BTW, I'm not trying to argue with Scott or David. I'm genuinely trying to figure some things out. Here's another shot that comes to mind with this conversation. I probably don't have to name the photographer. My question: Is this a good composition? From an analytical point of view, it fails on virtually every level. There are essentially no compositional rules or guidelines represented. There is a hint at the rule of thirds, but that is only minimally executed. Aside from that, it is just a garble of elements. So, is it "Great" simply because of who clicked the shutter? Does use of the Zone System make it great despite the almost complete absence of good composition? In fact, Adams wasn't particularly good at composition. His works are considered great due to the science he used. Does that make a difference? Is someone with a great eye but absolutely no technique more valuable?