Which One?

[NewHampshire]

These shots are basically the same thing. One has people in it, the other does not. I am not sure which one I like best:

Without

With

Normally I am a person who likes landscapes/scenery free of human elements. But lately I have been finding adding people to shots adds a little something extra. So right now I am leaning towards the second. What say you?

Brian

 

[rocket21]

I like the second one - the people, in this case, add color to the photo. If they were wearing black/grey, then perhaps I'd prefer the first.

The people also add balance to the second photo, as the first one is sort of lopsided in that there isn't too much balancing out the sign.

 

[w7xman]

I agree, the people add alot to the scene.

Overall the photo is very nice, with detail retained in the sky and nice sense of depth throughout...well done!

 

[Mark Schaefer]

I also prefer the second photo. The viewer's attention is led up the trail via the paint blaze to the couple of hikers. It makes a good subject that works well. In the first photo the eyes are led to the same spot, but it is an empty spot despite the interesting sky. The cairn if taller might have provided a subject, but this one is not very noticeable.

It appears that the sunlight in the first photo was a bit stronger. That brought out the colors more in the foliage, and the picture is sharply in focus. Perhaps because of the dimmer light in the second photo you were forced into using a slower shutter speed and/or a wider aperture. In comparison the second photo is just a bit softer on focus, perhaps from some camera shake. Switching to a higher ISO setting might have helped.

One note on the signs. Well executed photos of tree line / plant vegetation advisory signs are often in demand for PSAs by webmasters and photo editors. You would need the signs to be a bit more prominent in the photo. If your pair of hikers were paused in profile reading the signs you would have the makings of a very marketable photo. Similarly a hiker with a leashed dog in the same position would also work very well.

 

[Chip]

I thought I would like the first one, but the people add so much depth to the second one that I prefer that.

 

[Grumpy]

It will surprise nobody who has read this forum for a while that I prefer the second shot.

The people bring it to life. They give the scene meaning. (What’s a hike without a hiker?) They also provide a sense of scale.

Check your own reactions. How does your gaze move around the frame in each photo? Mine tended to make a quick circuit of the first one, looking for something to really lock onto. Of course, it eventually found the signs, which at this size were difficult to read.

In the second photo, my eyes immediately locked onto the hikers, then moved around the frame, taking in relevant details. The hikers provide meaningful context for the signs, the blaze, the cairn, the scree walls, the worn rock surfaces of the path …

I don’t mean to overly dramatize this, but the hikers turn a photographic record of a scene into a picture with story content.

G.

 

[NewHampshire]

Thanks for the comments everyone. As time goes by I find myself more open to adding those human elements into the shots.

Brian

 

[DougPaul]

I too generally prefer my landscapes free of people (or at least that they only be minor elements if unavoidable). In this case, both photos are primarily about the works of man (trail + sign) and the people in photo 2 IMO add rather than detract.

Doug