Originally Posted by dave lackey
With millions of fine photographs in the past, including many Pulitzer prize winners, it is incomprehensible that only sharpness, contrast, etc. define the quality of an image, IMO.
Does that even make sense? You're the first to suggest, even in the negative, that only
these might be defining qualities. This thread seems not to be about whether they're the only defining qualities, rather about how important they are at all. You're making up a straw man.