I like the first best - it is simple but powerful, almost crystalline. The second doesn't have the same impact for me, although the human presence is good.
Thanks for the comments, Lois and Rob. I am not usually disposed to explain how I achieved my results, not because of some secret but because it often detracts from the essence of what the viewer may experience, as Andre aptly explained in his posting of "Old man in Chiapas." Because we are having these interesting debates on digital manipulation, I thought why not.
It is the result of a happy experiment. I was taken by how the image looked when converted to BW. Then I was even more taken when I saw how a simple inversion lended itself to really simplifying and creating a feeling that I saw in the BW image. So it is a simple adjustment which I could not do except by means of digital. That's why I call most of my images "impressions."
Rob: So that was you! If you want to sue me, you should have the decency to walk a little closer to the middle of the pathway (or was that me walking askew), so that you can at least claim that you earned your money! This involved no manipulation save the BW conversion. I simply practiced walking down the path with my eyes on a blacked-out shutter for a few seconds. Sort of like shooting from a moving car or bike, but not as dangerous. A mental break walk, why that is precisely why I take my walks through the park and green areas of the city.
JMR
