One of four shots uploaded from the same day, critique and comparison between them would be appreciated.

This is my favourite. The landscape format, light quality and general composition for me are best in this image.
The thing that really struck me though was how short this route is! I always assumed it was good bit longer - it's really pretty tiny. I'm sure it packs a lot in, but, well....it's quite disappointingly short!

I prefer the portrait because of less burn out from the sun. That said, I agree with the comment above that this is the better composition. I gave it a 4.

I prefer the portrait to this; I think mainly because my eye is naturally drawn to the lens flare, which as a result I find quite distracting from the actual subject.

Thanks all of you for the feedback.
Fraser: I agree, there isn't much climbing on it really! I find it interesting that it seemed to be such an era-defining route in spite of this. Maybe as a product of the black and white (Bernard Newman?) photo of the FA.

Also surprised how short this thing is. I always imagined it at least twice the height given how dramatic it looks when you can't see the ground! A bit of a disappointment.
As for the photos, too much glare from the sun (in all of them). Hard to avoid when it is where it is unfortunately.

why have a 20m route with 12m of rubbish when you can have 8m of pure magic?

Nice one Andy, ace photo!

Superb, lovely colours