Quote Originally Posted by mannbro View Post
Well, if quality is measured purely based on what a set of "rules" say, then that is a valid question. But if photography, as I think, is a way of communication, then quality is not in how close to (what is often considered) perfect exposure, sharpness, tonality and details it is. It is instead a measure of how well the photographer conveys what he/she wants to say through the photograph.
Very well said, the whole post was.

Would it be possible to add one more qualifier on to here?
You've qualified photographs based on how well it conveys what the photographer wanted (their message). Could we add another qualifier that is the quality of the message?
A communist photographer might have made a photograph communicating how great Mao Zedong was, and in such a way demonstrated his own skill in photography (skill communicating his message through the medium), but we would not call it a great photograph because the message is poor. (keep in mind I'm not taking away a level of appreciation of the photograph)