Which do you prefer?

[Jon]

I have a couple of shots here of damselflies, I have processed them differently, I am curious to see what your preferences are.

[agrumpycow]

I can only see one photo?
Ignore that - second one's turned up.
Personally I prefer the first one. More detail, although both are very good. That's purely on personal preference, not on photographic technique which I know little about.

[goosey]

I had to think about my answer to this, so it's not cut and dry. Although the first photo leaps out at me and shows a great deal more detail, I think I actually prefer photo two as an image - again thats a personal preference. How did you move the wings and why did you think it necessary?

[peppermint]

i think i prefer the second, but ideally somewhere between the two. I am not too hot on the photo editing software side of things but i think that the detail is better in the first, but whatever you have done, maybe the sharpness??? is altered a bit too much. I prefer the wing detail in the second and the dimmer lighting.

good pic though

[Tormentil]

I'd go for photo 2. No1 looks over sharpened.

[nutmeg]

I like both images and would be pleased to have taken them myself. Seen large, the level of detail in the first is very good - however it seems over sharp. The second lacks a bit of contrast and the damselfly gets a bit lost in the background.

Somewhere in between perhaps?

[wildone]

I think that the second if it were a bit lighter to show more detail of the insect would be best. It perhaps would have been more helpful to have altered only one image so that the differences would have shown up better. To use two images it is unlikely that everything was exactly the same when they were taken.

Apart from that they are both good examples of the damselfly.

wildone

[Bushcraft]

I like them both, well done. But IMO the 2nd is much more natural. Shot 1 has that flash feel about it that im not too keen on. Having said that, without having a 2nd image to view side by side I could not find fault.

Kris

[Ollie]

Originally Posted by Tormentil

I'd go for photo 2. No1 looks over sharpened.

Have to go with Ben on this, the first looks a touch over sharpened to me. However the second one could do with a touch more contrast. My opinion only of course.
Roger

[Jon]

Thank you for the replies, I would go for the second shot myself. I think the first one is over sharp and refractile. I have been looking at some web sites and the images are EXTREMELY sharp. I have tried to emulate to some extent. On some shots it looks really impressive but the more I look at them I think that there is almost too much detail! I then think is it detail really? Or is it quite simply oversharpened? I suppose one has to decide if it is a so called natural image one is attempting to provide or is it one that literally smacks you in the eye. Also I have reflected that there is only so much detail you would see with your own eyes in any event - so why try to put more in than there is apparent to the eye in the first place. I am not rubbishing other workers I am really impressed with their results but I am now going more along the line of trying to capture a great image that is as natural as possible. I am trying to minimize all adjustments to those in Photoshop raw/bridge. If however there really is something sticking in the background that spoils the whole shot then I have no hesitation is a little cloning. Thanks again everyone I really do appreciate your comments.

Oh - if you are interested the over sharp shot was resized, Sharpened (not Unsharp) then sized to aboy 800 or so pixels then Smart sharpen was applied. I am not aware of any accepted algorithm for what be might termed the correct methos but if anyone wants to share information I would be pleased to read. I found this method of sharpening resizing and smart sharpening on a website - it wasn't my idea! Also does any one think it is better to save as a JPEG and adjust the compression as opposed to save for web and click on the optimum file size?
Jon