Firstly, I was really impressed with everyone's entries this time - does
that say something about breaking rules?  In that 'good' photos which have
fulfilled the photographic rules tend to be a bit boring?  It seems like
most of the typical rules have been broken - except for one glaring
exception - blocked out shadows and blown highlights.  It's always been my
belief that these don't detriment a picture if they are used on purpose.
Anyway, it probably says something about breaking that rule that none of the
excellent photos here have done.

Please don't take offence at any of my criticism.

Tom Hudson : The subject in focus is cut off and the main subject is out of
focus.  I think it works well mainly because the two subjects are similar,
and each one shows an aspect that's missing in the other - form and texture
is shared between them - linking them together and giving the picture some
kind of closure.

Mark Lauter : I really like this photo because I firmly believe that you
don't need things to be sharp for it to be a good photo.  It has lovely
colour, texture and framing, conveying a real sense of emotion - you feel
like you are there and can empathise with the life of the three subjects.  I
was reading recently in 'digital photographer' (an excellent magazine, apart
from their obsession of digital, bad spelling and often shockingly low dpi
printed on expensive paper) an article on travel photography where one of
the photographer's mentions that the difference between bad and good travel
photography is that bad photography simply brags to people about where
you've been, good photography actually takes them there.  This photo 'takes
me there' - and breaking the rule was a key part to its success.

Paul Ferman : Wide angle isn't flattering for portraits.  And that's true
for this photo, too.  However, it caught my eye because I didn't think it
was a portrait at first, rather a Stalinist sculpture of some sort instead.
It's an interesting photo, almost architectural.

Rich Pos : Crazy and a bit different would describe a few photos here, but
not this one.  This one manages to break the rule without appearing to.  My
only criticism of this is that it is not epic-making.  It is a well-taken
photo, technically and artistically.  I would describe it as 'pleasant' or
'pleasing'.  The subject has been totally isolated.  I can't see people
arguing over whether this photo should have been placed off-centre or not,
because it obviously works in the centre.  It's a good photo, just I don't
see it being great.

Bandicoot : There's no clear subject, the scene is cluttered, and people are
looking out of the photo.  This photo caught my eye.  It works well in black
and white with the low lighting, dark skin, white shirt.  Somehow it works a
lot better than it should, and I think the photo is mainly held together by
an unlikely subject - the lady on the far right.  You are directed to her by
the two people looking in her direction (in the centre frame), and my gaze
stays there because of her expression.  She seems relaxed and enjoying
herself at this party.  I wonder if she's thinking about something or
someone special that day, while enjoying the presence of her friends, and
particularly this lady who seems to be telling some exasperating story.

Owamanga : Blurry subject.  I like the hat - for me it saves the photo.  I
just find the other two objects objectionable - I would suggest photoshop,
but of course you wouldn't have been able to submit it then!  The thing
about motion blur as opposed to just being out of focus, is the lines that
remain in focus - which helps with the eyes focus.  I think you could have
broken another rule and blown some highlights, too.

Walt Hanks : What rule is being broken here?  It's a great photo.  Well
exposed, lovely highlights, lovely tone.  In fact - I thought 'this could
only be b&w film!', and then when I looked at the camera I thought for a
moment it said Nikon D70!  Soon, there won't be any difference, but for the
moment...  The subject is excellent, especially with the light, fluffy hair.
Only thing is - he couldn't have been playing rugby!  ;)

Alan Browne : Oh dear... you've cut the petals off!!!  And a prime example
of why that's perfectly fine to do.  Like Rich Pos's, you've broken a rule
without me really noticing it - it's a lovely photo, and it took me a while
to work out what you might have been getting at.  I totally agree, cutting
objects off the frame (including tops of heads), is never always a bad
thing.

Jim Kramer : This is another one where I can't see the rule.  I think it's
very clever the way you've managed to pan the dog moving like that.  The
slight motion blur in the rest of the picture is a bit disconcerting.  On
the whole, this photo does catch your eye.  On closer inspection, it gives
me a bit of a headache - partly due to the overcast day (they always give me
headaches) and the motion blur.  The way the dog is framed is pretty good,
but it's unfortunate the main subject is clipped.

Al Denelsbeck : I suppose you're getting at 'thirds'.  I dislike the idea of
thirds.  In fact, I dislike many of the rules people say you should try when
taking photos (in this respect I disagree with the column at the back of
amateur photographer who says you should at least consider them).  And this
photo definetely helps disprove that idea.  It seems like a very intriguing
piece of equipment you've got, and I really like the result.  It's one of
those photos that takes you there.  However, my only criticism is the lack
of detail, particularly in the deep foliage - was this due to Ir or a low
res?  (just don't tell me it's noise reduction, please!).

Paul Bielec : I really like this photo.  What I think makes it good is a
couple of things.  Firstly, the two shoots just below are well-positioned,
in an original way.  Secondly, the tonality is excellent.  You've managed to
retain contrast in the main subject, while being able to isolate it clearly
from the background, using texture, tone difference and colour.

My own photo was taken recently in a quaint French cafe in the outskirts of
Oxford.  This photo is cluttered and the composition is odd.  I am terrible
at isolating my subject - forcing myself to simplify my photos actually
pains me, which is why most of my photos aren't that good.  But I like this
one.  Tell me what you think.

Duncan.