Words: Two Versions of the Same Subject

This is a fairly common dilemma. I have two very different versions

of the same subject and for the life of me can�t decide which I

prefer. One day I prefer one and the next day the other.<p>I thought

it might be interesting to see other contributors differing versions

of the same subject and to elicit opinions as to which is the more

successful and why.<p><a

href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a><div></div>

<a href="http://www.keithlaban.co.uk">www.keithlaban.co.uk</a><div></div>

I like version 1 more. The second version looks a bit too ordinary, somehow.

Keith,

 

In my perception they are two quite different pictures. The first is very vivid due to the strong contrast and the hard colours. The contrast and the lightning makes it somewhat flat though. It renders alot of detail and I really like the explosion of colour. The second picture is more subtle and it gives you a better clue as to what is shown. The light is very different, coming from an angle this time where the first picture is evenly lit (fill in flash?).

I like them both, and I'd have a hard time too picking a favourite...

I like the second one better, but with some adjustments. I think the first one is initially more striking due to the more vibrant colors. It benefits from an almost abstract graphic quality. But at the same time, it is not as powerful, due to the flat lighting (fill flash?).

 

The second one, after I did some post processing in Photoshop, seems the better photo. Once I dropped the shadows down to near black, its made the colors pop more. There was more a sense of depth and mystery, compounded with the lighting the suggests high noon in the desert...makes the photo more about something than just colors. Hope you don't mind the tweaking I did.<div></div>

Sorry, don't like Mark's alterations. Image 1 is the best. Image 2 loses the subtlety in

the shadows, becomes harsher & the colors which "pop out" are immediately read,

rather than requiring a moment of reflection.

Eric & Mark<p>Not fill in flash, but overcast bright light.<p>Mark<p>I�m not really looking to tweak either version, just trying to decide which transparency I prefer. Version 1 prints beautifully whilst version 2 is a pig to print. Your tweaked version would have a huge centre of interest that is basically black with little or no detail and I have to say I�m not convinced, but appreciate your input.<p>Come on you Leica guys, lets see some of <b>your</b> differing versions of the same subject, could be fascinating.

I vote for #2- the shadows give it more depth.

I am going to vote for version one. Number two is clearly somekind of shelf viewed in bright sunlight. The first version required more mental brainwork to figure and therefore more abstract. That makes it more interesting. My Opinion.

somebody check for hanging chads...

I have newer, but none on file. From 1973, Rollei tlr w. Tessar<div></div>

And here's the other one.<div></div>

Of course I much prefer the first.

Y' want some Leica pix, from even further back-1969: IIIf + 1.5 Summ-arit or -itar:<div></div>

and:<div></div>

John, I really can�t decide which version of your first two photographs I prefer, but definitely prefer the (b) version of the second two. The perspective is easier on the eye.<p>It seems that most Leica photographers only ever take one version! Perhaps I should buy a Leica and save film?<p>Thanks.

You of all people, Keith, with the richness and saturation of your 6x6 images; giving you a 35, even a Leica with an Apo/ASPH whatever-cron; it just wouldn't do. You're also living proof of the viability of squareness.

why the debate, its sooooooo obvious!!!!!!

But then we are talking about "art", not reasonings.