Comparison photo (Gazebo by the river)

I took my Nikon D3500 with the "kit lens" Nikkor AF-P DX f/3.5-4.5G VR and took a quick drive down to the James River here in Richmond, VA.  I found one of the, uh, "very comfortably well off" type of homeowners along the river, and saw their beautiful gazebo out along the riverbank.  I walked right to the Private Property, No Trespassing sign, and very carefully aligned myself and my D3500 and took these two photos.

Which one looks better?

f/6.3 1/160 shutter, ISO 100



Or this one?

f/8 1/250 shutter, ISO 180



 

The frame isn't telling me a story, but I would say the bottom one has more color and saturation to it.   I would try getting closer and filling your frame with the gazebo.  

I could have used my 70-300mm and zoomed in a little more.  But as it was, I was right near the fence railing by the "No Trespassing" sign, and didn't want to get in trouble with the homeowner.

Story-telling of the shot has to improve. Keep trying. 

Others have already commented on the story telling part, so I will mention the settings, but only because you include them. 

From shot #1 to #2 you went from f/6.3 to f/8. This made the image almost 1 full stop darker. It also changed the depth of field, but only slightly. The only noticeable difference in the bush in foreground is slightly sharper in shot #2. 

You also went from ISO 100 to 180. This made the image almost one full stop brighter. Basically the two just about canceled each other out. 

Additional you changed your shutter speed from 1/160s to 1/250s which works out to about a half stop darker (~ish). In the end, you ended up with only about a half stop darker image in #2 with virtually the same depth of field. 

Why is this good or bad? 

Shot #1 is good because it is brighter, so you have preserved more detail in the shadows. This is visible near the stack of stones near the gazebo. It can be bad because you can lose some of the highlight details. You didn't seem to lose a lot here. 

Shot #2 is good because is darker, and therefore you have preserved more highlight detail. This can be seen in the color transition in the sky when compared to shot #1. Shot #2 has a much smoother transition. However, you lost some details in the chimney, the stack of stones next to the gazebo, and the wood tiles on the roof of the gazebo, which are in deeper shadows. 

All of these can be changed and/or manipulated in software, usually by one or two full stops rather easily. This is especially true if you shoot raw. You can even stack images to increase your dynamic range beyond the normal capabilities of your camera. Honestly, both shots are nearly identical. 

I do think it is great that you are changing settings and comparing results. This is a good exercise to help you learn your camera. Keep doing it!  

@Thelgord

Thank you for the detailed reply! Wow... I wanted to try to learn composition, light vs shadows, etc... and though to myself, "what if I took two photos of the same thing but with different settings?"

Photo 1: "P"rogrammed Auto mode. It chose f/6.3 1/160 shutter, ISO 100.
Photo 2: "A"perture Priority mode -- I changed the toggle wheel so it would go to f/8 and the Nikon adjusted the other settings.

I'm still learning as I go. If I seriously screw up a photo, I learn what NOT to do, delete it, and try again.