• 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

Yeah but yeah but yeah ... I do perceive the part to be at the top of her head and that just make her hair look short!.
I'm still not bloody getting it ... seriously wound up now! I mean these things sometimes take me a while BUT THIS HAS DEFEATED ME!
That makes two of us .

To me it's a photo I doubt I will ever understand .
 
Yeah but yeah but yeah ... I do perceive the part to be at the top of her head and that just make her hair look short!.
I'm still not bloody getting it ... seriously wound up now! I mean these things sometimes take me a while BUT THIS HAS DEFEATED ME!
Does it help if you can see her knees (red)?- she is sat cross legged and leaning forwards;

hair.jpg
 
Yeah but yeah but yeah ... I do perceive the part to be at the top of her head and that just make her hair look short!.
I'm still not bloody getting it ... seriously wound up now! I mean these things sometimes take me a while BUT THIS HAS DEFEATED ME!
:rofl:

Her head of hair is very thick and full. The hair appearing as round makes it difficult to see it as falling down her back and not as only her head. Her hair completely covers her shoulders and the 2D doesn't allow for you to see the depth of the picture.
 
Do dogs and cats smile? I think so but have no real knowledge at all. I asked someone the other day and they said "Yes" but the person loves animals so they might just be as biased as I am.

Darwin thought they did. This picture is taken from Darwin's "Expression of the Emotions in Man and Animals." Having had the pleasure of the company of dogs all my life, I'd have to agree. Anyway, who would argue with Darwin?
Screenshot (112).png
 

Attachments

  • Screenshot (112).png
    Screenshot (112).png
    582.1 KB · Views: 15
I have to assume that my brain isn't wired up the same way as many people's as I STILL struggle to see some of these even when they're pointed out (although I did get the girl with the hair - as soon as I realised that it was a very young girl, so very slim, it made more sense). The animal ones - nope. Even with ARROWS I don't get them. I am always slightly amused by the uselessness of my brain at this.
 
In fairness, that photo is a bit of a 'cheat' - who would expect to see a person crouching down and with their back almost completely uncovered, in a setting where others are sat fully-clothed at tables?

Well, that's my excuse annyway.
 
In fairness, that photo is a bit of a 'cheat' - who would expect to see a person crouching down and with their back almost completely uncovered, in a setting where others are sat fully-clothed at tables?

Well, that's my excuse annyway.
It might, of course, be a boy. In which case being topless wouldn't be so remarkable.
 
It's the texture of the hair itself and the wave pattern ... it just doesn't look long enough. That's a big stumbling block in the way of my 'getting it'.
 
Last edited:
Obviously, I'm rubbish at deciphering pets - I thought that dog was about to attack poor old Darwin.
Yes, I wouldn't say that was 'humble and affectionate'. I would say that was 'expecting to be kicked but desperately hoping not to be.'
 
Back
Top