Quote Originally Posted by Zacaboo288 View Post
I beg your pardon, it just seems that you are quick to antagonize my critiques but clearly my digression is based on assumption so I'll just take a shot in the dark here.

Perhaps your tornado with debris spinning about is a compositional focal point. Something else to consider is that because of the natural cone shape of a tornado, attention is drawn downward along the contour of the twister. Well on top of this, you intentionally placed a lightening bolt at the tail end of it which brings attention downward even further. The lightening isn't just emerging from anywhere, after all, it's emerging from some object of sorts which is implicit and attention grabbing.

As far as the lightening bolt dimension goes, I know that it was like that in the stock because I checked the stocks. I just thought that's what Photoshop was for.
If a person counters your critiques with explanations only; that's not antagonizing in the least. If I had simply said "no, you're wrong" and left it at that; then yeah. I'd understand your point of view.

I did no such thing.

The funny thing though, I only offered more insight into why things were placed where, how I saw it, explained my point of view. And it's somehow whipped you into an uproar when somebody offers more information into the process that went into it?

Anything else you want to get off your chest since you've decided to be just angry about something I didn't even do or say? Seriously dude, you want to come after me for absolutely nothing but an explanation into why an image was made and how?