Can you help me decide between these two compositions?

[austin granger]

Hello all. I would appreciate your expert opinion here. I like both these shots, and I'm going to print them both, but if you had to pick just one to show someone, which one would it be? Would it be:

1. The wide view

or

2. The close view

Disliking them both is not an option. :)

Thanks in advance for your input.

Austin

And despite what it looks like on your computer, they are both very sharp.

[Gem Singer]

The wide view helps to identify exactly what the subject is and where it is located.

The trees and the swing set in the background confuse the close view. Is it supposed to resemble an octopus?

[Roger Thoms]

I prefer the close view, the background in the wide view is to distracting.

Roger

[Roger Thoms]

Well there you go to differing opinions. Didn't see Gem's post btw.

Roger

[Vaughn]

In the wide view, the fence creates too much of a visual barrier for me to appreciate the form of the ride itself. And it tells me too quickly what I am looking at...it immediately zaps the mystery right out of the image. And the trees in the background interfer more with the shape of the ride.

But the closer view does not do a whole lot for me either, I'm afraid. Perhaps a little closer, much lower camera position, looking up, and with a wider lens would take the image farther. (the top of the arms of the ride would interact with the top of the trees). But since was this not an option (just read that part), ignore me if you wish!:D

[Brian Ellis]

I think it depends on the purpose for which you made the photograph and why you'd be showing it to someone else. If you're just trying to document what the amusement park ride (I assume that's what it is) looks like as a matter of historical or other interest I'd show the first one. But if it's the design and structure of the thing that interests you and that might interest the viewer I'd show the second one.

Actually if it was me I'd probably crop the second one and emphasize just a portion of the octopus, trying to make it a little like an abstract or an industrial design study rather than a documentation of what it looks like because that's what might interest me about it. But maybe that isn't what interests you.

[austin granger]

Wow, that was fast! Thanks for the input. At the risk of influencing the poll though, I feel like I need to jump in and defend my spider ("The Spider").

I actually like the trees, because the I think the four(ish) trunks echoes the spider's four arms quite nicely. Honestly, I like the fence too, as it sort of implies that the creature is "caged." But then, maybe that's just me... Obviously, I had trouble deciding what to do with the subject, hence the two versions.

But anyway, keep it coming, I can take it! (sniff...)

[Peter De Smidt]

I agree with the comments that suggest simplifying the composition.

[Gem Singer]

Hey Austin, it looks more like an octopus than a spider. The lights (I assume they are lights) look like suckers.

I still believe that the wider view better expresses what you were attempting to show.

[Michael Graves]

Oddly enough, I find the distractions in the wider view to be worse than those in the more detailed view. The closer view adds a bit of mystique and draws the viewer deeper into the image. It is more artistic while the wider image is more documentary. Just my humble, worthless and possibly biased opinion.

[David Low]

I would go with the wide view, which puts the spider in context. The close view is more immediately striking, but in my opinion doesn't have as much long term interest.

[Armin Seeholzer]

I see it like mister Graves!

Cheers Armin

[austin granger]

Hey Austin, it looks more like an octopus than a spider. The lights (I assume they are lights) look like suckers.

I still believe that the wider view better expresses what you were attempting to show.

I think you're right about it looking like an octopus Gem, however, there's a sign next to it that says "The Spider," so a spider it is.

Oaks Park in Portland is a fun place to photograph. It's closed down for the winter, and as you can see, the rides are half dismantled (there should be seats hanging from the spider's arms) but it's all open and one can roam around freely. Amazingly, I haven't even been hassled by the security guards-they just wave at me!

Austin

[Jack Dahlgren]

Hello all. I would appreciate your expert opinion here. I like both these shots, and I'm going to print them both, but if you had to pick just one to show someone, which one would it be? Would it be:

1. The wide view

or

2. The close view

Disliking them both is not an option. :)

Thanks in advance for your input.

Austin

And despite what it looks like on your computer, they are both very sharp.

I'd take the second shot at eye-level for a 3 year old - looking slightly up capturing more of the legs rather than the base of the ride. Maybe go back when the light is better, but that may be several months in Portland... :-)

[Frank_E]

I much prefer the closer view for many of the reasons already stated. Your mind stays more engaged because there is a greater sense of mystery and uncertainty. The fact that the arms extend outside the frame causes you to wonder what else is outside the frame. In this view the tree trunks add a stronger counterpoint. The wide view is too complete, too documentary for me.

[William McEwen]

I vote for the closer view.

It feels like I'm right up against it, and I'm not separated by the fence in the farther view.

[Chris Strobel]

Close view gets my vote too

[icanthackit]

I haven't looked at too many of the other posts, but I would say the close view if it was my work. To me, the wide view looks like a document of a ride at a fair, it shows a place, though it's possible to look at it as a caged creature but I think it would require a couple more images to give that idea to somebody viewing the picture by itself.

The close, tight view can add a more abstract feel to it, and it might fit better into that feeling (should you wish to explore that) with higher contrast.

[Ed Kelsey]

Close view

[Joe O'Hara]

As presented, I prefer the wider image, but if it were my picture and I had a chance to do it again, I would go inside the fence try a shorter lens if possible from a low point of view to get the legs (arms?) to occupy the edges and corners of the frame. In the closer view here I find the highlights on the motor and clutch distracting.

[eddie]

but if it were my picture and I had a chance to do it again, I would go inside the fence try a shorter lens if possible from a low point of view to get the legs (arms?) to occupy the edges and corners of the frame. In the closer view here I find the highlights on the motor and clutch distracting.

i agree. maybe shooting from another side to try and get a back ground that is less busy.

[ImSoNegative]

As a kid this was probably my favorite ride. and I agree with brian concerning the composition

[MIke Sherck]

I prefer the close view. In the wide view the foreground and background run together and it's difficult to separate them; the fence also seems to set a visual barrier against which the eye doesn't seem to want to violate. The close view isn't perfect (what photograph is?) but it's more immediate (and more menacing) to me and I prefer it that way in this case.

Mike

[Brian C. Miller]

I like the close view.

What I would do differently for the photograph is to use selective focus, and thow the support out of focus, and leave the arms in focus. Also, move the camera so the building in back is gone, and more of the roller coaster is in the picture. The curve of the roller coaster echos the curve of the arms, and the trees provide a counterpoint.

I agree with Vaughn that the fence in the first photograph is like a barrier.

[Chris Strobel]

Have you thought about cloning out the fence on the wide view shot :D

[cosmicexplosion]

they are both no good...

due to aforementioned distractions and somewhat average angle of view.

if inly the fence wasnt there, it was dusk and the lights were on, with a midget in a top hat smoking a cigar...