Friday, October 28, 2016

"They're not brought in to 'back light'."

I don't claim to know what the Idiot Backes meant by that, but when I referred to back light, I was referring to what he previously said:

 So, he, Backass, referred to "a light source behind him". Behind him? What can that possibly mean except...

You see the arrow, right? That points behind him, and the Idiot referred to a light source behind him. Where else could behind him be? Doesn't "behind a person" refer to the direction that is behind their back? Furthermore, the back of his neck does look extremely bright, extremely illuminated. It's the brightest, most illuminated thing in the whole picture. There is nothing brighter. So, there must have been some light back there causing that, right? In that frame, his entire face is blackened out. And in this frame below, he's got the black disc. It's quite a contrast.

So, to you, Backass, that's all just everyday film experience, is it? We see that all the time, do we? You could easily duplicate it, the whole range of effects, could you? You could easily find other images that are similar to that, could you? Then do it. Show us other images where a guy's face is in shadow and then it goes to a black disc around his eye. This is bull shit. There is nothing normal about any of this. There is nothing duplicatable about any of it. You are just spewing crap again, which is all you ever do. Defending this shit, what a moron. You're an idiot, Backes. 

No comments:

Post a Comment

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