Ronnie Jersey
Justified & Ancient
- Joined
- Nov 22, 2021
- Messages
- 3,043
This woman is supposedly just shaking out laundry, but this is creepy:
I know, I thought I was seeing things!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!
Ah, so now we know how to deal with a witch should we meet one. . .just shake them to pieces!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!
Ah, so now we know how to deal with a witch should we meet one. . .just shake them to pieces!
"But 'off' course!"The fact that you noticed that tells me you knew exactly what I meant to say.
Obviously.I bet she didn't expect the Spanish inquisition.
ConcurI want to say, two?
I reckon that there are four girls in the photo . . .
I still think it's two - the creases in the clothes look identical, just from different angles.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!
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!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?
That's exactly what I thought, and I'm still not convinced! LOLI 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!
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).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!
I'm glad you think it's simple - makes my head spin!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).
Neither am I 'Ronnie,' it's involved trickery here somewhere, I tell you. . . trickery!That's exactly what I thought, and I'm still not convinced! LOL
I have no idea what's happening here but I am very suspicious of the 'mustard'.
My point exactly.I also would be very suspicious of that "mustard" as it doesn't look like COLMANS.