I have been making landscape pictures for some time now and have also been studying landscape photos made by others. The question is how important is a well defined subject and also is the subject or the story most important for the success of the picture? Sometimes I see landscapes with a well defined subject and other times I see landscapes that only have a story, or maybe I just don't understand subject. I have seen photographers who have said take your picture into photoshop and choose select subject to determine if the photo is good or not. I offer the below photo not for good or bad but just an illustration of a picture that I think tells a story but photoshop says that there is no subject. I know that some will say there is no place to look and some will look and see the story and say that the landscape itself is the subject. Anyway I wanted to offer this up for discussion, not good or bad but a photo with no well defined subject, and see what others thoughts are on this.

I could also have added capturing a sense of place.

Capturing beauty or atmosphere or interest or a sense of place doesn't depend on there being a specific main subject in the scene. Succeeding with capturing any one of these will result in a successful photo.

OK, I think we've established that a specific subject (or subjects) is not essential for a good photo. But.... as a very general rule it's usually a positive if there's somewhere for the viewers' attention to gravitate towards and become a focus for their attention, especially if it clarifies or reinforces the photographer's intention. Not always, but usually.... which means that specific subjects have to be assessed on their own merits.

I could also have added capturing a sense of place.

Capturing beauty or atmosphere or interest or a sense of place doesn't depend on there being a specific main subject in the scene. Succeeding with capturing any one of these will result in a successful photo.

OK, I think we've established that a specific subject (or subjects) is not essential for a good photo. But.... as a very general rule it's usually a positive if there's somewhere for the viewers' attention to gravitate towards and become a focus for their attention, especially if it clarifies or reinforces the photographer's intention. Not always, but usually.... which means that specific subjects have to be assessed on their own merits.

The forum has been crying out for interesting topics like this one. Well done for starting it.

If we put our minds to it we could probably come up with quite a list of things that are desirable but not essential (like an effective foreground for example). But reality being what it is, we can't wait for perfection to come along so we have to learn to work with something less than perfect. Come to think of it, subject-less photos provide a welcome break from the same-old-same-old, and the same can be said for the rest of the generally accepted must-haves. Your question is just what we need to get us to do a re-think.

Not that I'm any expert but I shoot primarily landscapes and scenes from nature, and quite often I do not take a photo for its subject, but for the way shapes and lines strike me. I suppose that is why a lot of my photos of "real" scenes end up looking a bit abstract. I think a strong, appealing composition is needed to draw the viewer into the photo and guide the eye around the scene. Obviously is there is a definite subject you don't want it to be lost in an otherwise overly busy image. I like your snowy scene but I suppose the lower center is a bit vague and rather empty.