We Need Your Opinion: Which Photo Looks Better?

We Need Your Opinion: Which Photo Looks Better?

Today we are asking our readers to vote which of these two photos is the better image. I'm not going to tell you anything about these two images, but I'm excited to reveal the twist in a few days after everyone votes on the more appealing image.  

I thought it would be fun to pit two completely different images against each other and see which one you thought was the better shot. Of course there is a twist to this experiment that I'll reveal in a few days. You can see the two images below. 

Image 1

Image 2

If you believe you know what makes these two photos unique, please leave your thoughts in the comments below.

Log in or register to post comments


David Pavlich's picture

#2. However, neither are anything to get excited about.

#1. The background is quite distracting. Too many things draw attention away from the lovely lady. Needs better blur or someone to take the time to rid the background of some of the 'stuff'. I'm not a big fan of a vignette, but it might help here. Use the Radial Filter if you're using LR.

#2. The outside is nice, but could use some work on the sky. Some heavy cropping would help; get rid of a substantial amount of the sky. Crop out the slats and the string hanging in the right part of the frame. Clone out the weeds in the doorway.

Tom Reichner's picture

Nice critique / observations!

Personally, I like the weeds in the bottom of the doorway in image #1. They soften up what would be hard, stark corners. They help to create a space that looks more comfortable, and less sterile. I would probably photoshop weeds/vegetation into this area, if they were not there originally.

Vladimir Ambia's picture

See, as an architectural photographer I tend to often go to straight lines and compositions that deliver that leading lines effect. SO i voted for #2 but #1 is beautiful too but I had to pick one right? cause they are both better in my eyes. or equal.

Richard King's picture

2 looks kind of fake, more of a pushed about in processing thing than a camera thing

They both have a took on a phone feel about them.

John Ohle's picture

The one taken on a phone!

Chris Jablonski's picture

Both seem to be. No. 1 is an iPhone 12 Pro image, No.2 a Samsung Galaxy S20 FE image, according to the metadata.

James Parish's picture

samsungs do have more saturation in them...that might be the issues...That Samsung makes a good images just as Iphone..

They both Use SONY sensors anyway..

Guido Cavatorta's picture

For me photography is light and composition the second photo has both of them, the first... not so much!

imagei _'s picture

Hold on, they are in different order in the article header and different in the voting section. I voted for the wrong one, won't be able to sleep tonight... Ah, I can change my vote. Ok, world balance has been restored.

Patrick Hall's picture

I ordered them in the featured image so the model looked inward towards each other.

Wolfgang Mayerwieser's picture

Dynamic range looks somehow “distracting” in both, in different ways

Patrick Meulnet's picture

voted for 1, at least a "kind of" standard 3/4 / head/shoulder portrait, still trying to find a story in pic.2 as the women is too small and if you remove her, there is noting much left to talk about (I don't care about dynamic range or technical stuff...)

Chaz Foote's picture

If you want a portrait then #1 would be the pick but I find #2 more interesting., quite possibly because I seldom do portraits.

Pete Whittaker's picture

Indeed, I had the opposite experience. I shoot a lot of portraits and I looked at #2 and couldn't figure out what the subject of the image was supposed to be.


I am intrigued to know what you will have to say. In any case, I view these photos from two points, technical execution and artistic meaning of each photo. I voted for the second. The first one is just a young woman standing in the abandoned building. Not much going on. The second, may lead to some thinking, at least for me, of why she is looking out at the horizon or smth we don't see.

Daniel L Miller's picture

Composition aside…Image #1 has no highlights! The light is very flat.

Image #2 is better because both the leading lines and the contrasty light lead my eye to the subject.

EDIT: In fact it appears to be the same dress in both images but looks very different in #2 because of the light.

Studio 403's picture

#1 I see this motif all the time, #2 has style and wonder. I like the low perceptive.

Andrew Eaton's picture

Image one the eyes are not in focus/sharp if you are going to do a fashion shot, I believe the eyes need to be pin sharp

Timothy Gasper's picture

What kind of BS is this! You have an agenda here which you're keeping hidden...for a few days I see. Looking at the comments it's obvious that they are subjective. When you ask which one is more appealing to you, I know which one I will choose, but not at all for any attributes you may think. So, with that in mind, how would MY choice play in to what you have in mind? And don't think you 'know' which one I would choose. You really have no idea. Anyway, I can wait for your final word on this.

Ed C's picture

So is this what this site is going to become? Trying to convince people how great phone shots are? I guess on the plus side you're giving me time back to do other things.

on jaco's picture

Long time reader first time poster :)

What makes these two photos unique is.....

........ both images are created by AI from assets or complety synthesized from a description the AI was provided with.

Quick glance theres nothing odd, after a little consideration..

Image 1 : the lights all off, where are the light sources coming from. Whats with the light cast on the subjects bottom. Where are the shadows falling onto the surroundings. Left hand looks weird like playdough.
Odd lump slash double elbow on left hand side. Why is there a solitary patch of hair light on the her left hand side and top of shoulder. Wisp of hair on right shoulder weirdly cut out also whats the white dot near it. Theres more look for them.

Image 2 : its more convincing... but Light sources again....subjects geting hit with hard light top to toe, yet theres non falling on the ground in front of her. Wheres the front of her left foot either thats the line of a roof top or her foots melted over the edge of the step. Is the subject standing in thin air.

Door scale is odd, too narrow and elongated. The perspective is off. The buildings in the background are colnes of each other and too semetrical. The tile line scale is off for the distance to the subject, they should be way way smaller at the suggested step shes standing alongside, whys the sea not more contrasty if the buildings are bright white?

Chris Jablonski's picture

You're on to something here. Maybe both phones (check metadata or my comment above) offer this kind of pseudo-photography. Not interested in either case if that's so.

philip morse's picture

I voted for 2. The composition in 1 is simpler and stronger but the vacant stare of the model is distracting and adds nothing. I wouldn't want this on my wall. 2 is less problematical in that respect and the balancing of the exposure from an interior to exterior is impressive. Given all of that, however, it's nothing to write home about. Maybe it would have been better in black and white.

Joseph Ting's picture

That stare is saying-
WTF is he having me pose in open toed sandals in this filthy condemned dump? i sure hope I don't get tetanus!

Henrik Forsting's picture

The twist: #1 is straight from the camera, #2 is post-processed. I like #1 more.

Alex Zenzaburro's picture

both are taken with cellphones

Vito Valenzi's picture

2 but it's because the composition is much more interesting then 1

J E's picture

The article seems to ask two questions: (1) "Which is better"; then, farther down, (2) "What makes these two photos unique." But for the question "Which is better", neither of these pics would be worth a second look. Both are hopelessly boring. No. 1, the "portrait", just simply doesn't engage the viewer, model is just standing in a dull pose, the eyes don't engage, colors are flat, background is too intrusive, vertical lines disrupt rather than add. To say the composition lacks dynamic would be a kindness. No. 2, the "through the window landscape" has flat colors, posing that doesn't add anything to the composition (letting that left hand stick out like a claw screams amateur, it would be better if that hand were shading her eyes so it looked like she was observing something in the distance, but even that wouldn't fix the rest of that pic), and, to my taste, too much contrast in the darks muffles any detail of the doors that might aid in directing the eye instead of just looking like a bad vignette. As for what makes these images unique, that is much tougher because these look like any number of bad phone camera snapshots.

More comments