how much foreground detail?

[SmartWombat]

I'm torn between these two.
If your monitor isn't calibrated then the foreground in #1 still may not show detail.

[another view]

Paul, you'd probably get a lot more responses in Critique but I like the first one better. I don't think the foreground adds to the shot. Actually, I might crop a bit of it out of the first one.

[SmartWombat]

Thanks, I wondered about critique but I don't think it's ready for them yet ...

[Jimmy B]

Paul # 1 has the nice color on the horizon, that is a little less on #2
Depends what your shot was intended to look like, the foreground tells more on #2
Jimmy

[drg]

Paul,

Unless there is something special in the parking lot or about the fence and curving road I'm missing, I lean strongly towards less detail.

You might even go as far as to use a complete silhouette. The sky and the outline of the palm trees makes a good photo. The rolling horizon aids in breaking up the photo in a pleasing way.

Only other suggestion is to tweak the sky for the maximum colors you want to display.

[readingr]

Paul

I would crop a tad off the bottom and use the one with the more detail. To me the illumination of the trees in the triangle of light is the subject matter and you need to concentrate on that while keeping some interest in the foreground,

I want to see as in the more detail version that the trees are grounded and that is what you get from this picture.

Roger

[PhotoGirl]

Unless there is something special in the parking lot or about the fence and curving road I'm missing, I lean strongly towards less detail.

You might even go as far as to use a complete silhouette. The sky and the outline of the palm trees makes a good photo. The rolling horizon aids in breaking up the photo in a pleasing way.

I agree, the subjects as a silhuette with the light from the sky, to me, make more of an impact.