One shot, processed differently - which is best??

[Flew]

I continue to try to fine tune my PP. Here is a shot that I took last Thursday, processed two very slightly different ways. I would greatly appreciate your opinion as to which is better. Also, I would appreciate your thoughts as too why if you don't mind.

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)

Thanks,

Frank

 

[beaucamera]

Frank, I don't see a lot of difference between these two great images. The first one seems to have slightly more detail in the birds' feathers and feet.

What did you do differently?

Virginia
aka beaucamera

 

[greyflash]

I think that #1 has more clarity and brightness IMO. I would say that the gamma is slightly higher giving it more brilliance.

 

[NeilCam]

I'd also go with #1 - just prefer the slightly darker and greener grass in the background. But, on another shot or different circumstances I might prefer the #2 approach.

Neil

 

[PhotoDawg]

Frank,

The second shot looks a tad brighter. I am partial to brighter looking pictures though.

 

[mike mac]

I liek #1 the colors seem more true to life and the detail int he feathers better.. great job

 

[Rich Gibson]

The seond one. The first appears to have a bit more (over) saturation or a slight red cast.

Rich

 

[Gale]

After staring at them for a bit they look alike. So much for my help :>))

Great shot. Both, either way.

 

[Retief]

First off, best of luck with fine-tuning your PP....... :wink:

Here are my 17 cents worth.

In #1, as others have noted, the detail in the bodies and feathers is a bit better, richer and more deatils I think.

In #2, I like the heads of the birds much better, the "lighter" treatment brings out the eye much better.

If it were me, I'd tried to find an "in-between". If not, because I like to see eyes, I would take #2.

In any case, I would not call either "yucky".