Threads

[Sicboi]

Be at a distance when approaching people because they really do look the same from there to here. It's obvious it can't always be that way, but whatevers clever.

 

[tecboy]

You just cropped off the speed limit 35.

 

[Sicboi]

Well if you care to tell what you mean. Thanks.

 

[jcdeboever]

Nice Duster, Buster!

 

[tecboy]

My eyes are looking at limit 35. I like to see the whole sign. Not just a portion. Also crop off the white car on the left. It looks kinda distracting.

 

[jcdeboever]

My eyes are looking at limit 35. I like to see the whole sign. Not just a portion. Also crop off the white car on the left. It looks kinda distracting.

You missed it...

 

[pixmedic]

Personally, I think the peripheral leading lines adjacent to the slightly objectified subject in the anterior section of the frame does a reasonably good job of postulating a very sound, if not overt, personified view angling towards the posterior subjects.
Of course, this could have also been accomplished by a narrowing of the peripheral fields opposite of the frames interior iliac crests,
but I think the OP did a good job of mimicking that effect without having to deal with the mild modular distortion associated with linear modulation of pixel space.

might have left the entire speed limit sign in the frame as well. thats just me though.

 

[robbins.photo]

Personally, I think the peripheral leading lines adjacent to the slightly objectified subject in the anterior section of the frame does a reasonably good job of postulating a very sound, if not overt, personified view angling towards the posterior subjects.
Of course, this could have also been accomplished by a narrowing of the peripheral fields opposite of the frames interior iliac crests,
but I think the OP did a good job of mimicking that effect without having to deal with the mild modular distortion associated with linear modulation of pixel space.

might have left the entire speed limit sign in the frame as well. thats just me though.

Umm... right. So... what pix said....

 

[DarkShadow]

Personally, I think the peripheral leading lines adjacent to the slightly objectified subject in the anterior section of the frame does a reasonably good job of postulating a very sound, if not overt, personified view angling towards the posterior subjects.
Of course, this could have also been accomplished by a narrowing of the peripheral fields opposite of the frames interior iliac crests,
but I think the OP did a good job of mimicking that effect without having to deal with the mild modular distortion associated with linear modulation of pixel space.

might have left the entire speed limit sign in the frame as well. thats just me though.

You been experimenting with some of those medical devices haven't you.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Personally, I think the peripheral leading lines adjacent to the slightly objectified subject in the anterior section of the frame does a reasonably good job of postulating a very sound, if not overt, personified view angling towards the posterior subjects.
Of course, this could have also been accomplished by a narrowing of the peripheral fields opposite of the frames interior iliac crests,
but I think the OP did a good job of mimicking that effect without having to deal with the mild modular distortion associated with linear modulation of pixel space.

might have left the entire speed limit sign in the frame as well. thats just me though.

Which might raise a laugh at the OP's expense. Or you could just take a purely literal interpretation in which case the sign in the picture just says "limit 35" which in light of the text might just be a reference to distance? If there's no hidden meaning here (and I don't think there is) then the OP's being open and candid. So try stepping outside your own experience for a second or two.

 

[pixmedic]

Personally, I think the peripheral leading lines adjacent to the slightly objectified subject in the anterior section of the frame does a reasonably good job of postulating a very sound, if not overt, personified view angling towards the posterior subjects.
Of course, this could have also been accomplished by a narrowing of the peripheral fields opposite of the frames interior iliac crests,
but I think the OP did a good job of mimicking that effect without having to deal with the mild modular distortion associated with linear modulation of pixel space.

might have left the entire speed limit sign in the frame as well. thats just me though.

Which might raise a laugh at the OP's expense. Or you could just take a purely literal interpretation in which case the sign in the picture just says "limit 35" which in light of the text might just be a reference to distance? If there's no hidden meaning here (and I don't think there is) then the OP's being open and candid. So try stepping outside your own experience for a second or two.

oh believe me. thats exactly what I did.
though, given the entirety of my post, I find it odd that my innocuous opinion of the cropped sign is the part you chose to criticize.
I will forgive you however, as you may not be aware of the OP's history of non sequitur's and why my post is most definitely relevant.

 

[Tim Tucker]

Personally, I think the peripheral leading lines adjacent to the slightly objectified subject in the anterior section of the frame does a reasonably good job of postulating a very sound, if not overt, personified view angling towards the posterior subjects.
Of course, this could have also been accomplished by a narrowing of the peripheral fields opposite of the frames interior iliac crests,
but I think the OP did a good job of mimicking that effect without having to deal with the mild modular distortion associated with linear modulation of pixel space.

might have left the entire speed limit sign in the frame as well. thats just me though.

Which might raise a laugh at the OP's expense. Or you could just take a purely literal interpretation in which case the sign in the picture just says "limit 35" which in light of the text might just be a reference to distance? If there's no hidden meaning here (and I don't think there is) then the OP's being open and candid. So try stepping outside your own experience for a second or two.

oh believe me. thats exactly what I did.
though, given the entirety of my post, I find it odd that my innocuous opinion of the cropped sign is the part you chose to criticize.
I will forgive you however, as you may not be aware of the OP's history of non sequitur's and why my post is most definitely relevant.

So as a staff member you are openly declaring it's ok to make fun of the OP? Non-Sequitur only means it's outside your frame of reference. To me there's such an obvious trail of clues and hints as to make one of us a blithering idiot (a purely literal interpretation is one).

 

[pixmedic]

Personally, I think the peripheral leading lines adjacent to the slightly objectified subject in the anterior section of the frame does a reasonably good job of postulating a very sound, if not overt, personified view angling towards the posterior subjects.
Of course, this could have also been accomplished by a narrowing of the peripheral fields opposite of the frames interior iliac crests,
but I think the OP did a good job of mimicking that effect without having to deal with the mild modular distortion associated with linear modulation of pixel space.

might have left the entire speed limit sign in the frame as well. thats just me though.

Which might raise a laugh at the OP's expense. Or you could just take a purely literal interpretation in which case the sign in the picture just says "limit 35" which in light of the text might just be a reference to distance? If there's no hidden meaning here (and I don't think there is) then the OP's being open and candid. So try stepping outside your own experience for a second or two.

oh believe me. thats exactly what I did.
though, given the entirety of my post, I find it odd that my innocuous opinion of the cropped sign is the part you chose to criticize.
I will forgive you however, as you may not be aware of the OP's history of non sequitur's and why my post is most definitely relevant.

So as a staff member you are openly declaring it's ok to make fun of the OP? Non-Sequitur only means it's outside your frame of reference. To me there's such an obvious trail of clues and hints as to make one of us a blithering idiot (a purely literal interpretation is one).

your interpretation on what has transpired is both unwarranted and quite incorrect.
noone has been made fun of here, despite your obvious intent on making it so. making you entirely correct on your second point.

 

[Sicboi]

First, the entire image was taken as not to attract any attention from the subjects. I know this sounds horrible but it really is key here. If the movement were any different then I would love to see it. However the entire section discussed here really misses the mark with my complaint about how one might go about simply taking pictures.

 

[pixmedic]

First, the entire image was taken as not to attract any attention from the subjects. I know this sounds horrible but it really is key here. If the movement were any different then I would love to see it. However the entire section discussed here really misses the mark with my complaint about how one might go about simply taking pictures.

Sometimes it's difficult to see what the artist sees in the moment.
Sometimes we only see what we want to see.
Apologies if I misspoke.