untitled

My preference is with this version. Both nicely done.

Agreed, somehow the space around the trees is better defined with the ground. The trail between the trees carries the eye through the woods, and makes, I think, for a more visually interesting image.

David, I would be hard pressed to pick one over the other. Each one has it's own merits and eac is very nice IMO. To me they both have a sense of mystery, this one less so than the first.

Just curious, the top of this one - more so than the first - seems to have something going on in the top corners...were you using much rise, and run out of image circle with the lens? Admit I know very little about the ULF lens and cameras...just wondering.

Seeing the ground makes a world of difference. The cropping on the previous version kind of bothered me, but I like this version a lot.

This version works well - the space adds a dimension that I feel the other lacks - that said both are strong in their own right. I have to agree that this could make a great plt/pld print!

Keep the full version! NEVER doubt yourself about your original vision, because it is usually the strongest.

I would still do something about the top right corner thought

Yup, I prefer this - it has a base: the other is more abstract: the tree trunks floating in space. I suspect the previous one would look good as a LARGE print so it becomes an image about texture as well as recession. I'd rotate this about 1 degree clockwise to make the trunks more vertical, especially the forground one (even if they are not vertical in reality) as I find the lean a bit distracting - but that's probably just me of course... Nicely seen and executed in any event! Cheers, Bob.

David,
There is definate vignetting at the top of this image which I find distracting. By going with the full frame version you give yourself enough room to crop just below the vignetting and still leave plenty of print area. "Never doubt yourself about your original vision, because it is usually the strongest." I disagree with that. I don't think of changes made after exposure as doubt but as new discoveries. Each part of the photographic process is full of them, especially printing. I find that many of my best prints are made long after the exposure, when I've had time to move past my expectations and my ability to precisely remember how a subject looked in the field. Then I am more open to discover just what I'm able to pull from a negative. That's not to say a print should never replicate your initial vision, but I don't think you should be overly committed to it either. Remove the vignetting either by cropping or dodging and you'll have a hell of a nice print here Dave. All the best. Shawn

Thank you for your thoughtful and kind comments. Yes, the corners are vignetted and could be mostly corrected by printing them in lightly. The image is vertically correct but the scan my friend did was crooked.

I agree that subsequent discovery can be beneficial but I prefer to be as sure as possible during the taking stage. Basically I was debating in the post printing stage between abstraction and literalism. This was the first attempt at seeing a taken image differently than initially perceived.

It would be an interesting discussion about which makes a better photograph - faithfulness to the scene in front of the lens or faithfulness to the vision in which the scene is a silent partner.

Thank you all again. This kind of discussion is inventive and instructive.