clickety

There have been discussions about whether we see from left to right or from right to left. Here is an image which after cropping I simply flipped from left to right, I sense it has changed. Do you see the difference and which do you prefer and why. Bonus points if you can tell me which was the original orientation?

fhayes Loc: Madison, Tennessee

my my! In the second the rear wing looks brighter. I see more drama in the second as well.
As for which is the original? I couldn't begin to guess!!

clickety

Does one of them seem right vs wrong, better etc.? Or is my memory of the scene causing the perceived difference?

fhayes Loc: Madison, Tennessee

Yes, the second one looks better, I assume I am viewing right to left? The second one 'makes sense' to me whereas the first looks just o.k. if this answers the question.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I prefer the first. Movement to the right.
Possibly because I read from left to right?

But I do like both.

clickety

Thank you for your responses. I also sense a difference and am trying to understand if possibly it’s another tool in in post processing?

clickety

Thanks, do you have any comments regarding orientation of images?

robertjerl Loc: Corona, California

Long ago in a discussion with a couple of professors and our photo class at the university we explored the idea that a person's written language influences how they scan images.

We concluded that if you read and write left to right, or right to left, top to bottom, bottom to top (there are a few of these) it carries over to how you scan images and therefore if you are an artist or photography how you arrange and compose your images.

jdubu Loc: San Jose, CA

The second image flows to the right along with the direction of water current to me, so it's not just the location of the subject. How the background either pushes against the left to right viewing in the first image or leads you to the subject in the second. Second image is more calming and yet dynamic to me.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

Yes, I edited my comment above.

Addendum - There is no "right" or "wrong", simply which is considered "more appealing" by the viewer.

"Reality", the one as shot, will only matter the most to a realist....

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

If you truly want to open the Photography Can of Worms, by a rather brief bit of searching, it is possible to find various writers who espouse this as one of those must-be-used "photography composition rules" -- **the left to right rule.**
Some, it seems, go so far as to say it is necessary to flip images so that this *rule* is maintained in use, unless there is something in the photo (writing/lettering/numbering on something in the scene) that would "give away the game", as one writer put it.
At least one writer claims the action in a photo must be going left-to-right if a photo is entered in a contest, because the judge(s) will include that in the assessment.
So, that is how it must go for those who have to unfalteringly follow all the photography *rules*, it seems.

Put me into the weirdo group, though. The direction we read words and sentences in English does not influence how I view movement in life going on around me, nor in photos.
-- If there is an object or creature moving from right-to-left through my field of view, my vision/attention follows with that movement from right-to-left, and does not find it breaking a *rule* -- unless it is something like a vehicle being driven the wrong direction in a one-way traffic zone, or if the moving object is a flying/falling piece of machinery which is misbehaving in some fashion; things like that.
-- If the road I'm travelling curves from right to left in the direction I'm travelling, my vision and attention follow in that counterclockwise direction (however, in that left hand curve, I still read the English on the road sign left-to-right) -- but then, when I return by the same route, my vision and attention will follow the road in that same curve in a now clockwise, left-to-right direction.

In the two examples you posted, the second has a more definite sense of "the real one" in my weirdo vision. The light and the movement of the water and the balancing action of the bird have a sense of true that the first pic doesn't have. (But, remember, that just is seeing through non-callibrated, non-typical, non-worried about the photog *rule* vision.)

Nor does viewing your photos tell me if you drank the "right" coffee, ate the "right" protein bar, wore the "right" socks, carried the "right" memory cards, used the "right" camera or the "right" lens, wore the "right" photographers vest, or had the "right" camera strap/grip/tripod mount/flippie screen/evf/photographer's stance nor any of those other vital "must have" embellishments.
It just tells me you did a good job taking that photo with what you had out there.

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

It could be subliminal...

Also, movement is usually best into a picture, not out.

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

In the two examples here, each simultaneously has movement both into and out of the picture/frame.....no?

1st -- water in from the right, out to the left

2nd -- water in from the left, out to the right

Longshadow Loc: Audubon, PA, United States

I'm just looking at the bird going into the picture, not the water direction/movement.
The primary subject (to me) is the bird, the water is just "supporting stuff".
I just see the water as "there".

(And I was speaking in general about movement into a picture. )

dustie Loc: Nose to the grindstone

Please pardon my dense confusion.
I don't understand how the bird is going out of the picture in the second view, as contrasted with "going into the picture" in the first.