You decide which is the best (I can't see it anymore)

[Overgaard]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Doing a spread to a mag that goes into printo tomorrow I'm trying to decide which of these two I should use.

 

What do you think - and why. It's a matter of technical plusses and minusses but mainly the overall "feel" to it. I want the one that gives the best feel or effect on you. But I'm also interested to hear what you actually notice?

 

I'll let you in on the differences in techniques and scans later, ok?

[Advertisement]

The Leica Q3 is available for pre-order at B&H Photo Video and Adorama

[stunsworth]

they're very similar Thorsten, but the first one has better control of the highlights, so I'll go for that.

[Overgaard]

Thanks. Here somes the tricky question: As a reader - not a photographer - would that then be the one that had the best impact on you as well?

 

Because that is my dielemma!

[earleygallery]

I agree with Steve's piont about the hilights, but the colours in the second one are punchier which will probably serve the magazine best. Perhaps you can tweak the colours in the first one?.

[earleygallery]

To answer your second question, on immediate viewing the second image appealed most, until I looked at it more closely and then the wider range of the is better technically.

 

Regards

[kodaktrix]

Best impact? The second one, because my eyes are directly drawn to the group, and especially the one with the folded toes.

 

Best regards

 

Oliver

[jmr]

Advertisement (gone after registration)

Thorsten,

 

I think it would depend on the article you were illustrating, or the point you were trying to make. The first shot is the better technically, as has already been observed. The second is brighter, in the emotional sense of the word. If the article were serious in nature I'd go with number 1, if it were lighter in tone, then probably number 2.

[Overgaard]

Ok, so here is an adjusted - as adjusted as I would dare to do it - of the first one:

[Guest johann_wolfgang]

Thorsten,

 

for me it is #2 - your picture comes into my eyes, there is more colour in the background.

 

just my 5 cents

Johann

[Overgaard]

Thanks. It will be #2 then.

 

The story is that #2 was done on Nikon Coolscan IV and I suspect I have perhaps used some feature in Coolscan that 'restores' a picture. I don't know.

 

Having it printed in a 17' x 12' spread in a magazine I thought it should be a Imacon scan. But the colors, as you can see, just does not work out the same.

 

Besides the obvious difference in color, the Imacon has sharp corners where the Nikon has unsharp corners. In this case where it is a dreamlike picture unsharp corners are actually better than sharp corners.

 

I've experienced many times that scans done 'on accident' can be better than real good scans. It of course vorries me a bit because then there is no RIGHT way to ALWAYS do things. But also learns you that a great shot that might not be technically perfect, migt become valuable handling that image another way.