I think i would pick both. You get a picture that has something that draws your eye to it, and makes it difficult to move away from it, but at the same tme if you look at everything else there are many great aspects that arn't right away apparent.
A great question! To me a well thought out photograph is a work of art. I think that it is meant to make you linger or even better to think. Questions like why, what was the thought at the time of conception and finally the capture and what does it mean to the photographer. I guess most important, do you see the true out come.
When Adams would capture a nature image; did he capture it for him or for the viewer. When Powller takes a mid west farm seen did he do it out of teaching and a love of the rural land or to bring it to others for them to see the beauty he does.
If it make the hair stand on my neck , it has done it's job.
many good thoughts, although i think i'd say pretty much the same thing as Milo, all shots have to have contrast, or a point of interest to draw you into them, and then details you can explore for a while, this goes for all images, its just different 'details' which you look for in different images
Interesting thoughts from prismmagic. I like the thought of a picture having done it's job if it "makes the hair stand on my neck".
To me, a photo is worthy if it keeps me there. Looking deeply, wandering. A great photo is more than colours, it draws me to the place where the eye of the photographer first saw the shot. If well done, you can hear the scene, smell the location and have it all resonate even after you left the moment. I've seen such shots from each of you.
An photograph that draws your attention to a single point that draws and keeps your eye
...OR...
A photo that's worth spending time in to discover what is held within not immediately obvious?
There are no absolutes .. just a question as to your preference.
Rob