[PavelOlavich]

If you look at the work of most any of the old masters, for example, some of the best images of Henri Cartier-Bresson, one can find some that have less then perfect exposure, or less then perfect sharpness, or other "defects", yet can be very moving and "effective". Some of his best work is grainier then most of care to have in our own images. Often the grain makes the picture better, but sometimes it can distract, unless the subject matter is so powerful, as to carry the picture on it's own.

I think this speaks to subject matter over technical image quality.

I think subject matter, the composition in general, will always trump aspects of image quality. However this is not to say that image quality does not matter.

Often one can view the work of Photo Journalists, those people that capture amazing pictures in less then perfect environments, that are very powerful, even as the exposure or other technical aspect of the picture are flawed.

The other side of the coin is interesting too. How many bad pictures have we all seen that are exposed perfectly, lit perfecting, and are otherwise technically sound? Many I think.

The brand/models wars, debates will always rage, but at the end of the day, the composition, the subject matter, is what carries a picture, first and foremost.

And isn't it true that it is easier to learn technique, camera workflow, and even post processing work flow, then to learn and get amazing compositions? We all can find many photographers that know lighting, exposure, camera workflow and post processing methods like a wizzard, like gods, yet can't often make a great composition.

Regardless of equipment, we all still are challanged by the making of a good photograph, and I think this is the most daunting thing about photography.

Moreover, I think that a skilled photographer, an artist, can make a boring subject interesting. You can take two photographers to the Disney Opera House in Los Angeles, and ask them both to make pictures of the exterior, the archetecture, and yet one makes boring snapshots, while the other makes art, yet the subject matter is the exact same building.

Our challange is to find a way to make a subject interesting; a subject that otherwise seems boring or lacks interest, and if one can do this, then one has a special skill. Look at the sometimes horrific subject matter that Diane Arbus made pictures from...some of her images of less then beautiful people can draw us in, mesmerizing our gaze.

Alot of the interest in a photo has nothing to do with asthetics, nor of art, and everything to do with naked female body parts. Often the viewer has no capacity for valuation of a composition...you show a nude to most people, they react by judging the model's looks and not the composition it's self. This is why many nude threads are more about porno then art, even if the posters of images are mainly makers of art.

And in the end, what people perceive as interesting is so, so subjective. Just because strangers here call your stuff crap does not necessarily make it crap. On the other hand, you might post a so-so image, that many think is the greatest thing.

Make pictures that make YOU happy.