only way to really know how out-of-state visitors would respond to 1377 is put it out there and find out! Thanks again to everyone for their input. It's great interacting with such a lively group of photographers!

If i knew what sold id probably sell more photos--thank God my meals don't depend on my taste in photos!
On the other hand, 500 years from now, my favs will be in museums and the 'top-sellers' will be buried in the rubble. I bet you a steak dinner i'm right, come back in 500 years and collect!
Oh--1381 rocks, 1377 is for Indiana tourists who drink Budweiser...

I wouldn't call 1377 a dud, I think as Stan alluded to preferences are going to change based on the audience. Us photographers, and collectors of art prints, are junkies for that magic-hour light so it should probably be no surprise that 1381 will get most of the love here. However, I've heard so many anecdotes from photographers who target the more touristy, souvenir-seeker markets that that they sell more images taken in midday conditions. Most of their customers probably didn't get up for that long drive and hike before sunrise or forgo their dinner and searching for a hotel room for the night (all that stuff we're used to) to visit some places. They probably took a day hike or drive between 10am and 4pm. The conditions we try so hard to shoot in don't even look real to them. They might want a depiction of how a place appeared at the time of their own visit. How many times have you heard someone say what great weather it is at the same time you're grumbling while trying to compose a shot because there's not a single cloud in the sky?

So to answer your question: my guess is 1381 is probably the photo for the big fine art prints and the heavy coffee table book, 1377 is maybe the one for postcards and smaller prints, gifts or books.

Hi Joshua,
Thanks for your detailed and thoughtful reply. Your comment that many of the photos we most cherish don't even look real to the average viewer really struck me as true. I actually had a gift-shop owner say to me once, "That's so beautiful it looks fake," about a straight image of a particularly spectacular display of columbine and roseroot. When it comes to selling prints to the masses, as opposed to impressing the members of this forum, the standards are at least somewhat different. The issue of what people can relate to is very significant. Robert Solso, in his book Cognition and Art, wrote that "An artist doesn't invent art any more than a physicist invents physics." The physicist goes out into the world to try to discover the laws underlying the apparent chaos. An artist needs to create an image that fits like a key into the lock on the viewer's emotions. Now I just wish I was a better locksmith!

1377 is certainly not a dud, but I prefer 1381 over 1377. Nice set of images, BTW.