> Now I look for that, I can easily see that difference. afaict I barely glance at the mass of daffodils - I skip right across that field and start examining what isn't a field of daffodils.
Itís interesting to me how people see these. In one case someone said that they thought the buildings were a distraction and focused on the flowers & sky.
Also, a lot of what creates impact for these is scale. When reduced enough to be tolerable for web based viewing, they are at a small fraction, maybe 1/10th of the intended size. I think that drastically alters how people see the works.
> I can see that composition has a likeable swathe of pink and blue, and without the presence of other details like farm buildings I guess it's easier to put our own feelings into the picture - in that sense it's the more open ended picture.
Getting the viewer to project something of themself into the image is the grandest goal of all. Not that I have any knowledge of the skills to achieve this goal, but where in many cases a simple subject is what people tend to like, in this case it is the variations of a theme that serves the goal.
> And, on reflection, being a more open ended picture is quite a strength - perhaps a strength I don't appreciate enough ;-)
> (Perhaps that's also the case with the early bloomer - although the bloom seems small and far away.)
Very thoughtful comments. Thanks!