^^^ First one is better.
Why? Because it's washed out with no detail?
Sheesh. Hard to argue with that logic.
A preference of that sort doesn't have to be logical, but I can give you a few reasons why I, too, prefer the first shot.
The original artists were working with bluescreen, which requires a certain amount of "fill light" to combat blue spill on the model. Blue spill would make matte extraction difficult. (In other words, no deep shadows on the model shots.) This had the undesirable effect of making the ship look a bit ghostly at times, yet also made the lighting "directionless."
I've seen maybe a third of the TOS-R effects and dislike them for many reasons. Here is one shot that I believe I capped from "Mudd's Women":
There is a hard "key" light, further accented by what I consider excessive specularity (gloss) on the ship, despite the fact that it is supposed to be in deep space far from any star. Granted, video is a visual medium, so the audience must be able to see something
. The TOS TREK movies gave the Enterprise
running lights for its external markings, and the makers of Disney's THE BLACK HOLE took another approach to the "lit only by distant starlight" look. The point is, computer artists have virtually unlimited control of an image, yet we get shots like my example above.
One of the TOS movies features a panning shot of the Enterprise
passing the camera. The highlights and shadows on the model are coming from one direction, yet there is also a nearby star in the background—in a different direction—occluded by the ship as it passes. I can't recall where, but I think I saw a similar "visible light from the wrong direction" shot somewhere in the TOS-R effects. (I don't have all the TOS-R episodes, as I disliked the alterations in those I've seen.)