now that’s what photography should be about… not a black and white picture of someone’s shoes
The top picture is full of M&M’s. They’re bule, red, orange, green, yellow, and brown.
But in the bottom picture we clearly see there’s white, pink, and even purple candies in the bowl.
The bottom picture is of gumballs! This concludes that the bottom picture is not taken with that camera at all. I’d even go as far to say that it was edited in photoshop with a filter!
Yes the above image and the below image are not the same photograph being taken. This is rather obvious.
BUT Mr. Wright there is one thing you overlooked. Examine the droplets on the bottom image. None of them are from the same angle. This is a natural occurance when looking through water droplets.
Is it not possible that the photographer took the second image first?
Would it not be more probable that when asked HOW it was taken he/she took the above image of their setup Using M&Ms, something much more common in a household rather than many gumballs, something they may have just bought for the original photo?
So to claim it was not taken with the same camera is indeed a long shot Mr. Wright.
Thank you for your time.
Really Edgeworth, is that you’re argument.
Aren’t you overlooking the fact that there are no pink M&Ms. This proves undeniably that these are not, in fact M&Ms, but some other kind of candy.
And one other thing, I find it highly improbable that not one piece of candy is facing so the M logo is on the candy.
So in conclusion, there is no way these are possibly M&Ms.
hey mister I think you’re confuuuuuuused. Edgeworth agreed that they weren’t M&M’s. He was just refuting that there is a possibility there wasnt any photoshop used and that the above image was only depicting the method used in the bottom image.
I think someone might be getting a little senile hehehe
Everyone seems to be walking around the accusations by examining whether they are or aren’t M&Ms. That is not what’s important. What we should be looking at is instead, the so-called droplets, compared to the background image.
The angles within the droplets do not realistically coincide with one another! As well, I don’t spend much time staring at drops of water, but I can surely say I’ve never seen such clarity in any water droplet. Also, as in the former picture, there is an obvious fogging on the glass, surely caused by whichever process was used to spray the water. Where is the fog?
On top of all that, the drops are amazingly tiny compared to the anonymous-candy. One could argue the sheet is further away than in the ‘example’ pic, but the blurring of the candies definitely objects to that. We could also try to assume that the spray method used in the ‘original’ photo caused much tinier water spots, but are we to believe that the photographer was so careless that they couldn’t recreate the correct droplet size in the ‘example’? Surely, they should have been able to cause at least a closer resemblance.
Sure seems like they went out of their way to showcase the methodology of how the photograph was taken, yet neglected to go far enough to ensure it could be a like-comparison?
Actually, Mr. Godot!!
Well, according to the properties of light and the way it’s refracted…
If you mirror it the right way, they line up just fine!
Aah… these M&M’s droplets
So colourful… reminds me of the days of my youth!
the red ones remind me of my hemorroids… *cough*
I have found some new evidence though the original image source suggesting this second image has been tampered with!
This image clearly shows candies that correspond to the colours commonly found in M & M s… The edge of the bowl is visible, as are some ‘M’ symbols, if you look closely.
This suggests the second image in the original is perhaps just a fabrication based off of the second.
It is clearly a fraud!
You shouldn’t jump the “fraud” gun just yet, Wright. If your source is really the corresponding photo to the first, then the “gumball” picture in question might not be at fault. To put it bluntly, it might just be a copycat.
To put it another way, this could just be a case of a mistaken and mismatched photoset..
With all the evidence provided, I think it’s safe to assume this case could be solved: The candies in the second photograph are not M&Ms, but the photo itself was not exactly tampered with. It was just a completely separate photo of separate candies, possibly just misplaced in this set by the original poster, who was completely unaware of the mismatch!
Hold it right there everyone.
A PUZZLE HIDDEN IN THAT BOWL OF MISLEADING CANDY.
I cannot, not reblog this. It is amazing!
OH. MY. FUCKING. GOD.
a little girl in the grocery store just asked me if i was a princess because my dress was pretty and i said everyone’s a princess and she pointed to her dad and asked if he was a princess too and her dad said yep its true im a princess and she looked so happy idk it was adorable
My friend Jenna has left an abusive domestic situation and is looking to relocate and start a new life for herself and her cat. She’s in a temporary home and is currently out of work. I’d like help her raise money for this move, so here’s what I’m going to do:
I haven’t taken commissions in over two years, but I am auctioning an original sculpture, character of your choice, style of your choice and will donate all proceeds to Jenna’s relocation fund.
Here are some examples of my work:
(More pics of these and other pieces at my site, JFSculpts.com)
The winning bidder will receive one original sculpture, character and style of their choice, hand-painted, on its own ready-to-display stand.
I’m going to start the bidding at $300. Here’s how it will work:
- Email me at jfsculptsemail01 (at) gmail.com with your bid and what character/style you would like
- I will update my site, JFSculpts.com with the amount of the current highest bid
- Winner will donate their winning bid to Jenna’s fundraiser page
- 4-6 weeks from that time, the winner will receive their sculpture
- I’ve decided to extend the bidding and do one more, so if you missed the initial deadline I’m keeping the auction open a little longer
It’s that easy!
Jenna is my hero. I hope to help her get back on her feet. Please help if you can, by bidding, spreading the word with social media, or by donating directly.
UPDATE: I see there’s suddenly some new activity on this posts, so if anyone wants to contact me ( jfsculptsemail01 (at) gmail.com) with another bid (to be done after the winning bid, so sometimes in April/May), let me know.
Keep spreading the word and donate if you can: $10, $5, whatever you can spare. Every bit helps. Thank you!
"Technology is a huge interest for our user base, and month after month we see thousands of people visiting our site to look for coupons and deals to use when purchasing their favorite tech products," a company spokeswoman said in a statement. "It seems that quite a few of us need to brush up on our tech definitions."
Besides HTML, there were some other amusing findings:
- 77% of respondents could not identify what SEO means. SEO stands for “Search-Engine Optimization”
- 27% identified “gigabyte” as an insect commonly found in South America. A gigabyte is a measurement unit for the storage capacity of an electronic device.
- 42% said they believed a “motherboard” was “the deck of a cruise ship.” A motherboard is usually a circuit board that holds many of the key components of a computer.
- 23% thought an “MP3” was a “Star Wars” robot. It is actually an audio file.
- 18% identified “Blu-ray” as a marine animal. It is a disc format typically used to store high-definition videos.
- 15% said they believed “software” is comfortable clothing. Software is a general term for computer programs.
- 12% said “USB” is the acronym for a European country. In fact, USB is a type of connector.
Despite the incorrect answers, 61% of the respondents said it is important to have a good knowledge of technology in this day and age.