>>3383704It really is. I'm still not sure on that whole topic and have to admit that a little more than 100 shots by 8 children are not really meaningful enough to have a final opinion. Also, there are a lot of shots that don't match the classic compositional schemes.
>>3383853Again, I have to partially agree, but especially regarding your example on the song/music, there are certain combinations of tones/notes that we find more pleasing to listen to.
I strongly challenge your point on nature being random - everything we see in nature serves a purpose and evolution leaves no place for meaningless features.
>>3384130I agree on these 3 elements making a photo great if they come together, but by that definition the OP shot isn't a good photo at all: Light isn't very interesting and composition isn't very good either (almost central subject + points mentioned earlier). Also, I think you're wrong on your statement that a photo that has 0/3 of the features you mentioned isn't a photo. That statement contradicts itself, but maybe you just put it in a way I don't understand properly.
If you're in a pitch black room in which there is absolutely no light, you set your camera to lowest ISO, aperture to f/22, shutterspeed to 1/4000s and release the shutter, is the result a photo?
