Hmmm - interesting discussion point. How to interpret what was there and what was recorded?
In a pure, catalogue, show it off to the world, Ferrari type promotion, then the second lot of shots gets the vote. But that's based upon a number of things.
Firstly, there are a number of photographers on here who are unashamedly 'petrol heads' and can recite what Ferrari 'reds' are used by whom and in what season. They're only gonna be happy to see it recorded as if it compared "EXACTLY" to the paint chart
Secondly, there are those of us who look at it for the shapes presented out of 'fairly' familiar forms. Almost as an abstraction from a mechanical, colourful world.
Thirdly, perhaps finally and most importantly, it's seen as an artist's interpretation of a very colourful, glitzy subject. Bizarrely placed in the centre of a town illuminated at night by an unbalanced (colour temperature) artificial light. You ain't ever gonna get that right :shrug:
To my mind the first set works really well because that's exactly how we both saw it! Glitzy razza-matazz! Showy off in a most ostentatious way. Flamboyant, extravagantly Italian. It needs to be portrayed as sexy, glamorous - but at night? It kinda falls into the world of "Sex in a City"....
Am I being defensive of Marianne's post? I guess in a way I am. I'm so glad to see her posting again.... this lady is an artist and deserves her work to be seen as such. I sometimes fall into the same trap as some of us here - critiquing her work from the perspective of 'perfect photographic' correctness. Sometimes our work should fall outside of this!