Topic: which to you prefer and why?

[LT]

Hello - I've been away for a trip up north ... to the North East of england, Northumberland to be exact.  It's an amazing county with, incredible scenery and light, and no macdonalds or any other such thing to be found anywhere, just mostly samll market towns with independent shops ... heaven!

Anyway, back on track, I went out for several dawn wanderings  - here are two shots from roughly the same location given slightly different treatments.  I'd be interested if you could let me know which one you like best and why, or if you dont like either, what is it about them that you dont like - lets have some crits from the filmwasters.

Alnmouth 1



or Alnmouth 2

[Francois]

Hi Leon!

Here's my take on it like you asked...

My favorite is #2. The image is very quiet and stable. My eye stays low to the picture, slowly shifting between the mountain range and the river. Very suited to the square format even if the horizon is quite low. The picture also has lots of vastness to it.

#1 would be nice but what bugs me is the amount of detail in the clouds. They don't look cotton soft. When looking at it, my eye tries to follow the river only to suddenly shift to the clouds and not following any visual path. Not as peaceful as #2

But that's just my taste...

[Janet_P]

Hi Leon,
It's wonderful to see some images from you. They are both wonderful, you have such a way with landscapes.
However, my favourite is 2. I feel the softness in the clouds adds an element of the timeless to the photo, also I prefer the composition.

But they're both great...

Janet

[TonyP]

Hi Leon,

As always beautiful captures, but my vote is also for No 2.

For my tastes it really glows, also the lines of the water and land in the background pull me into the picture. Also as already mentioned the clouds in the second one are timeless.

Tony

[Susan B.]

I like them both!
But if I have to select, I'd say #2 for all the previous reasons listed.

[astrobeck]

Not with the pack on this one I'm afraid.
I like the meandering of the land/water, and the infinite way it just seems to go on forever. Once the distant detail is lost on
land, then my eye is drawn to the clouds.  But then, I'm quite biased for sky scenes....and this is just the way of my own meandering.
They are both lovely, but if hanging on the wall, the top photo is the one I would contemplate upon.

Becky

[Dave_M]

I'd choose #2. I think the composition is superb - there is a defined balance in tones, lead-in and flow. Cloud definition is better and I really really like cloud blur from longer exposures.

[david b]

#1 for me.  I prefer the sky detail, and that you can see a path through the image with the water.

Coincidentally, I've been thinking about heading up to Northumberland at some point in the autumn - any tips, places to avoid, must sees, etc?

[LT]

thanks everyone.  DavidB ... where do I start?  It's a great place to go with nearly everywhere being well worth a visit.  The only place I didnt really like was Keilder water and the Keilder forest drive.  The reservoir is just that, a reservoir and the forest drive cost £2 to drive along a road so bumpy that I think I need all my fillings rernewed.

All of the coast is brilliant - particularly around bamburgh, embleton, craster and Alnmouth.  Berwick upon tweed is great with lots of old fortifications and military history type stuff.  INland, there are lots of ruined towers and castles dotted about from the old borders battles.  Loads of statley homes and interesting chapels/ graveyards if that's your thing.  Also Roughting Lynn waterfall is worth a visit too, but very difficult to find without knowhow and an OS map.  If you want some detailed directions the send me a private message.

cheers!

PS - do you get down to Dungeness often?  seen your shots on the website. 

[Skorj]

Nr.1 as I love the sky. Some classic LT attention to them clouds would make them fly... Both neato of course. Great locale. Skj.

[CarlRadford]

Both! I'd simply have either on my wall. I could sit and look at each side by side and see parts of each that would via for the top spot - two images this good should just be appreciated for what they are - excellent images!

[david b]

Thanks Leon.  I'll probably just go up and potter around randomly for a few days - usually seems to work out for me!

Dungeness is pretty much the other side of the country from me, so I don't get there very often - only really when I'm visiting relatives in the Medway area and can fit in a day off from family duties. It's a shame because I love the place, and the conditions have very rarely been ideal for photography when I've managed to get there...

[outofcontxt]

The cloud movement in #2 does for me. Definitely my pic.

[LT]

david - I'm a medway lad born and raised - small world!

[HolgaJen]

I like the composition of #1 (the way the lines flow away), and the clouds in #2.  Since you probably can't combine them~ then hang them side by side

[eddie]

Leon,

I'm stuck on number 1.  It has that Barry Thornton look and a lovely complex composition. Initially i thought the dark clouds were a bit heavy but exploring further i think it balances well with the foreground sands. I can see a nice fibre print in it.

I like the moving clouds in the second image and the composition  but feel the burnt out sky limits it potential for a decent print.

[LT]

I like the moving clouds in the second image and the composition  but feel the burnt out sky limits it potential for a decent print.

thanks for you comments Eddie - when you say "burnt out sky" do you mean the highlights in the clouds, the paler tones closer to the horizon or my burning in the top of the sky?  Either way, this is just an expressive interpretation of the negative  - there is plenty of detail / room for interpretation in the neg. I suspect the dreaded monitor calibration is to blame.

cheers

Leon

[cpierce]

I like no. 2 the best; it is the most pleasing to view.  The contrast of the water and the sand, and way the image sends you to the horizon very naturally.  Also it feels more natural to view.  What I mean by that is it looks like the way you would view the seen through your eyes, or if you were there. Using a natural scan of the scene, the more contrasty elements are in focus and the others are blurred, e.g. the sky. 

No.1 is less leading and forces you to scan randomly over the image.  No. 1 has less contrasting elements, lacking a real focal point and guide.

Second look and the lower horizon and more sky on No.2 is the factor that gives it a better balance for me.

Enjoy your site..thanks.  cp

[Ron]

Big fan of both, yet number 2 is my choice.  Just love the static, sharp land and moving clouds contrasted against one another.  Well done 

[eddie]

there is plenty of detail / room for interpretation in the neg. I suspect the dreaded monitor calibration is to blame.

My monitor i,d say, laptop, I can see the  detail you refer to and it certainly is the more dramatic of the two images but I'm still voting for Number 1.  Another thing i like about Number 1 is the  shooting angle was a little higher and the unbroken stream  edges are softer and more circular making a more pleasing composition. Number 1 has that timeless quality and number 2 has the drama. 

[david b]

Just out of interest - how many people here regularly use some method of calibrating their monitors?  It's always one of the things that bugs me about viewing photography online - not being sure how it's coming across on the other end.

[Tammy]

I prefer No.1.  Both are lovely.  Really.  They are very different from each other.

I like No.1 for the balance between tones in sky and land.  I also love the meandering nature of the river as it winds to the horizon.  It seems easier for me to view.

-Tammy

[Ed Wenn]

Druid, I've not read everyone else's comments because I'm due in bed about 2 hours ago and will no doubt pay for my tardiness in the morning when Amy wakes up nice and early, but for the record I love the sky in both of these and yet don't find myself particularly grabbed by what's going on on the ground. Not quite the question you asked, but it's the one I'm choosing to answer anyway. Hope you don't mind.

This is probably really shallow of me and I suspect I'm missing the whole point of these two lovely shots whilst being presented with two of the finest examples of modern landscape photography, but I feel they're both lacking that extra bit of ooomph that would draw me into them more. I suspect they look better blown up to a decent size and printed on some tasty paper by a master such as yourself, but on the screen they don't quite kick my butt (as our North American cousins would say)....which is a shame because you've done a wicked job on the tone/contrast/atmos side of things - as always.

Couldn't you have hired a white unicorn to stride majjestically through the morning towards you, it's horn glinting in the dappled sunlight etc. etc.?