I can't decide, Portrait or Landscape?

[Wayland]

I took a trip to Anglesey this week and stopped by Parys Mountain for a look.

This is the best view I found but unusually I cannot decide between the vertical or horizontal shot so I thought I would ask for your help.

So what do you think, portrait, landscape or why even bother?

 

[dwardo]

My vote is landscape, seems to be a better range of colour.

 

[Mesquite]

Hard to say, I like them both... I can see why you struggled to find one you prefer Gary...

But if push comes to shove then I agree with Dwardo... the landscape has a wider range of colours and appeal

 

[Stringmaker]

I know that spot well; even more surreal before they drained the pool.

Landscape for me.

 

[Goatboy]

I'm for landscape as well, I think the flow and confluence of lines in the picture are more ballanced that way. I also feel frustration looking at the verticle like looking through a keyhole - like I am missing part of the picture. (Both are pleasing by the way it's just I find the landscape more soothing).
No expert but that's what I think.
All the best,
GB.

 

[bopdude]

Portrait for me, to me it gives a better feeling of depth,

 

[Niels]

Portrait, because it you can see the landslide type-of-thing better.

 

[nunzionuk]

Without a point of reference, the are both the same, as just turning the landslide to portrait, to the unknown eye, would still look ok.

But i like the Portrait..

 

[RonW]

Portrait....
After a long ponder.... definitely the portrait.

More details, more exciting feel about it.

 

[mousey]

How about both...

Anyway enough of that.

I'd go for the landscape the flow of lines is better [just personal preference]

//"Without a point of reference, the are both the same, as just turning the landslide to portrait, to the unknown eye, would still look ok."//

I'd have to disagree with that one, take the landscape image and rotate it 90 deg and I feel it looks 'wrong' the same with taking the portrait and physically rotating it.

 

[John Fenna]

I like the drama of the p[ortrait just a tiny bit more than the serenity of the landscape

 

[mousey]

I've just voted, and it displayed the results so far, 10 votes 5 each way - no one sitting on the fence. That has intrested me...

 

[JohnC]

Id go for portrait, I guess itd also depend on the space a print was filling?

 

[oldtimer]

To my eye, portait more of a sense of height and verticality. It is less obvious than, and so more interesting than, landscape.

It's an interesting dilemma though, isn't it? My wife asks my advice freqently on this when she embarks on a new painting: and then follows her own way! I suggest you do like wise- it will look pretty good either way.

 

[oldtimer]

My wife has just said she prefers your landscape version, but this may be just to take the opposite view to me.
I's just occurred to me that whatever you decide you'll please a lot of people.

 

[Elen Sentier]

Oh lords! I think I run with portrait, it makes it very impressive and shows the face near centre, a touch of weirdness! I also think it depends what you want to do with the shot, and who will see it. It's magic, whichever way

 

[Stringmaker]

The orientation is called landscape for a reason

I like filling the peripheral vision; he could crop very close on that rubble slide and it would be a perfect portrait shot, but the whole thing works best as landscape for me.

 

[realearner]

From my perspective I would go with landscape, it just has a slight edge over the portrait but not by much.

 

[Wayland]

It's funny, I didn't see the face until Debs mentioned it to me.

Now I can't look at either picture without seeing it.

 

[Perrari]

I like them both ! but I choose portrait, I like the yellow down the center and it shows more of the scree.