> I don't think it is so much a matter of "rules" as the fact that there are > indeed (maybe) statistically predictable audience reactions when a group is > shown a given photograph. Photographers can choose to exploit these > "conventions" or choose to ignore them. However, it seems to me is is useful to > be aware of what these conventional photointerpratetion "rules" are so that if > one wants to "break" them one does so knowingly and successfully and not > haphazardly. Andy A good reminder of the fact that the rules are really only "guidelines" after all. The "teenager effect" (breaking rules just because there are rules) is not a guaranteed recipe for producing good photos. Sometimes alternative compositions are just more appropriate: other times a photo gets all it's visual effect by going against the norm. Such photos have short lived appeal. Once others start copying the technique it becomes a fad and very soon hackneyed. The position in the frame "rule": as you note, the important thing is that photographers *think* about where to place things in the frame rather than specifying that they MUST always be one side or the other. Most beginners point the camera straight at the subject - err, so do a couple of wildlife pro.s I know [ In their case it is, quote, "letting the magazine decide where they want the space". ;o) ] In Leslie's image I liked the monk looking out BUT ONLY because the drummer to the right acted as a foil. The picture failed to be great because, unlike an NG photographer, he didn't pay the third guy to get right out of the frame ;o) A bad judge (reviewer) just like a bad photographer may rely too heavily on the rules. Often though when a reviewer quote the rules it's not because they are assessing a photo by how well it adheres, more likely they just don't like the photo as shown and "the rules" are a convenient way to explain why not ... Bob
