I figured format would matter a lot or you, as you contact print. My reply was meant to be more generic. As for a retake being close to the original, I have noticed that many people find the similarity in old versus new uninteresting; they want to see change.
Focal length determines field of view, but does not affect perspective; whatever is common to both images will have the same spatial or geometric relationship, or perspective. But I think you know this too, even though you say otherwise above.
Many years ago I visited Prairie Creek, a beautiful and maybe challenging place to do repeat photography due to few stable landmarks visible through the forest. The small-scale changes you mention would be interesting.
The usual approach for repeat photography for scientific purposes is very monkey-see monkey-do, and there is no real incentive for "improvement", because this would confound interpretations. I did not think there would be much interest in it on LFPF because it is is so un-artistic.
I really appreciate the various perspectives on this topic, so thank you.
Bookmarks