Which kind of tonality?

[Anbesol]

I shot a statue in a variety of settings, these are my two favorites, can't decide which one I think has more impact on the viewer. Which one would be your pick and why? Thanks for any feedback, all appreciated.

[Pete7D]

I would go with the first shot, pretty nice contrast.

[ksbryan0]

I like the second best. It seems to be a little more mysterious than the other.

[Anbesol]

Thanks for the input guys

KSBryan, every time I see your name, I think "oh this guys from kansas too, KS", but then I see your location and it says otherwise.

Anyway - going back to the scene for a reshoot should be no problem, I could get any sort of angle. I am interested in which of the shots you prefer, but also, which kind of tones you prefer as well.

[ksbryan0]

Not a flatlander here! I'd like to see a little more contrast between the bottom of the sculpture and the background...not much more, just a little.

[llewpics]

I prefer the 2nd shot - I think it's much more dramatic.

[draymorton]

Do we need to choose?

They're both great. I'd choose #2 at this point, if only because of the wrinkles (or whatever they are - they look like fabric wrinkles) at left in #1. They certainly don't ruin it for me, but they do detract, IMO. Easily removed in PS.

[Anbesol]

Thanks for the feedback guys.

Bryan - Montana is a beautiful state! I have the blood of a mountain man too, born and raised in Utah, but hey, at least we have beautiful sunsets here in Kansas! I'll see what I can do separating the sculpture from the background with contrast, maybe a re-shoot on an open sky day is in order, the background is mostly clouds.

Dray, the background is the sky, the wrinkles are the part where the clouds separate and show a bit of open sky, I kind of liked it, but your feedback I think goes to show that its presence is sort of ambiguous, and not very clear. A clone brush might be in order, or a reshoot. Perhaps if the wrinkles were present around more of the background.

Thanks again for the feedback guys!

[draymorton]

Strange... once I realized what the background actually was - and saw it for what it actually was - my perception shifted. I see the charm much more clearly.

I don't know if you'll have the chance to reshoot, but if you do, I'd be curious to see an ND-assisted long exposure for the sky.

Very cool images, both.

p.s. I still wouldn't pick one. I'd shoot a third frame and call it a series.

[LeeIs]

for me, definitely the first one. there's a lot more tonal variation and a much bigger pallette. All those nice greys are pleasing to the eye. the 2nd one is very limited in its range.

[rebcastillo77]

I am definately more drawn to the first shot- I love all of the grey tones and IMO the sculpture stands out more in that shot. Both shots are great, and I agree with draymorton that this would be a great series.

[Greg McCary]

I like the texture of the background of the first one but the compostion of the second one, better depth I think. But if I had to choose I would prefer the first, less negative space.

[Anbesol]

Haha, so pretty much an equal divide into both shots.

Dray - I'll give it a shot, this statue is walking distance from my place, so a reshoot is very feasible.

Lee - I was thinking along those same lines, the reason I like the second though is because of the solid blackness in the negative space, along with the *almost* clipped highlights. Otherwise, it would be a simple choice for me.

Reb - if you can believe it, this was converted to BW, and the color version doesn't look much different too.

Greg - I was thinking something along those lines too, it seems the second has some 3 dimensions, a foreground transitioning into a background, whereas the first just has a subject and background.

Thanks all for the feedback, it was very helpful.