Two different approaches

Which works for you and why? Do they "say" the same thing or something different?
And just in case...do neither work??

I like the heavy contrast on the second but as a whole it says blown highlights...

For me, I think i'd like something in between. I think too much detail is lost in the second one, but the first one looks a little too flat.
A tweak in curves to bring out the ripples in the snow would do it.

I would darken the shadows in the first one just a touch and leave the highlights where they are

I agree with Ted. Everything's a bit grey in no. 1 but no. 2 is burned out. In fact if you overlay no. 1 over no. 2 at 50% opacity, it looks pretty good to me. I don't like that dark line across the bottom though, what happened there?

I prefer number 1

Pentaxophile its called a linear gradient

Ah, I see. Well it's a bit too linear for my taste!

Maybe mine too! just wanted you to know it was deliberate

i thought it was called a mistake

ha ha Ken different strokes for different folks!

The first one is almost there, a tweak on exposure and white balance maybe. It's a perfectly decent composition but the bridge is somewhat utilitarian and so not the most interesting. The scene is crying out for a bit of human interest imo.

For exactly those reasons I prefer the second take because the stark contrast accentuates the starkness of the scene. I think blowing the detail in the snow is the right thing to do, the texture in the snow isn't enough to make the scene anyway. Not so keen on the black band at the bottom.

Breaking the rules is good and I think the right choice here. The look is reminiscent of the Best Of Joy Division cover. Not in that league of course but I like it.

A third way?