Thoughts on these two?

Hello critique corner! I have these two shots from recently that I grabbed from the local reservoir. They are both taken from the same exact spot but they came out as complete opposites.

Some friends and family like them both so I was wondering what some other photographers think. I have some issues with them but what are your issues and which one do you like more?

First shot was a 15 second exposure. It is dark and actually represents the lighting accurately as it was actually this dark while I was there.

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/mrbubbles916/8​550695513/

IMAGE LINK: http://www.flickr.com …/mrbubbles916/8​550778207/

Colours and reflection in the 1st are gorgeuos...only thing that bothered me were the 3 big rocks in the foreground and cropping off the tops of the trees to the right midground.
2nd doesn't do much for me.

The first is more appealing. I would crop it a bit as well. Too much uninteresting foreground.

Thanks for the comments. I agree there is not much to the foreground. I will mess around with some crops. Thanks for the suggestions!

I might suggest that you wasted a great opportunity here...you had a good shot but you didn't "work" the scene. The sky and it's reflection on the ice are the only things that matter.
If you're adept at PS...get rid of the foreground, then blend the ice and the sky as if the far bank was nonnonexistent. It'll be a killer image.

Agreed. When you have skies like that, show them off. This type of framing is usually used when your hiding the skies for some reason. In this case the as a viewer I want to see the skies and not the foreground.

Todd Lambert wrote in post #15746466
Agreed. When you have skies like that, show them off. This type of framing is usually used when your hiding the skies for some reason. In this case the as a viewer I want to see the skies and not the foreground.

It was a toss up when I took the shot. I had so little time to set up my tripod on crazy jagged rocks and barely got a few shots in. I went for the foreground type of shot to give it some context. I think if I had aimed up I would have been worse off. I wish I had used my 17-40. I would have been able to get it all. But what is done is done!

Thanks for the comments! Really appreciate the feedback!

You're not thinking outside the box...you could have simply taken more images with the lens that you had, then photomerged them to create a larger field of view.
Remember that any idiot with a cell phone can take a picture...creating a picture, on the other hand, takes a bit more use of the right side of your brain.

Actually, if you look at the clouds in #2, the color is still there, but you blew it out with the longer overexposure. ; )

Spike44 wrote in post #15736488
Colours and reflection in the 1st are gorgeuos...only thing that bothered me were the 3 big rocks in the foreground and cropping off the tops of the trees to the right midground.
2nd doesn't do much for me.

I am not a pro but have a laymans perspective which is also helpful... I agree on the unfortunate cropping of the tops of the trees, however, you can use a graduated filter up there to distract from that "distraction" OR you can get fancy in photoshop, and cut and paste the up up until it looks like its shorter and there is sky over it. I foresee that being a mess and not a valuable time sink. I'd try a graduated filter. Not quite a vignette since we dont want it all over the image.

I like the colour and mood of #1. I also agree with the comments about the foreground; it looks like if you were able to take 2 or 3 steps forward, and then tilted up a bit, it could have made a big difference. I still like it though.

Like them both, but the top one is more eyecatching because of the richer colours. Did you try converting to B&W just to see what you got?