tsssssk, tssssk, why does it always have to be either/or? I like the path in photo 2, but I like some the darker tones in image 1, especially in the area of reflection in the puddle.
I really like A. It seems more intimate to me. Not sure where the focus is in B...but in A it's the relationship of the two benches and the light pole against the city. I do like the exposure better, also. Being trained in film production I often think of my images as stills from a movie. I even crop in 16:9 sometimes as it's really pleasing to me. I see the first image as the set of jack the ripper. B is just a picture.
a is more powerful. more foreboding, more malevolent (the darker trees?), more turbulent (the deeper contrast of the clouds?) also, composition is better- you see the third tree on the far left, better accenting the line of the road. the bench, at this angle, seems to connect better to the city in the background.
First one for me....I really like the sharp focus and greater contrast although if you could do that to the second one then I'd go with that.
you guys are on the right path - unfortunately it's hard to tell the difference from the small web files. I took these today and happened to have both cameras with me (my Bessa rangefinder and the 10D) I have been to this place several times and got some decent pictures in color with the digital over there. Today I decided to take a few with b/w film because I liked the dark mood of the scene. I shot version A with my film camera - Bessa R, 35 mm Skopar, HP5+ @ISO 400, 1/250 @f8 version B with my Canon 10D, Sigma 15-30 @15mm, ISO 400, 1/250 @f8 the tonal range of the converted digital is beautiful, also it has almost no noise/grain, but the film scan has much more character, more 'soul' to it. The details are equally good in both pics, I guess I'm going to treat my digital b/w differently in the future... :roll:
