Capri -- Which looks better?

[Duffy Pratt]

I've got two versions of this shot of the Farogonelli rocks off Capri. Which of the two looks better? Thanks.

[Added after viewing] Oh, and looking at these together, top to bottom, there is a really good example of simultaneous contrast. The water blues in the top picture look darker when you have the sky from the bottom picture on the screen at the same time. So, when making your decision, try to look at each picture without having the other on screen, otherwise your judgment might be a result of the simultaneous contrast issue between the pictures, and not the merits of the pictures themselves.

Duffy

[epoh]

Maybe I'm just tired, but I can't see a difference between the two shots.

[JohnT]

They look the same to me. I cannot detect any difference between them.

[TXhummer2]

The bottom one has ~very slightly~ less contrast, looking a tiny bit more hazy.

(on my work 21" Trinitron)

[engstrom]

I think the bottom one has slightly more contrast in the rocks - I like it better.

[Texentric]

On an uncalibrated laptop the sky looks better on the first one and the rocks look better on the second, how's that? The difference is very subtle though.

[hookem]

Agree with Jorge. Because of the rocks, I'd go with the second one.

[Duffy Pratt]

I made a slight change. I know this might seem like picking at nits, but what do you think now? I really appreciate all this input.

Thanks,

Duffy

[Spec A!]

I like the contrast on the rocks in pic #2. One thing that bugs me that no one else mentioned- the horizon isn't straight. Could be just me but it looks like the horizon dips to the right. :)

[Rahb]

My pic is number 2 also, but I'm not that picky about the horizon. It's so subtle that you REALLY have to exam the photo to find that. Easily corrected in bridge or ps

[JohnT]

I don't find the crooked horizon subtle at all; it was the first thing I noticed. The only reason I didn't mention it is I figured he was planning on fixing it in pp anyway. But I'm glad someone said something.

[Duffy Pratt]

OK. Here's what I did. To begin with, I edited the file exactly the same way. The only difference in the editing process was that the first picture was in 8 bit and the second picture was edited in 16 bit. This was starting from a JPG source. I wanted to see if there really was a discernable difference. The top picture was the 8 bit edit, and the bottom was the 16 bit.

Then I noticed the simultaneous contrast issue and tried to warn people about it. The reason the rocks in the bottom picture appear to have more contrast is because of simultaneous contrast. I've measured the same pixels at 800% magnification and they have the same luminosity. There is some slight variation in the colors, but it appears to me to be pretty random, and always very slight (within 1%).

When the bottom picture started to come up a winner because of what I thought was a simultaneous contrast issue, I switched the top and bottom pictures. So now the 16 bit edit is on the top and the 8 bit edit is on the bottom. And it still looks like the bottom picture is the winner.

For me, this has been very enlightening, and I thank everyone who has replied. I also apologize if anyone thinks I've been a bit underhanded here. I wanted people to judge the pictures on a clean slate, and not with any preconceptions. Unfortunately, I don't think I've proved anything about 8 bit or 16 bit editing.

The "haze" in the sky that Harris noticed may be a result of the different editing processes. But for me, that "haze" is a now you see it, now you don't sort of thing. And even so, I think most people would prefer the less hazy verions.

The other thing I've learned is that whatever difference there might have been in the pictures because of bit depth, that difference was wiped out by the simultaneous contrast issue. Since the main advantage of 16 bit editing is supposed to happen where you have subtle gradations of tone, I chose this sky and water scene. But the very nature of this kind of scene brings out exactly the sort of situation that seems to play tricks on the eyes. Thus, on these sorts of images, I think it might be very hard to judge issues of quality. I guess you would have to do sample groups where the pictures were placed differently next to each other and then do some regression analysis to factor out the placement of the photos as a variable. That kind of study is beyond my competence.

Anyway, I didn't get what I was after. But I still feel like I learned something and I appreciate everyone's taking time to respond.

Duffy

(P.S. this is an older shot, and when I first edited it, I was no to PS and didn't know how to do rotations. I will fix the horizon now that you mentioned it. So thanks for pointing that out as well. I hope sometime soon I can go back to Capri and get some good shots with a camera better than that Kodak P&S (or is that PoS?))

[harley_jeff]

Second shot is my preference, more contrast as stated