Which one is better and why?

[Stryker]

These were taken in Dubai, just after the awesome Desert Safari. The sun was setting, I was way down below some sand dunes and just looked up to see an unknown lady silhouetted almost perfectly. Simply aimed and clicked. There is absolutely no PP on these images, apart from the resizing. Hitting Auto on the Curves tool in PS changed nothing in the image, so I simply reverted and left it.

From Dubai

From Dubai

EXIF on both are similar (in fact they were taken seconds apart):
ISO ------------------- 200
Shutter -------------- 1/3200 sec
Aperture ------------ f/7.1
Exposure ----------- -0.3 EV
Mode ----------------- Program
Focal length -------- 270 mm


Questions:

1) Are the compositions OK? I deliberately kept her in the center because of the glow from the sun, do you think a crop would help?

2) Which of these is better and why?

Any inputs appreciated.

[Haraldo]

Originally Posted by Stryker

1) Are the compositions OK? I deliberately kept her in the center because of the glow from the sun, do you think a crop would help?

In this case, I think the centering on a Horiz frame works fine. It gives room to breath and air, which adds to the feeling of solitude. But see more below.

2) Which of these is better and why?

Well, that depends. Because I don't know what the woman is doing (Tai Chi?), I am perplexed by what I am seeing. I think a Title and/or Description would help. And the two have different "meanings" to me. In the top one, the woman seems to be in a pose, which feels a bit static. In the bottom, the woman almost appears to be looking for something, which feels more active to me. Add to that these points: (1) top one has two "blips" on the right (what are they?); (2) bottom one has better "balance" and fills the frame better (the scale or zoom on each is different). All in all, I'd go with the bottom one. But I -- as the viewer looking at this on a gallery wall or on your website -- still want to know what the heck is going on.

Hope that helps.

[EmyB]

I reckon the bottom one is best but I would crop it so she wasn't centred, but off to the right a bit, so she was looking into the frame more, does that make sense?

[Stryker]

First off, thanks Haraldo and EmyB for taking the time to viewing and responding to my queries.

Originally Posted by Haraldo

Well, that depends. Because I don't know what the woman is doing (Tai Chi?), I am perplexed by what I am seeing. I think a Title and/or Description would help. And the two have different "meanings" to me. In the top one, the woman seems to be in a pose, which feels a bit static. In the bottom, the woman almost appears to be looking for something, which feels more active to me. Add to that these points: (1) top one has two "blips" on the right (what are they?); (2) bottom one has better "balance" and fills the frame better (the scale or zoom on each is different). All in all, I'd go with the bottom one. But I -- as the viewer looking at this on a gallery wall or on your website -- still want to know what the heck is going on.

Ha, ha, certainly not Tai Chi! She was photographing someone out of the frame whom I didn't see either. I thought the pose was a classic P&S photographer's posture so I didn't bother to explain it, but now that you say Tai Chi, I can see where the confusion would be. The fact that there is no obvious camera visible (unlike us SLR toters) also adds to the confusion as to exactly what she is doing. Thanks for pointing this out.

The "blips" you see on the right are her foot wear (at least I assume it is hers).

Hmmm, I see what you mean about "filling" the image better. The first was at 200 mm and the second was at 270 mm, the distance between us was same or near enough to make no other difference.

Originally Posted by EmyB

I reckon the bottom one is best but I would crop it so she wasn't centred, but off to the right a bit, so she was looking into the frame more, does that make sense?

Yes, it certainly makes sense and I did think of it. But as I mentioned the halo of the setting sun being almost a perfect circle, don't you think cropping it would detract from the effect? I am trying this out as I speak (or type as the case may be) and I will upload the result soon, so you can judge for yourself.

[Stryker]

OK, here are two crops, so that she is "looking into the frame". The second one has the subject a little more to the right than the first, but in both cases the round halo of the sun has been truncated. Which do you prefer? I want to print this, so your preference would help me decide.

From DPS

From DPS

[EmyB]

Oh dear I don't know!

The loss of halo doesn't bother me - because the colour gradient is still lovely.

But this crop seems to have lost a lot of the empty space that communicated vastness. So it seems to have lost some magic... And certainly I think there's not enough ground, it looks too narrow.

I have not been very helpful!! Whatever you decide to go with, the print will look lovely.

[mediadave]

For me, the second edit of the first composition works best. I feel like I want to see more ground in the silhouette and more space to the right of the figure, her silhouette perhaps running up the right vertical "rule of thirds" line. I like the image...it asks questions (in a good way, unlike the second one you were considering which I thought didn't so much).

Cheers,
Dave

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by EmyB

I have not been very helpful!! Whatever you decide to go with, the print will look lovely.

Not at all, on the contrary you have been quite helpful. I see what you mean by wanting more ground in the image, I will include that in the next edit and post it here. Thanks for the thumbs up, always helps!

Originally Posted by mediadave

For me, the second edit of the first composition works best. I feel like I want to see more ground in the silhouette and more space to the right of the figure, her silhouette perhaps running up the right vertical "rule of thirds" line. I like the image...it asks questions (in a good way, unlike the second one you were considering which I thought didn't so much).

Thanks Dave for your critique, although it has left me a little . Do you mean you would like to see a crop of the first image as opposed to the crop of the second one that I have posted? I am referring to the original post for the first and second images. Or do you mean the second edit in my post above, with more ground in it like EmyB suggested?

[dakwegmo]

For me, this image is mighty powerful.

Originally Posted by Stryker

Your instincts to center the composition were right on here. The rule of thirds can ruin a photo and I think both of your crops kill an important part of the story. As composed, there's a sense of urgency, emptiness, and mystery, that I think you lose with both of the crops. Because we can't see where she might have already looked, that sense or urgency is missing and makes the image fall flat.

That may not be what you intended to convey with the image, but that's certainly how I interpret what I'm seeing.

[Stryker]

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

As composed, there's a sense of urgency, emptiness, and mystery, that I think you lose with both of the crops. Because we can't see where she might have already looked, that sense or urgency is missing and makes the image fall flat.

Wow! Now that's what I call a powerful interpretation!

Originally Posted by dakwegmo

That may not be what you intended to convey with the image, but that's certainly how I interpret what I'm seeing.

Yes, yes, that is exactly what I wanted to convey (now that you have pointed it out to me)

Seriously, the visual at that moment was so overwhelming to me that I really didn't think of what the image would convey. I just took care that the frame included the entire halo and to do that the subject had to be centered, considering how far away I was from her and the angle from which I was shooting.

Thanks for your input, really appreciate it.