Herschel Mair wrote:
The whole purpose of my original post was not to discover whether the
rule of thirds is valid or whether technology is necessary per se. I
merely gave thirds as an example of a simple rule we all know.
The topic was whether rules, formulae, statistics and technical
knowledge of all things photographic could ever, conceivably, get in
the way of taking a great photograph.
So, maybe what we need is a batch of "great photographs" we all agree
on, and then analyze how they do, or don't, conform to the various rules
we agree are useful? Trouble is, people will be rejecting photos that
don't conform to the rules if they think the rules are absolute, so
consensus "great" will probably pre-determine the number (if there are
actually any "rules absolutists" present; none has dared identify
themselves so far).
--
David Dyer-Bennet, dd-b@xxxxxxxx; http://dd-b.net/dd-b
Pics: http://dd-b.net/dd-b/SnapshotAlbum, http://dd-b.net/photography/gallery
Dragaera: http://dragaera.info
