>>3492780Eyes not being in focus is a problem if it's clearly accidental, especially for a portrait. If done on purpose to push a theme that's evident in the shot, that's different. But if it's clearly not on purpose, it can detract; people instinctively look at eyes and if they are out of focus it is problematic.
>destroy a photoNot necessarily destroy it, but affect it absolutely.
>doesn't follow the rules of basic compositionIt doesn't have to follow any specific rules, as long as it feels balanced. Empty space can be a good thing if it's done with a purpose to add an element of storytelling or juxtaposition. If not, it is generally perceived as a negative. Sometimes there's nothing you can do about it, and you do the best you can.
It's all very subjective and is more a matter of consensus than "rules" but I don't see why any of the things you brought up should be off the table. If
>>3492072 is also you, then I think you may be the problem not the board as a whole; you speak in absolutes and seem to be a bit of an extremist with selective memory when interpreting critiques. The vast majority of critiques here will point out the odd issue, not say "total shit because XYZ according to my rule book".
