I like the first one better. I have just started doing more b+w pictures as opposed to color. Slowly I am getting better at it and love how much more dramatic a scene can look in b+w. The second picture would be a lot better if you had just left it normal. I like the prespective in the second picture also. The oak tree(?) feels stronger to me as a subject in the 2nd picture than in the 1st. Both are great pics. :) -Daren

without reading yosemite's yet, i'd choose the 2nd, because i like the hint of color, closer view, no powerlines, more off center, less open sky, & less competition for focal point... :] there you go

The second one is better. I agree with everything cynlee said, especially about focal point. What am I looking at in the first picture? It looks like a good scene for opening credits. It could also use a bit more contrast. On the second picture I see that you desaturated it considerably. Gives it a nice dreary look. Could be better if there were more clouds in that blank spot of sky, but I can hardly blame you for that! I would try cropping some of the top and bottom off (like a widescreen movie) and see what that looks like. I think the picture might look a bit richer that way. Either way, good atmosphere.

I agree with cynlee concerning the closer and more off center view. But i like open skies and the tree in the street (power lines) context. my favorites the first one.

And I like better the second one ... I like tyhe hinyt of colour too, and the composition... I like that tree as the subject of the pic... (not very expert, just a matter of taste)

Both are very nice Michael.....compositionally I think the second is the stronger of the two. As far as color or no color....I like them both well enough. :~) The second gives the feeling of a hand tinted photograph.

I like the Second pic...no distractions...like Cynlee :)

I think it's a matter of mood - or the mood you want to portray. To me, these two images are completely different - even though the same subject material. Neither one, to me, is a "photograph of a tree" - they're both "photographs of a feeling or mood". What i like about the first one: To me, it says "I'm on my own - I'm flying solo". Typically, I don't care for skies without interest - but in this case, it drives the point home. The is no question as to what the subject of this photo is - and it sends a message that i think everyone can associate with. What i like about the second one: I states strength - superiority over the other smaller trees within the composition. This image also gives me more of a feeling of closeness and "protected", if you will. The large image of the tree looks more like a guardian - something you can rely on - in complete control of its destiny. I guess the point I'm trying to make is - neither shot is "better" than the other - depends on the context of the meaning of the photo. If I were looking for a shot to depict the feeling of the Great Depression, something that illustrated an individual against a hard, cruel world - I would have to say the first shot captures that concept perfectly. On the other hand, if I were looking for a shot that depicts "solid, reliable, "you can count on me" sort of concept - the second shot gives me that feeling in spades. Bottom line - given my current mood - I'm more into the first shot....tomorrow, I may like the second! Both are excellent - but I don't think anyone can really say one is any better than the other. Wolf

compositionally the second one is better. i'm not sure of the washed out look though, it may be a bit too washed out for me. i would like to see the second in b&w, i think it would look good.

I like the 2nd better, basically because I think it makes for a better composition, - but also because the tree gets more attention.

But is it a photograph of a tree? frankly - if it were a pure shot of a tree, it could have been done better. i think it's a shot of mood. Yes, the composition of the second shot is excellent - but of a subject matter that can be found without much searching. Just my opinion, but the photographer was not trying to take a picture of a "tree" - he was trying to express a mood he felt when he saw the scene. The empirical "tree photograph" was not what he was after - he was after presenting the feeling he had when he first envisioned the scene - which had to include more than the tree. This is my guess - This tree is nothing spectacular - but the environment in which the tree exists portrayed a feeling - probably of "WOW - here's a huge tree - and there's nothing around it that comes close to it's magnitude or grace - which makes it look even bigger!" - it's that feeling that is accomplished in the first shot. Of course, I'm reading (maybe) too much meaning into the photographer's message - but to me, as a viewer of the images - the first one makes a statement that i can associate with - that i can "get into"....the second shot, even though it's a textbook example of excellent composition, just doesn't say anything to me - it's a well composed shot of an excellent, but common, subject of a tree. The first shot hits me with a mood - kind of a Grapes of Wrath type of feeling. The second, although it seems like the tree exhibits some authority against the smaller trees - just doesn't carry the strength of the mood of the first shot - and (I apologize to those who don't agree - not looking for a conflict here) the tree is not (to me) interesting enough to carry off a composition unto itself as a "shot of a tree". OK - have at me...