It's difficult to me to explain the kantian Mathematical sublime with my very poor english, but the web is full of very good expositions of this concept.
I mean that the wide-angle makes the mountains seem small and far away, killing their esthetical power (regardless of kantian theory) and also their ontological value: it gives more importance to the pebbles in foreground than to the mountain they come from...
OK. I thought that what you mean. But in my opinion you totally miss the point of what I was trying to say. The mountain, as big as it is, hides behind other peaks and you simply don’t see it as you walk up this enormous valley. Eventually you come over a rise and there it is, snow covered and gleaming among the dark pebbles that make up the landscape you are walking over. I was actually trembling with excitement to catch this first view.
Compositionally I realized the problem I faced was one of directing the eye to the mountain so in post I made sure that the images was mostly low key with a bright point indicating the mountain. I placed that bright point in a classic easy to perceive position in terms on the rather overworked rule of thirds. I didn’t want it to be about a simple image of Everest. My feelings weren’t simple and I wanted to try to convey the mystery and difficulty of getting to the mountain. I think I am correct in saying that the bottom of Everest and where we were walking is higher than any point I’m Europe, a little over 5000m. A forbidding place.
Out of interest this was shot on APSC with a 17mm focal lengths, FF equivalent of 25mm. A little wider than is normal for me but hardly extreme. Also it’s not the wide angle that makes the mountain look far away, the mountain was far away. If you want a nice picture showing the the mountain bigger, there are literally millions available, or go to google earth.