Adding to the Controversy - What's Best?

There have been some interesting threads on here lately about processing and what looks 'right' or 'not right'.

To add to the debate, I've shot a single image today in my garden and processed it 5 different ways. I'm interested in three things:

1. Do you like the image?
2. Which version do you like best?
3. Should I have removed the grass that's in front of the flower before shooting it or not?

Here are the images, they are of a Wild Aquilegia, growing in the area of my garden that I let grow as a wildflower meadow. The shot was taken with the K-5IIs and Sigma 150-500, set at 500mm, F6.3.

1.



2.



3.



4.



5.



Lots of comments please!!

Best wishes
David

I like natural colour, No 1 and 3 are for me.

1. Yes
2. No.2 for me - I think the darker background improves the image - I don't know the 'true' colour of the Aquilegia though - and I probably still go for 2 if the colour was different - 4 would be my second choice!
3.From 'saleability' I'd have probably removed the grass - unless it masks a fault in the flower. Does give a sense of depth I suppose.

Martyn

For me the mono doesn't work, I think the type of flower it too delicate. Should you have removed the grass? In these days of digital you could have taken two sets, with and without making the choice easier . I like the other four preference going to #3 which I'd like to see minus the grass.

No.3 please!

And I would have "gardened" the grass out of shot in the first place....
This wasn't a "grab" shot, surely. Was it?!

Roger.

Image 1 for me, followed by image 3
As for the grass, I think I would have cropped it out and just left the two flowers on the right, something like this

No 3 for me and without the grass. The B&W doesn't appeal.

Yes, 1, No.

I don't like images that look like they've been "processed" as some are wont to these days.
And the stark vertical of the grass is a pleasant contrast to the softness of the flowers.

Hi Roger, it was a 'grab' shot actually! I was testing the focussing of the 150-500 on my K-5iis. After reviewing it I quite liked the grass where it was and couldn't decide whether it was 'right' or not.

I went back later to re-shoot it, but the light had changed and the grass had moved. I couldn't get the same 'look' so packed it in for today!

Cheers
David

PS some very helpful comments, please keep them coming!

I like No.1 as the "natural" image and No.2 as the "impressionistic" one. Either way, my inclination would have been to move the grass, unless as Martun noted it masked a flaw in the flower. I don't like the B&W version - I doesn't work for me.

Like the shot
1 then 3 for me

Grass would have been removed pre-shot - would not bother removing it after

Carl

Took the words right from my fingers...

And as for the grass - yes. Distracting as is.

1, 3 and leave the grass!

#1. #3 with higher contrast makes it just a bit too harsh for a pretty flower. It would depend whether you are aiming at the greeting card market or at botany encyclopedia compilers

I'm not aiming at either! It's just a shot from my garden

Here's one with the grass removed, this is based on #1 and is probably the closest to 'natural' colouring.




Regards
David