Which One is Better and Why?

[Arthur Morris]

The first, above?

[Arthur Morris]

Or the second one, in this pane?

Both with the 70-200 f/4 L IS and the EOS-1D MIII at 1/15 sec. in Tv mode.

Don't be shy; all comments welcome.

[Axel Hildebrandt]

I prefer the second one because of the fluid patterns and mood. In the first one I focus on the group in the middle, in the second one I don't feel the need to focus at all. I'm curious what others think about it.

[denise ippolito]

I prefer the second one if you cropped out the water flow from the top. It has a nice pattern and color tones.

[Jackie Schuknecht]

Well I gues we are all different, I prefer the first as I lock onto a point of interest i.e. the center two birds and then take in the general mayhem. The second I find irritating on a visual level as it just looks like chaos to me:).

[Cheryl Slechta]

I agree with Jackie - I like the first because of the center of interest and the birds looking at you. I think the
second would be a neat abstract with some funky filters applied:)

[Nick Palmieri]

I like the first as well. I find my eye looking for something and there a few birds in the first one that are you could focus on a bit. I get a little dizzy looking at the second one.

[Christopher Miller]

Hmmm...hard decision, but I think the first one is my favorite. The several sharper birds in it form a point of interest that I find pleasing.

[Indranil Sircar]

I like the first one better with those few sharp bird in the center.

[Kaustubh Deshpande]

first one for the sharp center woodie.

[Patti Edens]

First one for me too. I like that I can see several duck heads and faces in the sea of ducks. My eyes key in on a bunch of headless duck bodies in the second.

[RakeshDhareshwar]

First one ...the eye stops for a brief moment on the centre of the frame where there is no movement and then takes in the chaos as precise movement . In the second one it still emains chaotic .

[Arthur Morris]

Here's the funny thing. I initially liked the first one with the one sharp Wood Duck, but over time, I have come to like the second one for the flow; my eye keeps moving with that one. And I do like the water in the u-r-c of the second one. Cropping the top by scrolling destroys the flow....

[denise ippolito]

Artie, That is so funny that you said that you liked the first one initially. I did too, until I started to see the nice cohesive flow to the second one. The only reason I suggested removing the corner was because I found myself staring at it for too long. But I do like the image very much.

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks for sharing your thoughts, Denise. I often prefer a strip along the top of an angled sort of frame in the corner (as here) or corners.

[Paul Lagasi]

I gotta go with number 1, for the reason given above in a few threads...sharp woodie in centre.

Although as I've said before I am outta my league with these images...I just don't get them, I mean I see the how..but still have trouble with the why. :D

[Arthur Morris]

.I just don't get them, I mean I see the how..but still have trouble with the why.

Hi Paul, I shall begin by assuming that you are saying politely that you do not like intentionally blurred images. I am fine with that and I do understand that folks have widely different feelings about blurs. My beloved late wife did not like them nor did my last girlfriend who is a great photographer.

Many folks including myself love creating and looking at them. In the slide show that I just did in ABQ, these two images elicited gasps of delight from many when they appeared on the screen. "Blizzard in Blue," my first successful Snow Geese blur, was runner up in Composition and Form in the 1998 BBC Wildlife Photographer of the Year Competition.

Lots of folks (like me) enjoy the flow and sense of motion that are part of successful intentional blurs. And many consider them highly artistic.

Here's the bad news: apparently, intentional blurs are not an acquired taste.:)

[Mark Fuge]

I would go with #2. Although I would crop to eliminate the one bird that is looking at you in the ULC. The rest are a nice pattern of blur, but this one is not consistent in my view and it is larger than the rest of the similarily "sharp" image areas. If it were sharp, or if it were blurred, it would fit in.

In #1, I personally don't care for the sharp center. There is too big an area of "sharpness" for me.

Just my vision of what is there. I like it, but ...

[John Hawkins]

I take these as 2 different images and cannot say I would like one over the other. It is like if I was asked If I like a portrait better than a landscape. I like the first as it takes my eyes to the focused bird and then I like the second as a very abstract piece of art, just would like a hint more blur in the second.

[Paul Lagasi]

Thanks Artie...for understanding, I think for so many years I've tried to get sharp images, that intentionally blurring them is foreign to me.
Having said that I had a look online at "Blizzard in Blue", totally get that, same as Denise's Water Lily...they both work for me artistically...I guess its in the eye of the beholder
:( Hopefully it will come to me

[Harold Davis]

i prefer the second one. it doesnt look as contrasty and seems more artful. i find my eye moving around the frame where as in the first one i definitely focus on the center more. artful....is that a word!!?

[Arthur Morris]

Thanks again all for your kind comments and suggestions.