2nd, with the tree in the bottom third of the first shot, it pushes my eyes up to the horizon which is boring. The second move the tree slightly higher, but lowers the horizon so my attention is drawn to the tree. One thing, and it might be my eyes, but the saturation to the right of the rainbow on the bottom looks higher than on the left side.
For me, the rainbow is somehow a bit too much like an arrow pointing at a central subject, as if to illustrate a point with a diagram, rather than the whole being something to enjoy for itself, with an interplay of elements, which is much more the case with the second. Further, the double rainbow is much clearer, and better displayed, in the second.
The second is the stronger shot in my eyes
2nd, with the tree in the bottom third of the first shot, it pushes my eyes up to the horizon which is boring. The second move the tree slightly higher, but lowers the horizon so my attention is drawn to the tree. One thing, and it might be my eyes, but the saturation to the right of the rainbow on the bottom looks higher than on the left side.
Is the rainbow natural or put in post?
Thanks Jeff, all natural :)
Definitely the second, David.
For me, the rainbow is somehow a bit too much like an arrow pointing at a central subject, as if to illustrate a point with a diagram, rather than the whole being something to enjoy for itself, with an interplay of elements, which is much more the case with the second. Further, the double rainbow is much clearer, and better displayed, in the second.
Hope that makes some sense. Hard to articulate!
Thanks Chris. I'm definitely in agreement, just wondered if the first might have some merit that I was overlooking :)