• We have updated the guidelines regarding posting political content: please see the stickied thread on Website Issues.

Photos You Need To Really Look At To Understand

This woman is supposedly just shaking out laundry, but this is creepy:

1656956497120.png
 
michael59 said:
At first glance before scrolling up, I thought, "Spider Man is looking old." Now I can see a bushy eyebrow, crooked nose, and even a wart on the pointy chin. She's conquering up a witch! :cool2:
Click to expand...
I know, I thought I was seeing things!
 
Ronnie Jersey said:
How many girls do you think are actually in this photo?

View attachment 56818
Click to expand...
I reckon that there are four girls in the photo . . .
1657095113462.png

Once again, it's all to do with the shadows on the four girls, shadows would not be identically repeated (or seen in exactly the same places) in a reflected image on a mirror!
 
Last edited:
Sid said:
I reckon that there are four girls in the photo . . .
View attachment 56821
Once again, it's all to do with the shadows on the four girls, shadows would not be identically repeated (or seen in exactly the same places) in a reflected image on a mirror!
Click to expand...
I still think it's two - the creases in the clothes look identical, just from different angles.
 
It's two girls between two facing mirrors, in a photo that was carefully taken from a particular angle.

For one thing, it would be almost impossible to get the hair (down to the random tufts) falling in exactly the same way with more than two subjects.

The apparent variations are the results of parallax effects caused by the angle of the camera's vantage point relative to the reflections. Which leads to ...

The really clever setup bit (if it was deliberate) was framing the shot to exploit parallax to insinuate differences among the pairs. There's a white tag tucked underneath and behind the forearm of the (apparently) "nearest" / larger girl that's neatly (but not completely) obscured in the "nearest" version, but which becomes visible in the farther versions visible at a wider (virtual) angle. Similarly, both girls are wearing arm bands on only one forearm, and their arms are crossed so as to obscure the bands in alternating reflections.

There remains one question ... Was the camera positioned to capture the "nearest" pair in the "real space" the camera shared with the girls, or was it aimed into the mirror to capture the first reflection as the "nearest" image in the shot?
 
EnolaGaia said:
It's two girls between two facing mirrors, in a photo that was carefully taken from a particular angle.

For one thing, it would be almost impossible to get the hair (down to the random tufts) falling in exactly the same way with more than two subjects.

The apparent variations are the results of parallax effects caused by the angle of the camera's vantage point relative to the reflections. Which leads to ...

The really clever setup bit (if it was deliberate) was framing the shot to exploit parallax to insinuate differences among the pairs. There's a white tag tucked underneath and behind the forearm of the (apparently) "nearest" / larger girl that's neatly (but not completely) obscured in the "nearest" version, but which becomes visible in the farther versions visible at a wider (virtual) angle. Similarly, both girls are wearing arm bands on only one forearm, and their arms are crossed so as to obscure the bands in alternating reflections.

There remains one question ... Was the camera positioned to capture the "nearest" pair in the "real space" the camera shared with the girls, or was it aimed into the mirror to capture the first reflection as the "nearest" image in the shot?
Click to expand...
You're right, but what confused me is the way the girls' eyes seem to move between duplications in the mirror, my eyes started to hurt, looking at it!
 
Sid said:
I reckon that there are four girls in the photo . . .
View attachment 56821
Once again, it's all to do with the shadows on the four girls, shadows would not be identically repeated (or seen in exactly the same places) in a reflected image on a mirror!
Click to expand...
That's exactly what I thought, and I'm still not convinced! LOL
 
I now tend to think the "nearest" pair's image is indeed a reflection - i.e., the camera was aimed into the far mirror rather than directly at the "real" girls. Here's why ...

You can see in all the reflections that the larger girl is only a very few inches from the mirror she's staring into. The girls are sitting on a bench between the two facing mirrors, and there's only enough space between the mirrors for them to sit side-by-side. If the camera had been "inside" (i.e., positioned inside the same space within which the girls are sitting) there'd be more space visible between the larger girl and the nearest mirror.
 
Ronnie Jersey said:
You're right, but what confused me is the way the girls' eyes seem to move between duplications in the mirror, my eyes started to hurt, looking at it!
Click to expand...
That's actually quite simple - the taller girl was looking at a reflection of the camera, not at the camera directly, causing one of her reflections to be looking toward the camera, while the nearest image of the tall girl is looking off to the left (at a reflection out of view).
 
SimonBurchell said:
That's actually quite simple - the taller girl was looking at a reflection of the camera, not at the camera directly, causing one of her reflections to be looking toward the camera, while the nearest image of the tall girl is looking off to the left (at a reflection out of view).
Click to expand...
I'm glad you think it's simple - makes my head spin!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top