Which one?

[Nicola]

Two pictures follow, captured some weeks ago on a lucky occurrence. The subject is the navy school sailing "Amerigo Vespucci".
I'd kindly ask to all who are looking to these picutures to vote the preferred, and if possible, to write the reason of the choice.
Thank you!

Nicola

[Geoff F]

Second one for me, Nicola.

With #1 the boat seems like a distraction to a seascape.

In the second image it is definitely the intended subject.

Also with #1, there is quite a bit of out of focus foreground and on the left there is a rock with a distant light touching the rock top, which looks odd to me.

[kdoc856]

Ditto Geoff's assessment.

[Shadowman]

1st for me, more interesting foreground than sky.

[Jim A]

Agree with the others, Nicola. Normally I would prefer the first, if there was no ship. However, with the ship the second is more in harmony.

[Pjerry]

Number two for me too.
1) The colours of the sky and the reflection are brighter and more pleasing
2) Even more important, I was wondering around searching for the subject. Despite the nice colours of the boat, you get stock in the foreground. Things that don't happen at all in version two.

[Cogito]

Both are alright but I think I would have used a 250mm lens.

[John 2]

The second for me because it has a more interesting sky and for the reasons Geoff has already given.

[Wavelength]

First one has a really dramatic and a bit magical foreground; second has details of clouds inn sky. Anyhow i love the first one more

[Lon Howard]

The most pleasing part of either one is the seascape at the bottom of #2 - I love looking at that. But I am distracted from that by the bright sky at the top so my eye keeps jumping from bottom to top. Overall, #1 is more balanced so that is my preference.

Can someone assess why the bottom part of #1 is so much more soft than the rest of the image, and why the transition from the soft bottom to the sharper remainder is so abrupt?

[Wavelength]

Probably small ripples which have been diffused as a translucent layer due to a fast shutter?

[Stagecoach]

Can someone assess why the bottom part of #1 is so much more soft than the rest of the image, and why the transition from the soft bottom to the sharper remainder is so abrupt?

I suspect DoF (Depth of Focus) but I do not see a noticeable abrupt transition.

For info No 1 f/8 at 8 seconds, No 2 f/7.1 at 20 seconds from the Exif.

[george013]

I think the direction of the camera and the focusing distance. It looks like the first one was an attempt to include the reflection of the clouds. But since they're far away they're out of focus. The moving ship is less sharp too with the shorter ss.

George

[Dave Humphries]

Hi Lon,

Can someone assess why the bottom part of #1 is so much more soft than the rest of the image, and why the transition from the soft bottom to the sharper remainder is so abrupt?

Because the most foreground rocks in #1 are several feet closer to the camera than those in #2 (which are visible in #2 also) and yes, the DoF doesn't cover them.

The change may appear abrupt because the things that are solid are only apparent at set distances with gaps between only have the ripple blurred water in.

~ It looks like the first one was an attempt to include the reflection of the clouds. But since they're far away they're out of focus. ~

If the water was still enough, the reflection of the clouds should be as sharp as the clouds are, since the difference in distance the light rays travel is negligible. I agree we see them because the wider framing includes those reflections, but they are not blurred due to DoF relating to the clouds.

[george013]

Hi Lon,



Because the most foreground rocks in #1 are several feet closer to the camera than those in #2 (which are visible in #2 also) and yes, the DoF doesn't cover them.

The change may appear abrupt because the things that are solid are only apparent at set distances with gaps between only have the ripple blurred water in.




If the water was still enough, the reflection of the clouds should be as sharp as the clouds are, since the difference in distance the light rays travel is negligible. I agree we see them because the wider framing includes those reflections, but they are not blurred due to DoF relating to the clouds.

That's why I mentioned "I think the direction of the camera and the focusing distance." before what you quoted. To get a reflection sharp one has to focus on the "original".
I don't know how her camera is dealing with iso, but the first one was made with iso400 and the second with is0200.

Wait for what she says.

George

[Dave Humphries]

That's why I mentioned "I think the direction of the camera and the focusing distance." before what you quoted. To get a reflection sharp one has to focus on the "original".
I don't know how her camera is dealing with iso, but the first one was made with iso400 and the second with is0200.

Wait for what she says.

George,

I think focussing distance is irrelevant (I doubt that changed much between the shots anyway), it is a DoF issue and the distance of what is in the composition, which does differ significantly.

To get a reflection sharp one has to focus on the "original".

I agree (for this scene) - and they would be sharp(er) if not blurred by the 8 and 20 second shutter speeds.
You can't tell me that, at that distance, the trees and ship will be sharp, but the clouds not, especially when compared to the foreground rocks, all in relation to DoF and distances from camera.

I don't know how her camera is dealing with iso, but the first one was made with iso400 and the second with is0200.

I certainly do not see any relevance to bring ISO in to this discussion, please - let's not turn this in to another long winded thread discussing mainly we each said and/or meant.

Dave

PS

Wait for what she says.

I think you'll find that Nicola may well be a 'he', as he's in Italy.

[Dave Humphries]

I'd kindly ask to all who are looking to these picutures to vote the preferred, and if possible, to write the reason of the choice.

To answer your question Nicola, that's tricky, as I'm not sure either is how I would have framed or cropped the scene.

Also, I would have done some cloning out e.g.

In #1: the two foreground (fg) blurry rocks, the headlamp streak and the white triangles (etc.) on the left hand mid-distance rock. Alternatively, just crop off the two fg blurry rocks, then do the cloning, including an adjustment to the (now) closest one on right hand edge of frame.

In #2; the same white triangles (etc.) and the rocks that have fallen on the lower edge of frame.

Although not everyone likes to 'mess with reality' by cloning - and that's fine.


On balance, I think I prefer #2, although I'd crop say 10% image height off the top edge.

Hope that helps, Dave

[george013]

George,
.....
I think you'll find that Nicola may well be a 'he', as he's in Italy.

Often I can't tell from a name if it is male or female. But if I google on Nicola and select the image tab, I only get females, ok with about 3 males.
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Nicola_(name)

George

[madcrow]

Two great images, I like the boat in bottom third. Could try 16-9.

[bnnrcn]

+1 to Geoff, I prefer the second