> I prefer the original. I find the brighter highlights to be distracting
> from the overall image.
What a pickle I'm in on this one. Should I agree with Moose or Chuck?
Jim's original version was instantly a hit with me and I visualized a
16x20 of it hanging on my wall. Absent Moose's version I was
completely enthralled with it. But then I looked at Moose's version.
Nice and snappy and removes that veil. In doing an A-B comparison,
Moose's version is definitely better, however, the original is what I
would want to live with.
I was stewing on this (for a few seconds, so don't crucify me for not
thinking this all the way through) and have concluded that the picture
is one that lets you calmly explore. The way the twisties hold the
leaf in place adds mystery and intrigue. The tonal pallet doesn't draw
away from the patters to explore. With the brighter, snappier version,
I feel that the eyeflow is being dictated too harshly and forces the
eye away from the little patterns. Inotherwords, the original version
invites further exploration, Moose's version defines the exploration.
The relationship with the background seems more comfortable in the
original.
Both are very good, though, and without the A-B comparision, I'd
probably be happy with either one.
My only problem is the lower-right needs a little editing and the top
needs to be cropped to match the spacing of the bottom.
AG
--
_________________________________________________________________
Options: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/listinfo/olympus
Archives: http://lists.thomasclausen.net/mailman/private/olympus/
Themed Olympus Photo Exhibition: http://www.tope.nl/
|