Mike wrote: > There is not even one single definable compositional rule that either a) > always results in a successful photograph or b) cannot be directly violated > in a successful photograph. Not _one_. Furthermore, there is almost no case > in which one successful photograph cannot closely resemble, in terms of > geometrical composition, a much less successful photograph. Think about it.
You're mixing good composition with sucessful image. This involves subject matter and whether the subject mature or immature. An immature subject, like bigfoot, UFO, Loch Ness monster or anything rare enough, will be considered sucessful almost regardless whereas a sunset shot by the same principles will be considered a failure. Still, when bigfoot images becomes common a badly composed one will be destined for the trash. The rules for composition applies even if not so well composed images may be considered sucessful in spite of faults. P�l
