Thanks so much! This is very helpful!Hellooooo
If this were my picture, here is what I personally would do with it...
(Please bare with me as I find it difficult to explain myself.)
First, I would at least crop off the dark line on the left hand side of the picture; and then
Secondly, I would also at least straighten the image by the dark line to the right of, and that leads to, the fox (which is by 0.28 degrees);
...but I would go so far as to crop the whole image like this...
And here are my reasons for doing so...
Because of reading, we have trained our brains to first start looking at the top left-hand corner of a square surface - we are subconsciously automatically doing it. This picture is perfect to use this as an advantage, because the line of the branch draws the eye to the subject, so I have cropped the image to put that branch perfectly into the left-hand corner.
I then placed the bottom horizontal third line on the bottom of the wire-rope and to where the lines of the wire-rope "point" to the border of the crop (follow the lines of the wire-rope down to see what I am referring to). The rest of the bottom horizontal third line works out wonderfully; and the top horizontal third line falls nicely, although not onto the fox eyes but at least onto the middle of the fox forehead.
The middle of the picture marks the edge of the fox, which is also a good thing.
All while maintaining the original image's dimensional orientation.
(I also completely cropped off the distracting dark wire line on the right.)
If you have ever studied Art History and the Great painters of the Renaissance period, this will explain (and all make sense to) why these subtle aspects work so well.
Next...
I would do colour editing to enhance the pink in the fox ears and yet keep the green of the foreground plants while maintaining the morning or evening colour of light (hope this makes sense?)
Then I would remove the distracting pinkish-red paint marks on the wall and one or two other distracting marks...
So now we have this...
And finally I would add a very very slight Vignetting to put light focus on the fox...
I use to work in the print publishing industry where image definition matters for quality print work, but often the composition of an image can be more important than definition. I have come to realise that one can sacrifice some definition for visual appear and dynamic. Think of a painting by one of the Masters... when you look closely at it, you see messy paint and brush strokes. Stand back, and you see a glorious work of art.
Also consider that these days the majority of images are viewed on computer screens and definition does not count as much as first impressions.
My humble opinion... rather make your pictures as dynamic and interesting as possible with lines that capture the eye and draw attention to the subjects. Some of my most appreciated and interesting pictures were captured on old point-and-shoot cameras with grainy definition. For me it is not the camera you use or the resolution quality of your picture, but how you present your final image.
Brian, I am obviously going the opposite route to your sound advice, but my intention is not to be contentious. Rather, I hope to enlighten and inspire. Definition can be a creative trap - some members may get despondent as they may think they need professional equipment with high resolution capabilities to create good compositions and stunning pictures which is wholly not the case.
Please don't hate me.
Lovely picture of a fox!
) 
