I was just recently commissioned for a campaign and shot about 1000 images to capture final image for this well known sports company. In the end, it came down to the two images above. As is usually the case, the final image is tough to choose, with lots of factors under consideration, lots of stakeholders picking their favorite. There was much debate.
I’ve posted stuff like this before and was really excited by the resulting discussion, so I figured I’d throw it out there again… WHICH IS BETTER, A or B?
Vote in the comments. Love to know ‘why’ if you care to explain your thoughts. 600 px wide versions of each image after the jump…hit [‘continue reading’ below]. After you all weigh in, I’ll tell you which one was used and why.
This is PHOTO A, below.
THIS is PHOTO B, below.
I’m not sure any of them are that good.
A’s composition doesn’t make much sense to me. Why do we need to see the cars, the lamp post and the trees when it’s obvious that that the message is in the right side of the picture; the running girl.
Therefore i think that B is the better alternative as the flare removes much of the unnecessary info but ideally I’d crop A much closer and only deal in the running woman on the pavement with the bush as background. And then of course not as much flare. That much flare is also just a cheap attempt at making the picture more interesting.
Photo “A” would be the best image.
Flare can be attractive if it is done with in this case some symmetry to it, photo “B” in my opinion does not have that.
I would definitely choose A because the flare is less distracting. In picture A you can see more of the image instead of having that big lens flare that cover most part of the frame and also I like more her face expression, it looks like she is smiling in A that in the B where she’s looking slightly tired.
B
for your purpose definitely A.
I think B has a superior aesthetic value, the light flare is amazing. But for a commercial sport shot I would go for A.