the first is as was previously posted.
the second reduced the sharpening 50%.

the difference is noticeable in the printed copy, but I do not know about the posted image. take you pick.

I'd appreciate you feeling of whether #1 or #2 works for you; thanks.

appreciate all of your comments; a great forum!

best regards, tom

the second is much better imho, an image you look into

Joe

Speaketh again the loud dinosaur (moi) .
Comparing the two here raises another question:
Some things that have a gazillion tiny edges (i.e. small leaves, gravel, the foreground grass in this pic) look oversharpened much sooner that other things (i.e. this car).
Sooooo, IMO the foreground grass in the second image combined with everything else in the first image would be just about right.
Charlie

I go with the second one as well, but Charlie has got an interesting suggestion to consider

Joe - thanks for you comment.
Charlie - I agree! my 'final' print will be as you suggested; it makes sense.
lazlo - thanks for the nod to #2; and agreement with Charlie.
regards, to all, tom

Tom,
First, great image. And that to-die-for sky cross-hatching the heavens is phenomenal.
Kinda with Charlie here. The grasses definitely look oversharpened. I think you have enough sharpening on the vehicle in both. I might mask the effect a tad more over the grill but I would be fine preserving the sharpening over the body.
Finally,
I really love this shot!!

Scott

Scott - many thanks for the analysis and comments; always appreciate your ideas.
regards, tom

Tom, very cool image and interesting discussion.
The second looks perfect in every way to me.
Chris

Chris - very glad you like.
yes, the discussion is interesting, and educational for me. as I said - GREAT forum.
regards, tom

Check out those chemtrails, says the conspiracy theorist behind me at work.

I like the second one as well. Feel like it has more depth.

shaggy - that was a busy sky, thank goodness! thanks for the comments.
regards, tom