Which do you prefer?

[alfa1six4]

I'm leaning towards the first one. The subject is more defined in the space. The pedestal in the second is distracting to me. But I do like the curve of the windows in the second. Any thoughts?

http://gcerasoli.smugmug.com/photos/46726855-L-1.jpg


http://gcerasoli.smugmug.com/photos/46726773-L.jpg

[fslshooter]

I prefer #1 but I like close cropped images so my opinion might be prejudiced.

[Snapman]

I like both but prefer number 1 by a whisker. I like the way in number 2 that you've allowed a space between the near column and the plinth of the statue.

[sugarzebra]

I like #1 the best but would like to see the image rotated slightly to make the column vertical. They are both very good.

[vjack]

They are both good, but I like #1 better. I think you are right about the pedestal.

[alfa1six4]

I like #1 the best but would like to see the image rotated slightly to make the column vertical. They are both very good.

Thanks everyone for the input.

Yep, I think some work still needs to be done with the columns. Both were shot at 17mm with the 17-85IS, then ran through PTLens to straighten everything up a bit.

[symes]

I think a slightly different crop on number 2 would give you a better shot...take it in a little from the right...not quite to the column but almost...

I am normally a fan of shots like number one but I really like the contour of the room...the way it circles around really adds to the image in the second shot...

Cheers,

[elTwitcho]

Is the room the subject, or is the statue? As I see it, with the second one you're including alot more of the room than you really need, you can get the impression of the shape of the room perfectly fine without having to show so much of it. As well, in the second the pedestal is distracting and some of the pilars overlap, as well the rightmost pillar doesn't mesh with the composition IMO.

The first one is a fabulous shot, the second one IMO is not even in the same league.

[alpineslide]

I like # 1, but i'm a newbie and know virtually nothing

[alfa1six4]

Is the room the subject, or is the statue? As I see it, with the second one you're including alot more of the room than you really need, you can get the impression of the shape of the room perfectly fine without having to show so much of it. As well, in the second the pedestal is distracting and some of the pilars overlap, as well the rightmost pillar doesn't mesh with the composition IMO.

The first one is a fabulous shot, the second one IMO is not even in the same league.

I see what you're saying. I was trying to capture more of the shape of the room in the second picture. I see now that the statue and room are competing subjects, where as in the first the statue is clearly the subject. Thanks everyone for your input. I've re-uploaded the first picture with straight columns.

[uktrailmonster]

I like the first one better. The depth of field is maybe a little too deep. Might have looked better with less detail in the very back of the background.

[sugarzebra]

Thanks for the great shot.... I've just started back into photography and am finding that about 25% of my shots need rotating a degree or two....not sure of the reason except that I must be thinking so much about the subject that I miss the obvious! Thankfully we have Photoshop.

[Hellashot]

#1

[Robert_Lay]

#1 is by far the better compostion, but it was not even a race.
#2 has so many specific faults, that #1 wins by default - not that it doesn't deserve to win.

It will probably better serve to describe the problems with #2 -
1) the wide expanse of clear block wall on the left is just too much (nothing there but a pattern and too much of it!)
2) look at the the two columns in the middle, with one partially behind the other - very unfortunate conjunction.
3) the big column on the right is fine, except it does nothing for the rest of the composition.
4) the statue itself has several problems - a) the right leg is awkward looking - where does it go? b) look at the how the pedestal juts into the column just behind it - another unfortunate conjunction. c) the orientation of the statue is very unfortunate. She is turned much too far around away from the camera to get the best view. This is a form that needs the orientation that you have in picture #1.

Sorry to be so negative, but I think you want to know WHY everyone is choosing #1, which is a good shot, but is it chosen on its merits or is it winning by default?

If I were to re-shoot #1, I would move back just a teensy bit and to the right a teensy bit to get her a little further into the picture, then it would be perfect.

[alfa1six4]

Thanks for your input Bob. I don't mind you being negative about my photos, that's why I posted these here. I've read many of your posts and respect your opinion. A few months ago I took a second place in a local photo expo. That was great(even sold the photo), but when the judges looked at the rest of my portfolio, they didn't have too many kind words to say. At first I wanted to crawl under a rock, but now it's teaching me to pay more attention to my subject and composition. As far as these photos go, I took the first about an hour after the second and spent more time on the composition.

[rstuntz]

I am a fan of the first one. I find myself following the lines on the right side of the image and then being taken back to where I started by the left side. Excellent shot!

[mrsjackson]

I like number 1 too! I also prefer closer cropped images though so I'm biased as well. Both are awesome!

[PIXI_666]

I like the first, really great composition by the way!

Adelle

[paulbuceta]

#1

I find cropped images much more intimate.

[Mike T.M.]

I like them both, but I think I would have to say #2. Is this all natural light?

[Balliolman]

#1 The statue is more interesting as the main feature than the wall ...

[rosco1971]

#1