The second image leaves my eyes to wander in search of a visual nexus. The first I quite like. Flaunts the rule dead-center is deadly and kicks sand on it. Might have been slightly better if the stem of the leaf was sharp and it might benefit from a little rotation. To illustrate rotation:
The second image is a bit too cluttered for my taste. I do like the first image. As far as I am concerned no arbitrary rules have been broken. You merely centered the leaf which immediately draws and holds our attention.
I think part of the reason why the "centered" leaf works here, is that you aren't "stuck" at the centered leaf.
The leaf obviously draws us into it ... but when you do leave the leaf, you encounter the bark, and you now have something to explore besides the central subject. Take a trip around the leaf, and at virtually any point, you can continue your trip around, via the bark ... or return to the leaf.
For far too many "centered" subjects (imo), the problem isn't as much with the central location, as it is with the negative space has nothing to offer us of interest ... thus leaving us to only "look at" the central subject, for which we quickly tire.
The second one ... I can see that one as being a labor of love for a Jon Cone print ... i.e. much goodness to be treated with care. Both could be very nice prints given proper consideration @ careful printing considerations / choices / decisions.
dmacmillan wrote:
Lovely B&W conversion. #1 is stronger, I love its simplicity.
+1.
And the bit of rotation Karen added makes it more dynamic.
Second is processed very well but less engaging, more jumbled.
Appreciate all of the feedback! Karen, the image rotation most definitely seems to improve the first image.
My interest is peaked by the varied reactions to the second image. This is an image where I was trying to convey the textures and tones produced by the damp roots and fallen leaves and I felt content with the result but was unsure of how others would react without a more concrete point of interest.