compostion ? of 44 or 45 ?

[davidhampshire]

of these two,   which composition is relatively better?     not saying they're great,   and they'll be too dark for ron,   but   one has a little more stuff in it.    ( 50mm,   f5,   iso 800,  AV mode,  autofocus.      thanks    trying to get muted light - sorta.   

[blackcloudbrew]

I believe you mean which exposure is better as the composition is essentially the same in both. To my eye, I prefer #45 as it's better lighted through the entire image.

[Ron Kruger]

David, if you will make your images about 800 on the largest size, they will enlarge on the page, instead of having to open each one in another window. This will make comparisons easier. I think 45 is best.

[davidhampshire]

i'll make the long side 800---   now on,  ron,   that rhymes did you notice?   

[davidhampshire]

and bcb-earl,  i was asking about the composition ,  not really the exposure,    maybe i haven't developed a good sense of exposure yet,    but at this stage,    i don't really mind if things are too dark or too light,    is that crazy?   depends on how the whole thing looks to my eye.   so anyway,    know there isn't much difference,  in the two,   but wanted to know if the parts around the edges distracted ,  in 44,    actually.   can't decide if i like the black bars kind of things around 44 ,   or the simpler 45 with those missing.    :)      thanks,  dave    ( re-sized these to 800 hopefully )     

[blackcloudbrew]

Hmm...ok composition. I did see that the two were slightly different. I'm not sure I can really answer your question. I prefer #45 because the exposure difference lets me see all of the image, #44 is darker on the left and that detracts from it. #45 is just more balanced to my eye. Honestly these are both quite busy scenes and I get nothing from them compositionally speaking.