Two macro shots for comparison

Two shots. Same composition. Please tell me which you like best and why. Other critiques independent of the comparisons are welcome, also.

Direct sun...

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

HTTP response: 404 | MIME changed to 'image/gif' | Byte size: ZERO | PHOTOBUCKET ERROR IMAGE

The first shot is fine. The lighting and exposure give vibrant colors and good contrast.

Conversely, while the lighting is more diffuse in the second shot, and the exposure was more or less correct, there is little contrast and the colors are weak.

Robert_Lay wrote in post #6178460
The first shot is fine. The lighting and exposure give vibrant colors and good contrast.

Conversely, while the lighting is more diffuse in the second shot, and the exposure was more or less correct, there is little contrast and the colors are weak.

Again, I agree with Bob....

I agree with Bob too. I really like the lighting on the first one.

I agree with the above, the second one is lacking is color and contrast so it makes it feel really dull

I'm a huge fan of photos that either lack colour completly or are full of colour.
I do say I love the second one because of the lack of shadowsand the background looks much more evenly balanced - it doesn't look natural, I prefer the first one because it's so vibrant and realistic/natural.

I agree with the above posters... but I wonder if you have the RAW for the diffused sun photo? You can color correct in there and avoid the uglier shadows in the first picture.

Something like this (hope you don't mind - your moniker says Image Editing Ok)

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I agree with reign...correct the temperture on the diffused and adjust the contrast and I think you will like it better than the direct light.

HOSTED PHOTO
please log in to view hosted photos in full size.

I like both and also the edit.

While I was expecting to see a comment about the 1st image for being over saturated, I favor it most of the three and I love the saturation and contrast.

While #2 appears to be a really sound out-of-the-camera shot without PP, I like it, too.

#3 is a compromise between #1 and #2.

I should point out that both original shots have no post processing whatsoever, except re-sizing. Both were shot RAW and converted to JPG for viewing. I chose to keep them both clean so as to show the vast difference between the two, and get feedback accordingly.

I understand if you prefer shots with no post processing. I'm not such a purist, but rather I think post processing is a part of photography. Nonetheless, of the two straight out of the camera I prefer #1 for the contrast. Although the two shots are composed the same, Photo #1 has more depth, in my opinion.

Reign wrote in post #6194292
I understand if you prefer shots with no post processing. I'm not such a purist, but rather I think post processing is a part of photography. Nonetheless, of the two straight out of the camera I prefer #1 for the contrast. Although the two shots are composed the same, Photo #1 has more depth, in my opinion.

I'm not anti-PP. I meant that in this case I felt it was better for comparison purposes if both were kept the same.