American Fork Canyon - Which Is Better?

I did a mountain bike ride in American Fork Canyon, south of Salt Lake City, this weekend. The wildflowers at 8000 feet were spectacular and I had to stop for a couple of photos in a meadow at the summit. First I zoomed for a long shot and then I decided I should do a panoramic to show the whole meadow. I'm wondering what other's think of the two photos. I won't say which one I like better. What do you like and why? Please be specific - no "nice photo" answers. That's not what this forum is for.

I'm going to upload a larger version of the panoramic to my gallery if anyone wants to see it bigger. The forum isn't the best place to look at panoramic photos.

Both of these were taken with the Sony Cybershot TX5 waterproof P&S camera, my current P&S of choice for outdoor photos. In particular, I like the iSweep Panorama function, which I used for this panoramic photo - just hold down the shutter release button and pan and the camera does everything else for you.

while I like the panorama view for landscapes, I would have to go with #1 here. I would love to see an elevated perspective, and maybe a different spot (not sure what the tree line offers, but it would be great if it weren't so parallel)

I prefer the panorama for the diversity it shows. #1 is just another shot.

I find the composition in the first shot a little stale, the panorama feels better to me, although the more I look at it the landscape feels "bent the wrong way" Is this a property of the stitch function or the shape of the landscape? especially given that things are fairly level in the zoomed shot.

Second is better.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by daq7

Second is better.

---

Not enough for the Critique Forum. Why is it better?

The second is better, the composition and crop add interest. Neither one exhibits a strong subject to me like skyman said, a bit stale. I need a strong foreground subject.

I like the second one I think the placement of the dip in the road adds interest. A rider in the shot would have worked too.

I like the first one better because the mountains are more in view. I wish it did have something in the foreground and wasn't taken on such a straight on view. In this shot I am close enough to see detail in the picture and in the second one I am just too far away to make it interesting.

In the second one the mountains, which to me are the main subject, are mostly hidden behind the trees. You can get tree shots anywhere but the mountains, at least where I live, are something I don't see and in this picture I know they are there but still cannot see them. Also the shot looks a little strange to me with the curve in it. In the first shot it looks fairly flat in that area.

Over all I think the first shot is more interesting and gives me some beautiful mountains to look at as opposed to the second shot of some grass and trees. Even the flowers are too far away to enjoy looking at. Just how I see it, Jeff

I would like to add that in the first photo I think I would crop it off the bottom up to where the flowers begin.

Thanks for the criticism, everyone! From what I'm reading, neither of them is great. I'm curious - did anyone take the time to look at the larger version of the panorama I posted in my gallery? Panoramas are tough to show on the forums because of the size limitations. They're really need to be seen larger. I also think that there's a problem with the camera - fine details are too mushy. I think it's not so great for landscapes like this. I also think I should have gotten down and closer to some flowers. However, if I did that I would have lost the mountains behind the trees. Often, trying to have it all is a mistake :)

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greg McCary

A rider in the shot would have worked too.

---

No way - someone asking for a rider in one of my photos! :D

Jenni was with me but I'd already sent her through for some video. The still photos were an afterthought. I guess I should have taken more. Next time!

John, in the what it's worth department when I was comparing them, Yes I was looking at the larger sizes in the gallery to get the best versions I could look at and I was also looking at them on my larger screen just to make it fair, Jeff

Pondered for quite a while.

Both are good but lacking in key areas. I'd say I prefer the first because of the mountains, but then I look at the pano and find that I prefer (and vastly) that ultra-wide format for the scene in question.

I hope it's not a copout to say that I'd like to see "a combination of both," but that's my final answer.

Just curious, is the concave nature of the horizon a true representation of the geography or a distortion caused when the camera wasn't swung through a horizontal plane to get the panorama ?
Can't pick a winner here but both shots would have been enhanced with a biker shown somewhere.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by hminx

Just curious, is the concave nature of the horizon a true representation of the geography or a distortion caused when the camera wasn't swung through a horizontal plane to get the panorama ?
Can't pick a winner here but both shots would have been enhanced with a biker shown somewhere.

---

The general form of the meadow and the horizon are both pretty accurate. I was looking downhill and it rose to the left and to the right, as well. The mountain to the left is also much closer than the ones straight ahead. I think Sony's iSweep in-camera stitching does a pretty fine job. I did notice a bit of distortion on some of the trees. But it's not too bad considering everything the camera has to do.

I do like the first one better but would crop some more of the bottom out. Also at 8,000 feet I am really surprised the blue sky is so washed out. Looks like a good amount of haze/smog up there?

Mountain biking is such a great way to get so far out there.. Good Job.

db

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by DLB1973

I at 8,000 feet I am really surprised the blue sky is so washed out. Looks like a good amount of haze/smog up there?

---

Good point. No haze that I recall. It was close to midday and I am facing pretty close to North for that photo. So it's probably just a combination of the point-and-shoot lens and the position of the sun. Could be the camera's JPEG processing, too. Hard to say. But you would think the sky would be darker.

As for getting out there - the mountain bike is awesome. However, the spot where I took this photo is probably only about 50 feet from a road :)