IMO, the color version is the keeper.
It's the type of picture that can slip through the cracks. When I took the time to study it, I realized it's a sophisticated photograph that works on several levels. I see it as a large print (at least 20" X 20") matted and framed. If you are inclined to enter work in juried art shows, I think this will do well. One technical nit: There is something "off" about the contrast--some areas look too flat while other look too contrasty and dark (such as the child).
I'd need a couple Photoshop sessions to work on this photo before it would be ready to print. And I'm sure I'd then put the print away for a few days and come back to it later to see if I'd gotten it right. ... The end result would be a stunning print.
I spent four hours in post on this one. I've made a single print. I set it aside for a few days. After studying it, I will now go back and finesse it further. It's about 85% finished--another hour of Photoshop to balance out the values.
I am fussy about printing. Sometimes a RAW photo looks great right out of the camera, other times I see the potential, knowing it will take hours of time in post. Sometimes its hard to judge whether or not it's worth the effort to bring an image to life.
Hi Bob, I'm torn between the color and B&W versions. Like you I'm not terribly happy with the contrast, and in the B&W I did a bit of work on that, but the work needs to be done on the original raw version. I don't agree with you about post-processing. Here's a paragraph from a message I sent to a group of students I'm working with:
"Recently we've covered light and composition, which are two of the most important considerations in visual art. If you get light, composition, and subject matter right, you have a picture worth showing. Everything after that -- post processing for instance -- is just grunt work. There's always some grunt work to be done because the photographic process isn't complete in itself, but if you didn't get it right at the moment the shutter clicked, no amount of grunt work is likely to improve the things that matter."
I stand by that statement.
Because of equipment limitations we could consider a lot of Cartier-Bresson's work to be technically sub-standard, but it's still some of the finest art that's been produced with a camera. The art isn't in post-processing. It's in having things right when the shutter goes click. If you can do that you have a winner. You should know that because you have a lot of winners.