It's photo-compare time

[drwex]

Been a long time since I did one of these, but I'm really undecided. I hope the difference isn't too subtle for people-who-are-not-me to see. As always, everyone's comments are welcome.

Option 1:


Option 2:


The only difference in the two images is whether or not it's tungsten-balanced. The tungsten image (2) is, I think, a bit clearer but it sacrifices the warmth of the cross-light. My inner photographer and my inner lighting designer are having a fistfight over this.

Comments

[bluegargantua]

I think 2 is better. I suppose you could lens flare the hell out of the red glowing eyepiece for your warm light, but the first picture really looks staged.

*goes back to polishing all his imaginary Peabody awards for photo-journalism*
Tom

[eccentrific.livejournal.com]

One looks way better to me. 2 seems totally washed out (in particular, it bothers me that the skin has grey tones instead of pinkish-skin tones)

[mrw42.livejournal.com]

What she said.

[intuition-ist.livejournal.com]

for me, too

[badseed1980.livejournal.com]

That's actually correct: she's all Borg'ed up! The makeup she's wearing on head, face, and body is pale greyish-white.

[inahandbasket]

1 has much more dynamic range.
2 is washed out and nearly monochromatic.

depends what you're going for, but I find 1 to be the stronger of the two images, if you ask it to stand on its own.

[coraline]

what he said

[mzrowan.livejournal.com]

Yup, that.

[mangosteen]

fourthed.

5th

[sweetmmeblue.livejournal.com]

I like 1 better also

[mizarchivist]

a further ditto

[mzrowan.livejournal.com]

Your other option would be to take #2, select the subject, and then tweak her colour balance to bring her back out of the blue while still having the sharpness.

[ciani.livejournal.com]

I prefer number 1. The blue cast to the skin in 2 makes it a bit more boring to look at.

[wotw]

I agree with all the positive things that have been said about Option 1.

[davidfcooper.livejournal.com]

#1 for the reasons already mentioned.