Monday, August 29, 2016

"And now he lies claiming he was never confused, that he never said a still photograph shows motion." Joseph Backshit

No, Backes. I did say that a still photograph can show motion. It's not that the photo moves but that it SHOWS motion, a person who is in motion, that we can tell that the person in it was moving at the time it was taken. 

And in the photo below, even without her legs showing, where one was off the ground, we can still tell that she was in motion:

So, how can we tell that she is in motion? Because she is obviously walking along talking on the phone? Is that not good enough? Then how about the fact that that that is not a stationary pose? If she were stationary, why would she hold the bag up? She's doing it as she walks because the swinging of her arms would make controlling the bag difficult at full arm's length. By shortening the fulcrum, she has greater control. But, if she were standing still, she would lower her arm and just let the bag dangle in her hand. People don't expend energy for no reason. There would be no need to hold the bag up if she were standing still. Any, if you look closely, you can see that her left thigh is in front of her right, as seen in walking.

It's very obvious that she is in stride, that she is walking, and I don't need to see what her feet are doing to know it. This cropped image still provides enough information to tell me that she is in a state of motion. 

You are such a fucking idiot. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

Note: Only a member of this blog may post a comment.