ADDED: I ran across that after reading the colloquy between AllenS and Meade in the comments to the post about Brett's fuzzy penis:
AllenS: Jenn Sterger (the woman) was hired because of some sexy pictures of her in Sports Illustrated mag, that Brent Musberger thought would be a good matchup for the male dominated football sports sceen. Jenn and Brent are just as much at fault here. I'm thinking of sending the woman a picture of my penis also. Could I borrow the fish bowl lens?...
Meade: It's a fish eye lens. Fish eye. It's for taking shots of massive objects or scenes which a normal lens can't take all in. A fish bowl lens would be for taking shots of tiny things. Like Brett Favre's... ability to make good judgments.
AllenS: Ok, ok. Can I borrow the lens that makes stuff look bigger?But, in fact, the fisheye works really well to make something look large if you get the camera lens right up at it. Lots of other stuff is including in the picture, arrayed all around and looking comparatively small. Frankly — and this is not an offer to AllenS — it would be really interesting to take pictures of naked men and get the extreme closeup on the genitalia with a well-composed and interesting background. I went looking through my old posts with the "fisheye" tag to find some that prove my point.
The second picture here of the fisheye dog makes this point very well. Get right up to the nose. The scenery in the background isn't as interesting as I'd want for my proposed compositions, but you can see how tiny Meade looks in the background (when in fact he was quite close by). Here's another photograph that illustrates the point, albeit with the female body:
That's from the Khmer Dynasty room at the Metropolitan Museum in NYC. Here's the effect of the lens looking at the room from the other side:
Here's some male and female nudity, to be fair:
That's the Museum of Natural History — not Brett and Jenn. You may recognize that couple from the movie "Election" — which is a great cautionary tale about the inadvisability of cheating on... many things (including your spouse).
And then — searching through the fisheye pictures — I found something that was extremely important to me: the purple tree, which had this.
"Do you guys TRY to not get laid?"
पोस्ट्स
१३ टिप्पण्या:
Sorry, the page you were looking for in the blog Althouse does not exist.
Uh oh. Spilled coffee on the archives?
I've killed 2 laptops with Coca-Cola and water. Thankfully, I didn't pay for them. They were company property.
Uh oh. Does this mean Meade spilled coffee on his laptop?
Thanks, Calypso. I screwed up the code. Fixed. Try it now.
Happy Day After Your Birthday Freeman!
I'm not worried about coffee, but I have a lot of crumbs between the keys.
No, The Blonde's favorite nephew treats his with considerable TLC, also.
As I said in the previous post about a followup, "Let's take a closer look...".
"Get right up to the nose."? No, I'm seeing something else.
PS Agree with Ann and Meade, especially Ann (no offense) on the color thing in the tree post. The Blonde is big into red and purple - Miss Flamboyant, although she says yellow and orange are my best colors, so I don't know if Meade's gambit (purple hat and scarf) works across the board.
In those ancient times when marriages were made for a lifetime it was standard for the bride to be a virgin after an engagement period as long as five years. Did this put a strain on the engaged couple? Of course it did. But in the course of the engagement they had ample time to learn whether the future partner for life made a good fit...or not. Ya know, a fit other than the physical. It was a pretty good system. But square. Utterly square. So it had to go. And it went. And where are we now?
Oops. Read my comment as part of the relationships thread.
More accurately, any wide-angle lens is for taking pictures of stuff that wouldn't normally fit in the view.
Fish-eye lenses are for when you want that particular sort of distortion; otherwise you'd use a rectilinear lens (which distorts by stretching more at the edges, but keeps lines straight).
Can't wait to the funny photo-shop Chip does for this post.
In that MNH photo, the male has his arm around the female, and he's looking slightly away from her. The female's stance and stride indicate no connection to the male, and her gaze is well away from the male.
What does this mean?
Why is the last picture of Homo Erectus shown with the male putting his hand on the females shoulder. I can almost assure you that didn't happen 2 million years ago.
टिप्पणी पोस्ट करा