Is a second opinion recommended for chest x-ray abnormality?

I have had two chest x-rays.  The first one was described by a board certified lung specialist as showing an abnormality with an ill-defined density in the left medial chest, unclear if parenchymal or not, and an undefined shadow.  The original diagnostic imaging report was not found so was re-read by a second radiologist who stated that the film was marked for an opacity in left hilar, ap window. There was concern on initial evaluation for fullness in the AP window and left suprahilar region  This is most likely vascular though recommend follow-up.  No mention of a shadow.
The second x-rays (Ap and left lateral) were described as no evidence of mediastinal or hilar mass with a nipple shadow on left lung. Prior possible density in AP window represents normal vasculature. This radiologist is certified with the American College of Radiology.  Is a second opinion about the cause of the shadow recommended.  I have read that x-rays are hard to interpret and that  shadow can be just about anything.

[National Jewish]

Objectively, this is most likely a normal vascular shadow.  There is no reason for further evaluation.  Such shadows may appear to be an abnormal shadow on one x-ray and not on the next.  This is thought to reflect slight changes in the angle with which the x-ray beam strikes the chest from one x-ray to another.  This is common.  However, other factors must be considered, such as your age, smoking history, presence or absence of respiratory symptoms or not.  And, of course, your level of anxiety.  If this uncertainty is troubling to you, you may want to get another opinion now.  I would not.  Another alternative would be to ask the initial lung specialist to look at the chest x-ray again to see if, after the second radiologist