Seriously kicking myself ...

[Dan Cattermole]

As to why I didn't see sense before!

D7000, 10-20mm & 10nm


Untitled by dajoolzcat, on Flickr


Untitled by dajoolzcat, on Flickr

 

[Rob MacKillop]

The first is stunning!

 

[Stephen McCullough]

The first is stunning!

Isn't it just?

 

[Lee Webb]

First picture is awesome, second picture - not so much.

Don't feel bad, I rarely ever describe a photo as awesome!

 

[Beth Carter]

The first is stunning!

my thoughts exactly.

 

[Nihat Iyriboz]

Impressive.. First one for me, Dan!

 

[Chris Dodkin]

I see you've bonded then Dan!

Very tasty - love the control of the dynamic range in the first shot - from bright sun to shade.

 

[Dan Cattermole]

Thank you all.

Hands down, it was quite a challenge shooting into the sun.

 

[Dan Cattermole]

The second one not so heavily PP'd


Untitled by dajoolzcat, on Flickr

 

[Paul Lange]

I think this post has told me that I must have a, unusual sense of taste when it come to photographs. The first is clearly a favourite but I like the second too. There is a suggestion of symmetry between the top and bottom which I like. Also the composition is unbalanced in a way that is challenging to look at and I find the, for me it adds interest.

It would be interesting to see why other people feel the second is not so good and what it is about the first why they like it so much. Anyone willing to say?

 

[Hamish Gill]

The unpped second is the winner for me, it's compositionally a lot more comfortable... The slope in the first draws the eye unnaturally toward the right of the frame where there isn't much to see. Te sun is also to high in the frame.
The second has a much more clear subject, if anything it possibly needs to be framed a touch to the right to loose some of the less interesting sky in the top left ... Other than that, in my opinion the second is better (without the pp at least)

 

[Lesley Jones]

I think this post has told me that I must have a, unusual sense of taste when it come to photographs. The first is clearly a favourite but I like the second too. There is a suggestion of symmetry between the top and bottom which I like. Also the composition is unbalanced in a way that is challenging to look at and I find the, for me it adds interest.

It would be interesting to see why other people feel the second is not so good and what it is about the first why they like it so much. Anyone willing to say?

I'm trying to reply on the first page, so I can still look back up at the images. I prefer the first because the framing keeps your eye from wandering. It's all about the roots that look like fingers and they closely follow the line of the slope. Then you look at the fallen leaves and finally the diagonal near the top right hand corner brings your eye back to the roots again

 

[Pete Askew]

Fabulous Dan - and making up for lost time / opportunities I see. I like both and prefer the heavier PP on the second but would probably lob about 20% off the top.

 

[Allan Batchelor]

Like that 1st DD........I can get away with shouting in the sun on my Nik if I use the 18-105 with my polarizer on but very rarely get away with it using the 10-20 as i get same effect as the 2nd

 

[Julian de'Courcy]

The second for me definitely. The portrait offsets the wide distortion, also including the trunk of the tree . Nice set Dan.