>>3216273>Fair but wide angle also has a placeThat it?
>It's not a choice between nothing but "subject" or "everything is the subject" or "there's no subject".I don't even know what that means. You asked what the subject was in the photo I posted.
>>3216273>But you went straight on the attack and called me an idiot first, so now we're here, anon.What are you even on about, dude? Seriously.
>>3216217>Are you being ironically dense, or do you think that the massive mountain occupying 80% of the frame is just there by chance?It's a freaking rhetorical question, not venom. All I did was answered kind with kind, since your post was indirect too.
>>3216210>What's the subject here?In other words, "Since I have to ask what the subject is, I think this photo has a weak subject."
>>3216276>The biggest thing is not always the subject. Again, that's why I asked.No, it isn't why you asked. You asked because you don't know how to say that the photo has a weak or no subject, which is what you think, but for some reason are tip-toeing around saying, as if you want to instruct me without hurting my feelings. Since my comment was about, again, lenses, you just ended up making the thread weird and awkward, which anyone could have predicted but you. I have no idea why you think "intended subject" is a real concept in composition.
I literally only posted the photo as an example, and in my last post I explained why (you ignored it). I could have and can post many other landscapes taken with long focal lengths - I'm sure other people can too, it's not hard to do - but since you have been unable to write a single on-topic reply to my post after I posted just the one photo, I don't see the point of continuing with you. Now I'm telling you to either say something on topic and honest or fuck off. You're not interesting, entertaining or instructive by posting sardonic criticism like
>>3216227 then claiming I was the one who hurt you.
