One comment I've received several times is that I need to tighten up how I crop my images. So, what I've done here is taken the same image and cropped it several different ways so I can ask y'all: what makes one better than the other?

First: Storm Damage - What the Camera Saw  

This is how I originally composed the image in the view finder. I was limited by where I was standing, focal length, etcetera, but also I was restricted by what I perceive as the rules of composition. Apparently, at some point the rule of thirds was seared (seared!) into my brain and I almost always place the object of interest 1/3 of the way into the frame, usually in such a way that the object appears to be moving (or just leading the eye) towards the center.

When I got home, I realized that I had way to much sky in the image, so I produced the version I posted to Photographica last night: Storm Damage  

Note that the image still adheres to a 2x3 aspect ratio and, sure enough, the cabin is pushed out of the center towards the bottom and right.

For the next version, I abandoned the 2x3 aspect ratio and simply cut more sky out of the picutre: Storm Damage - Panoramic Cropping (I called it "panoramic" because of the shape of the image, not because it's a panorama). Shaping the image that way forced me to center the cabin vertically but, again, horizontally I pushed it to the right, towards the 1/3 line.

The final version returns to the 2x3 ratio, but crops almost everything but the cabin: Storm Damage - Tight Cropping 

So, now let me ask all you wise photographers out there - which version do you prefer? Why?