Posts: 3,036
Threads: 253
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
3
I prefer the second one for its emphasis on the diagonal bands of light and dark. The first one is also good, but as someone who doesn't really "get" nature photographs, I find it doesn't have a strong subject.
matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Posts: 526
Threads: 101
Joined: Jul 2007
Reputation:
0
I'm gonna go with the cropped one.
Sony A700/ 16-80mm / 70-300mm / 11-18 mm / 100mm macro
My Flickr page
Posts: 5,739
Threads: 264
Joined: Aug 2004
Reputation:
2
I go with the cropped - but only because there is not much of interest in the top fifth of the uncropped one - generally I like to see context in natire shots.
Posts: 1,305
Threads: 130
Joined: Dec 2005
Reputation:
0
I like the first crop, or Rabid's actually, both seem more balanced than the longer one
Posts: 3,036
Threads: 253
Joined: Jun 2005
Reputation:
3
I actually like the original. I might crop it to exclude the blown out sky, but keep the top of the tumbledown rock wall.
matthewpiers.com • @matthewpiers | robertsonphoto.blogspot.com | @thewsreviews • thewsreviews.com
Posts: 253
Threads: 84
Joined: Apr 2006
Reputation:
0
Amazing the number of different results that can come out of one picture just depending on how it is cropped.
Alastair says "
Visit My Blog?"