kqedscience:

“Objects take on a kind of magical quality when viewed from this unusual perspective…and that’s exactly what drove photographer Alex MacLean to get a pilot’s license and take to the sky.”

unknownskywalker:

Siriusly twinkling

If you live nearly anywhere on Earth and look to the southeast shortly after sunset, you’ll see the figure of Orion. Follow the three belt stars to the east, and you’ll see a bright star: Sirius, the brightest star in the night sky. If it’s near the horizon, you may see it twinkling madly: flickering, dancing, perhaps even changing color.

This gave astronomer David Lynch an idea: take a time exposure of Sirius with a camera and telephoto, and purposely wiggle the mount. He tried it on January 4, 2012, and the result is the picture shown above.

As the vibrating camera caused the star to trail around, the changing colors got recorded along the track. The changing brightness of Sirius can be seen as well, as parts of the loop-de-loop fade and intensify.

The reason stars twinkle is because of our atmosphere: little blobs of air are constantly in motion. These air parcels act like lenses, and as light passes through them, the path of the ray gets bent a little bit. That’s what causes the dancing motion, the actual twinkling.

fyeahstrangefinds:

Monkey Hijacks Photographer’s Camera and Takes Self-Portraits

Three years ago wildlife photographer David Slater spent three days photographing a group of crested black macaque monkeys in an Indonesian national park. As he was trying to fend off some monkeys, another monkey approached his tripod-mounted Canon 5D and started playing with the remote shutter release.

They were quite mischievous, jumping all over my equipment. One hit the button. The sound got his attention and he kept pressing it. At first it scared the rest of them away but they soon came back – it was amazing to watch. [#]

Afterward, he found hundreds of photos taken by the monkeys on his memory card, including some self-portraits and even a portrait of Slater. — Michael Zang, PetaPixel.com

sierratheunicorn:

super-scout:

aetropos:

starexorcist:

tehmostaewsumblogevar:

starexorcist:

ecrusher:

10knotes:

M&Ms Droplets

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 blue, 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?

Rather unlikely!

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!

brain-food:

Adobe had originally created an art competition that was open only to UK students for a grand prize of £10,000. Canadian art blog Booooooom! joined forces with Adobe to accommodate those outside of the UK, creating an opportunity to compete for a copy of the entire Adobe Creative Suite 5.5 Master Collection ($899). The competition called for entries in the form of photographs.
 

The contest received a wide range of submissions from individuals remaking popular artworks, some adding a modern twist to the classics. The competition has come to a close and now they have the difficult challenge of picking the best out of the bunch. I’m glad I don’t have to choose because some of these, despite being recreations, are highly original. (via)

kateoplis:

Henri Roger-Viollet, from Roger-Viollet Agency’s staggering collection of nearly six millions photographs bequeathed to the City of Paris.

ckck:

“Beams of Light Through Glass” by Berenice Abbott, circa 1960.

…Why is this so relevant to my life?

(Source: fyeahartstudentowl)

Kind of just needed this on my blog.

I wish I could take pictures like this. I know it’s not the best picture ever, but fuck me sideways if it isn’t an amazing piece of photojournalism.

oh man, GPOY.

readmorewikipedia:

Pigeon photography was an aerial photography technique invented in 1907 by the German apothecary Julius Neubronner, who also used pigeons to deliver medications. A homing pigeon was fitted with an aluminum breast harness to which a lightweight time-delayed miniature camera could be attached.

…Whoa. ♥