sam_m
Well-known
The first shot's extra contrast differentiates the lady from the background more, in the second version the lady and the building behind her have very similar luminance values and my eyes wander from her to the building behind.
Assuming the subject is the lady, then the first shot is more successful in my mind.
I don't know why you guys are looking at the man's pants!
Assuming the subject is the lady, then the first shot is more successful in my mind.
I don't know why you guys are looking at the man's pants!
letvet
Member
first one--colors seem more vivid
squirrel$$$bandit
Veteran
Yeh, I can see how the first one looks kinda Kodakchromey. I'd take the shadow detail in the second one, though. I mean, you can keep the shadow detail, then saturate the greens slightly, nudge down the luminance on the blue, and you've got the best of both worlds.
WoolenMammoth
Well-known
not in a million years would I have guessed this has anything to do with kodachrome.
the first shot is obviously more saturated but the differences between the two is so insignificant in my world, it frankly wouldnt matter. If you plan to view the photo on its own, imo, its doesnt matter. Where the slight difference would matter to me is what the photo would be displayed next to, on an opposing page for instance, in which case I would make some effort to do some color matching, but in absence of that, I just would just go with what looks good to you...
the first shot is obviously more saturated but the differences between the two is so insignificant in my world, it frankly wouldnt matter. If you plan to view the photo on its own, imo, its doesnt matter. Where the slight difference would matter to me is what the photo would be displayed next to, on an opposing page for instance, in which case I would make some effort to do some color matching, but in absence of that, I just would just go with what looks good to you...