Part of an online "Visual Conversation" http://www.pbase.com/pnd1/image/69211863

This fine image is by Phil Douglis (Not mine).

The critique of this image centers around being clear about the primary subject.
What makes a geyser a geyser is the way it shoots hot water and steam into the sky.
In Phil's version he has framed the image with the horizon in the middle which is an obvious compositional flaw because it creates a dichotomy,
an ambivalance as to what is most important.
That is a rather amatuerish mistake and weakens an otherwise fine image.

Phil will emphatically argue that composition is rather unimportant and not something that he was ever trained in as a photo journalist.
But composition is of critical importance for successful landscape, architectural, people, street and just about any other form of photography.

He obvoiusly doesn't appreciate or tolerate any criticism or input counter to his own point of view very well or he would not have blacklisted me from his site.
Phil has dedicated his site to teaching, but is he being a good student as well?
The best teachers are those that are the best students as the teacher learns the content better than anyone...
but that is based on being open minded and being respectful of other's views.
I can not find a single instance on Phil's site where he acknowledges how his images could be improved.
Phil is insisting on a one way conversation which is a limited way to be a teacher.