[Jim F]

Found this fellow on one of my walks. I was wondering , as far as overall effect, is the second cropped photo more effective with the close up of face, water rings and paws or the first as shot photo more effective showing more of the 'whole story"??

Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Sometimes I am torn between the close up as opposed to the ''whole picture'. Your comments on this case as well as just in general would be greatly appreciated.
Jim


   

   

[Chip]

#1 is best by far. #2 Does not tell the story at all.

[EdMak]

Bit over cropped, looks a bit over processed also, to me?? Ed.

[MrB]

The first crop is better here, but I also agree with Ed. In particular, the processing of the colours seems over-done - e.g. too much yellow, both on the animal and on the rocks he is standing on, to look natural to me.

   

Cheers.
Philip

[Korry]

The first crop is better here, but I also agree with Ed. In particular, the processing of the colours seems over-done - e.g. too much yellow, both on the animal and on the rocks he is standing on, to look natural to me.



Cheers.
Philip

I agree with everyone else on colors and over processing, but like the second crop a bit better. First one tells the story better, but I like how details pop out on the second one.

[pixbyjnjphotos]

I also agree with the majority. First crop is the best and too much yellow (not natural). MrB's posted image is much more natural in color. Have a GREAT DAY!

[Freeman]

To me, there are two stories being told in these two shots. In the first it's about him and his environment - he is just dipping into the water - great stuff. And the second is even better - it's about him and the snapper - the eye says everything. It's a good moment when a creature makes eye contact. By the way, is it a beaver or what? All the best - I love Ontario! Jeff

[Wall-E]

Found this fellow on one of my walks. I was wondering , as far as overall effect, is the second cropped photo more effective with the close up of face, water rings and paws or the first as shot photo more effective showing more of the 'whole story"??

Any comments or suggestions would be appreciated. Sometimes I am torn between the close up as opposed to the ''whole picture'. Your comments on this case as well as just in general would be greatly appreciated.
Jim

Would you be willing to post the unedited original image?
And explain what your reasoning is for the edits you did?

For me, I would have liked to see more of the area in front of the beaver, what he/she was looking at. A more compelling image would have the eye in the upper right 'power thirds' crossing, looking down into the 'pond'.