yeh the second is lil unique, kinda took it liek that by accident and it looks cool in a wierd way, lol, peopel tend to liek it or hate it... certainly not the norm
On the first the bushes at the bottom of the shot get in the way, you can also do way better if you get the riders helmet much clearer by improving your panning.
The second shot is just way way to zoomed, you have taken out all the detail that would make a better shot, it just looks like the complete opposite of your "best" work because the first is an ok shot.
Oh and your comment about having to get a companys logo clear to sell the shot to a company to use in an add etc is quite a misunderstanding of most ads bike companys use. Look at the recent brian lopes oakley advert, totally fake, they pasted him onto the back ground, its two shots at the least combined together! And Steve Peats SC add for this year, you can really spot the santa cruz logos are suspiciously clear compared to the blurrs on the rest of the bike. http://www.pinkbike.com/photo/774753/
What? Why?? Everyone is doing it - if you want to make any money, it's essential to be good with photoshop now - i use it and i don't even shoot digi - i've got a dedicated negative scanner. Photoshop can make a good shot truly amazing, why not use it? Or are you one of these people who thinks that shooting digi isn't cheating but manipulating an image is? All the digi SLRs and compacts manipulate the images before they even reach your computer anyway. Pro labs will adjust colour settings when printing, so what's the difference? Ever since photography was invented, people have been changing images, just because it's done on a computer now doesn't mean it's any different.
Author
Logged
