I prefer the first one, mainly because it reminds me more of Ilford HP5 whereas the second has the brighter highlights of Tri-X, that's just a personal preference however.
That's a good analysis, Andrew - thank you.
I think I agree with you too - about preferring the first one - but possibly for a different reason. I processed the 2nd one with more contrast - more shadow detail - and more of what Lightroom calls 'clarity' - all of which creates a harsher and brighter look. The first one I intentionally left darker - with less detail, less bright highlights - and the darker look works better for me, at least on this particular picture.
I took a few other pictures in the same series, and this following one - which I processed for color, using a VSCO plugin which tries to simulate the look of a higher ISO Portra color negative, with push-processing - has a totally different look and feel: it's simultaneously more exaggerated and also a little bit theatrical, an effect which, given the admittedly slightly theatrical nature of the composition, seemed to work--
Subscribe to see EXIF info for this image (if available)
I know that a great many professional photographers who shoot hundreds and thousands of images on a daily and weekly basis, often settle on certain kinds of batch processing simply because to do otherwise would be insanely time-consuming. With my own photography, it's limited enough so that I try to find the right solution for each image. Which sounds almost like I'm organized and know what I'm doing - but the truth is, more than half the time, it's hit-and-miss experimentation. Sigh.