Which crop is better?

[First Light]

Took this for the "Part of the Whole Picture" challenge (though I can't get my comments to post, oh well.). Which crop is better?

SOOC/no crop:


Cropped:


EXIF:
exposure 0.017s (1/60)
f/5.0
focal length 39mm w/ EF-S 18-55mm lens
ISO 800
Flash: in-camera, fired
Exposure program: portrait w/ tungsten light setting
White Balance: auto

PP:
minimal touch-up to remove dry skin on pinky toe, crop, b/w conversion in LR3

[First Light]

Okay, friends, are they both THAT BAD that no one wants to comment? Too boring? Give me something!

[Bruce A]

Quite honestly it's not an easy choice. The foot is rather dull and lacks contrast to the black background. Out of what you have, I'd say #1 for no apparent reason. I'm really sorry to say this, but to me the shot holds nothing of interest. I'd add that's probably the cause for the lack of response.

[mrteacherdude]

I'm also thinking #1 is better, but I'm not sure why either. It looks like the same amount of foot in each photo, with just a tighter crop on #2. Somehow my brain is either looking for less foot to make the picture less complete (even just slightly back from the toes), or more foot to complete the picture. Even if just a small amount of foot filled the frame, it might be more pleasing, but I wouldn't know until I saw it that way. The ratio of background to foot in #1, to me, makes it seem as there is less foot than in #2.

[First Light]

Thanks for the feedback. I'm having a great time just learning stuff, so to hear that it is boring is just fine with me. That's how I learn!