Two versions of a pano - your thoughts?

[simato73]

For special occasions or extraordinary sizes, one should always consider using a printing house.

Agreed in principle, however a really big print needs a room to match.
I bought the biggest home I could afford but no room is big enough.

[simato73]

Framing : I prefer the first one : more vegetation/green and more ''panoramic feeling''.

Lighting : the second one with more visible details on the foreground rocks (right side). The main summit is also more visible.

And we can state how fast the clouds change on high mountains landscapes !

Thanks Rosko, I agree on everything you said.
That late afternoon I got rained and hailed on twice, once on the way up and another time on the way down...

[simato73]

Simone, I like the original one the best!    If I really need to make a 1:3 frame from it, I would cut the far left and far right parts of the original frame without trimming vertically.  The lighting on the rocky buttress is indeed more interestingly lighted in the second image, but the left and central parts look a bit flatter and hazier than in the first image.  To me, the overall lighting looks better in the first image.

And I would strongly suggest to start with the third, uncropped pano with the vertical side intact.  The elongated crescent shape of the snowy slope and the white round spot are too good to cut out!

The snow in the foreground was a deliberate choice and for that I moved a little from the initial position (so the first two images posted are not in chronological order).
However I soon realised that the aspect ratio was too elongated and the eye would roam too much along the picture without a dominant point of interest.
So I thought a less wide crop should be adopted.
3:1 is the most panoramic format I can work on for printing and framing reasons.

I am interested to see what others would make of the original pano, so everybody please feel free to download that image, crop to your taste and re-post here.
I are not concerned about other adjustments at the moment (i.e. micro contrast, etc etc).

[Andrew]

First one for me, reason: nice green...

[Akira]

Here's my take based on the original uncropped image.  As I said, I only trimmed the far left and the far right part.

[simsurace]

I would prefer the second one. The first is very good, but the snow patch on the lower left really bugs me. If it were absent (higher vantage point), it would be near perfect. But because of the patch, I would personally choose the tighter crop that is number two.

One could include a little more sky in number two, or just crop number one to get rid of the snow patch. But the current crop in number two is very good and conveys the majestic nature of the mountains.

[simato73]

Here's my take based on the original uncropped image.  As I said, I only trimmed the far left and the far right part.

After your comment I developed an alternative version, identical to yours.
I like the snow, but the foreground is a bit drab (maybe could be improved with post-processing) and the wide view dilutes the lakes and peaks at the right.

[elsa hoffmann]

fist one and last one posted nicest in my opinion. Well done!

[simato73]

fist one and last one posted nicest in my opinion. Well done!

Thanks Elsa, but I am still none the wiser about which version to choose!
Still, I enjoyed the conversation and the input given by everyone.

[pluton]

I prefer the second one, but for issues of framing.  The overall lighting of both is too similar to choose on that basis. I would try adding more sky if it was available form the pan elements.   

[simato73]

I prefer the second one, but for issues of framing.  The overall lighting of both is too similar to choose on that basis. I would try adding more sky if it was available form the pan elements.

What is in the framing of the second image that works better for you?
Is is that the lakes and foreground have been cropped, giving more prominence to the cliffs on the rhs?
There is more sky available in the uncropped version. I just cropped like this to give more impression of height in Assiniboine (the big cloud-capped peak in the background on the right). The top was not visible anyway...

[charlie]

The light in the second version is better due to the sunlight on the right side foreground mountains and the snow field behind them, also the clouds opened up to reveal more of Mt Assiniboine(?). Though I prefer the framing of the first because it reveals the lake on the lower right side but the lower left side snow is distracting. Perhaps combine the best elements of each?

[Olivier]

I find the first version more balanced, mostly because of the lakes, not cropped, well positioned.
The snow looks like a cut in the picture though. I would just replace it!

[simato73]

The light in the second version is better due to the sunlight on the right side foreground mountains and the snow field behind them, also the clouds opened up to reveal more of Mt Assiniboine(?). Though I prefer the framing of the first because it reveals the lake on the lower right side but the lower left side snow is distracting. Perhaps combine the best elements of each?

Following your suggestion I tried to use the frame with the better sunlit mountains (from photo #2) and add it to the stack for the other pano (#1) but it has not worked.
Taking out the "disturbing" snow cannot be done without massive digital manipulations and that is not my style.
I appreciate the point of view, others feel the same - and I do too, but I have to choose between two things, neither of which is perfect.

The upshot of all this is that re-working the pano I have discovered and corrected a serious issue.
There was an area of blur due to an unsharp image. I was surprised of this unsharpness, since it was shot at 1/250s on a tripod. But on the other hand there were strong gusts of wind, or maybe I inadvertently stumbled on the tripod legs.
Who knows, fortunately that frame could be removed because the two adjacent ones were still overlapping a little.

[simato73]

I find the first version more balanced, mostly because of the lakes, not cropped, well positioned.
The snow looks like a cut in the picture though. I would just replace it!

Yes, now that you mention it does look like a cut.
Removing it (cloning) is not something I want to do.
The only practical alternative I see is to crop differently so there is much more snow, better recognisable as such, and such that it contributes in a positive way to the composition.