Initially I was going to post just one picture on this subject - the best. But after holding on to these two pictures for more than a day I am even more undecided on which picture is best than when I started out. So I am hoping some of you will give me your opinion. Here they are:
I'm hoping to hear more than just your preference but why you picked it, or why you eliminated the other one. Thanks in advance.
I prefer the second, it gives the viewer a greater idea of the scale. .Like the other folks above have said. And I'm not a fan of random "tiny world" or "tilt shift" effects.
I'm going to be controversial and say, on balance, I prefer the first. As you say yourself (in your own post), there are technical issues with the second image which (for me, and this is a personal thing) detract from what otherwise would be an impressive shot. I like the first because it is technically (in my view) the better photograph, but also I just think it hangs together artistically in a way which is quite pleasing.
second one for me - layers and contrast and scale - freedom and space
but depends on the theme or story you want to tell, doesn't it - first one is like a minature and a little suffocatingly vulnerable - not so keen on the blurring in the foreground but it adds to this impression, like hot breath fogging up the lens
I like the second one better... for all the reasons already stated... also... I'm not really a fan of the tilt shift effect on the first image (but that's just me)... and in the second image, I actually like the shift in light... it emphasizes the contrasts within in the image in a way that I think works quite well...
The first one is fine, but it's "over" kind of quickly. It's not got any context around it and it's just the child and the structure.
The second one has the same elements as the first, but it also shows a wider world stretching beyond it. You notice the same stuff, but then your eye drifts to the people and the distant buildings. Your eyes can take more of a journey.
It's also less focused on just the subject which gives it a nicer feel. This kind of candid photography can have a slightly "odd" feel to it to some, not to mention it's a child, which some people might not especially like. In the second one the child is more a small element in the total landscape rather than it be a focused portrait of some random unknowing person with nothing much else to look at.
On technique and composition I prefer the second one too.
The first hasn't the appearance of as much range in it's tones, it's mostly middle. The second one has more range between the bright sky and darker elements. The depth of field of the first kind of narrows down the portrait into a sharp focus so all you can stare at is child. The second one makes it seem more like part of a much bigger landscape which goes beyond the bounds of the frame. It also has the child more isolated because the difference in the lights of the child and dark background is greater. Without going on more, I much prefer the composition and technical aspects of the second.
They're both very nice. I'm personally drawn to the second one. I like the wider perspective, the large open space between the child and others gives a sense of isolation: They are creating in their own world separate from the other...
I prefer the first one. 1) I am a fan of tilt-shift and the miniaturization it implies. In this case, it seems to convey looking in on a child's tiny make-believe world. 2) I also like the texture and super-detail of the sand where it is grainy, made moreso when contrasted with the blurred parts of the pic. 3) The play area of the second pic is too dark. It's correctable in Photoshop, but in this case, it drives my eye away from the very thing I should be—want to be—focusing on.
I prefer the first. Not so keen on the tilt-shift effect, but the composition is simpler with no distractions (I find the other children in the second draw my eye away from the main subject too quickly) and having it out of context gives a slightly abstract feeling
I thought I prefer the first, but then I imagined the second one with the sky cropped out of and like the second one more. If you crop out the sky, there is a stronger feeling of isolation - if you only see the sand and the little figures in the distance, but not the "big" water or the town.
For my vision...the first. It is clear, my eye knows exactly where to go. In the second, my eye goes to the light...the upper part of the frame where the water is lit and I'm not sure what the subject is...obviously a very different take than most of the other photographers' comments. Interesting post and I'm glad you did it.
Neither is better than the other. Each image tells its own distinct story. Both show a subject "in their own little world". The first image tells the story of subject and the subject's activity. The second image tells the story of the context (seclusion) in which the subject and activity is taking place.
Having said that, I think the first image would tip the scale on being the stronger image of the two if it did not have the tilt-shift effect. The eye travels first to the brightest thing in the image...which in this image is the subject. Perfect. The "moat" of the castle is an excellent implicit 'boundary' that keeps the eye inside the image naturally. The additional reinforcement of the tilt-shift effect ends up detracting from the powerful simplicity of the image.
i prefer the second. I don't 'get' tilt shift
the second gives context to the whole image
But it depends at the end of the day what feeling you are trying to evoke and how you like to capture an image i guess..
I cast my vote for number two. I've never been a fan of tilt shift either. Although I do like the "isolated" factor of the first, the picture "story" starts and stops there. I love Francosie's take- the second is a whole book with lots of possibilities that completely draw your viewer in. Not only does the subject broaden in photo 2, so does the tonal range which is so important in black and white photography. The first is too flat, but the second has a beautiful spectrum of grays. As Vera has said, this image becomes even stronger if you crop it from the top. She said some of the sky; I'd say take the building and the line below it out too so that it's just about the people and the space between them. This places them nicely within the rule of thirds as well, but not as blatantly noticeable to the eye as one might think. So there you go- another county heard from!
Tweets ahoy!
Join the Group
Pin With Me
I do like the close -up too
but depends on the theme or story you want to tell, doesn't it - first one is like a minature and a little suffocatingly vulnerable - not so keen on the blurring in the foreground but it adds to this impression, like hot breath fogging up the lens
The first one is fine, but it's "over" kind of quickly. It's not got any context around it and it's just the child and the structure.
The second one has the same elements as the first, but it also shows a wider world stretching beyond it. You notice the same stuff, but then your eye drifts to the people and the distant buildings. Your eyes can take more of a journey.
It's also less focused on just the subject which gives it a nicer feel. This kind of candid photography can have a slightly "odd" feel to it to some, not to mention it's a child, which some people might not especially like. In the second one the child is more a small element in the total landscape rather than it be a focused portrait of some random unknowing person with nothing much else to look at.
On technique and composition I prefer the second one too.
The first hasn't the appearance of as much range in it's tones, it's mostly middle. The second one has more range between the bright sky and darker elements. The depth of field of the first kind of narrows down the portrait into a sharp focus so all you can stare at is child. The second one makes it seem more like part of a much bigger landscape which goes beyond the bounds of the frame. It also has the child more isolated because the difference in the lights of the child and dark background is greater. Without going on more, I much prefer the composition and technical aspects of the second.
Having said that, I think the first image would tip the scale on being the stronger image of the two if it did not have the tilt-shift effect. The eye travels first to the brightest thing in the image...which in this image is the subject. Perfect. The "moat" of the castle is an excellent implicit 'boundary' that keeps the eye inside the image naturally. The additional reinforcement of the tilt-shift effect ends up detracting from the powerful simplicity of the image.
the second gives context to the whole image
But it depends at the end of the day what feeling you are trying to evoke and how you like to capture an image i guess..