>>3926805>In my 15 years of being on /p/This is worth mentioning for what reason? I've been here for a long time too. You're not special.
>it's a stupid questionIt's a valid one, because your position doesn't carry a lot of weight.
>the rules aren't really rulesThat's not the argument being presented.
>it's totally okay to take lazily composed photos at the zooIf you'd simply said "this looks lazily composed" and elaborated or given tips to the photographer to improve, you would've been taken more seriously. The many components of composition - subject/background isolation, framing, subject size and distance, line, form, what's included vs what's not, etc. - are worth exploring in any given image to figure out why they work or why they don't.
Instead, you made a lazy, shitty, ignorant response and are now getting defensive because somebody called you out on it. But what really stood out to me was your attempt to "prove" that the bird was shot "dead center" when it was actually slightly off, as if that one detail really was anything worth noting in the first place. You're like the people who bitch about the use of the 2:3 aspect ratio because it's "too commercial". Talk about being sophomoric when your position is basically the take of every other hipster douchebag photography "artist" on the internet.
