For the record, reading up more, a lot of the blurring was apparently added intentionally in post-processing. It's meant to give it the impression of a painting, and, honestly, it does kind of fit in with the way paintings were composed in that period. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs.13:17, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Comment I'd love to know why this was considered as an example framing etc. It has no artistic merit as a composition to my eyes. So much wrong with it. Charlesjsharp (talk) 21:36, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Do you know what I mean when I say that the first people to do things can sometimes do them a lot less well than they'd be done later? This is photography composition before the refinement, kind of major because it attempted to get multiple levels and has prominent people in a landscape shot. It's bold in that it daringly broke the rules. Other people would later break the rules a lot better. Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs.22:02, 11 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
If this really got people to do things differently, then OK; but not if it was a poorly-executed attempt. We need THE image that broke the mould... Charlesjsharp (talk) 11:56, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]
Perhaps a good agreement might be: if I withdraw this, and if I can get an article on the image itself (as opposed to just in Annan's article), or an article on the house itself, we relook at it? Adam Cuerden(talk)Has about 8.7% of all FPs.13:12, 13 January 2024 (UTC)[reply]