I really really struggle to se why some people react so violently to any mention of "rules". Personally, I'll use the phrase "rule of thirds" if it suits me rather than have to explain at great length the whole concept from first principles. Sorry, but that is dumb.
When I open the gallery images the first thing I look at is the image.
That's it.
Then I think, do I like it (does it connect), would I like it on my wall. If not, is it simply a genre I'm not a fan of ... and maybe does it look well done for what it is?
If it fails on all levels then, and only then is when I will comment on "rules"/accepted norms/ golden means/ crooked horizons. It's not "rules led" but using norms to try to explain what isn't working.
Bob,
I tend towards your criteria for getting into evaluating a photograph especially the desire to have it up on the wall. Generally, aside from sentimental subjects, stuff on the wall has to sustain interest long-term as well as be aesthetically pleasing. Hmmm, that is a sibilant sentence!
You have, I believe, always supported the idea that novelty and ability to arouse are important to pictures. Given that and the scarcity of pictures with those qualities (anywhere) I don't see why you should change your critique style.
AZ
Build a Lookaround! The Lookaround Book, 2nd ed. NOW SHIPPING http://www.panoramacamera.us
