Do vampires show up in photographs?
according to legend they don't. they also can't cross running water and they don't show reflections. the vampire legend was started by Vlad The Impaler who impaled his victims and drank there blood thus starting the majority of the modern image of vampires
Photography help!!!!?
1. I don't ever miss it. 2. Every time you shoot, every photograph. 3. Dark elements absorb light, light elements reflect more light. Shiny surfaces reflect more light. These can cause "unbalanced" lighting resulting in underexposed and overexposed areas in the same photograph. 4. Light adds depth, enhances detail of the subject, gives it a better sense of realism. 5. Being able to find an angle that best captures the subject without washing it out or leaving dark areas unseen when that the detail is necessary.
How would you describe wedding photography?
All they do is take pictures, usually after the wedding
Does photography limit our understanding of the world?
My what a deep question! Pictures lack the emotion experienced by the person taking the picture (how hard it may have been to get the picture the photographer wanted). Yet pictures can sometimes invoke an emotional response (a gruesome death, a spectacular sunset). In answer to your question however, pictures lend to a greater understanding of what is happening around the world. When you see the faces of others in places you never will travel to, you understand the emotion they show. Words sometimes can not do justice to the things you are able to see. Pictures only help the reader better understand his/her meaning of what is actually taking place. Yet, do not be fooled by everything you see today. Technology has taken photography to a new level. Make certain you trust your source first. The old saying "Believe only half of what you see and nothing that you hear" no longer rings true. Be skeptical, but keep your eyes and mind open at the same time.
Do home appraisers usually take pictures of the interior?
i'm having my condo appraised for a home equity loan and there is a realtor (not affiliated with the bank) that said she will be taking pictures of the inside of my condo. it seems a strange that she can't just estimate the value of the home by looking at it... and i'm a little suspect about her taking pictures of my stuff.(i don't want her to have pictures of what is in my home) is it absolutely necessary for a home appraisal??
Is a mirror reflection or photograph a more accurate interpretation of the way a person looks?
Well by no means am I a professional but I think that a mirror would be more accurate….“Its the brain thing hiding your flaws and making you more attractive than u think..”Heck if that were the case then the ugliest dude at my office would feel like he could slay the hottest bitch in the office.And hiding what flaws ??? I can clearly see my big nose and acne scars on the mirror way better than in the photo and I know when someone is out my class.If it were true then why do we feel insecure when a big zit pops outta nowhere or when u have puffy eyes from drinking hard the night before ?? Isnt the brain suppose to hide the flaw ??And the reverse face, flipped side thing….That is just crap. Just take out your camera, take a pic(from the back lens not selfie) and reverse it.Then compare with the original pic.Does it look like you are Brad pitt in one and Mr.Bean in the other pic ??Obviously no !! Either you will look equally shit in both or equally good.Lets try another way.Take out a jacket which u hate or find shitty with a logo or something on either the left or the right side but not both.Then put it infront of a mirror….Now does the jacket suddenly seem attractive to u ???Heck no !!! Point being reversion doesnt effect your attractiveness or ur flaws.Its there…..The camera however high tech is by no means a 3D vision provider…..A mirror may have ‘a’ flaw but a camera has “flawssss”..So there….U look like in the mirror more than in a photo..
Why don't ISS photos show any of the thousands of satellites orbiting Earth? Is it a matter of being in different orbits?
The diameter of the Earth is 12,742 km. Most images of the whole Earth are only at most a few thousand pixels in diameter. So any satellite or space junk will be only a fraction of a pixel so invisible unless it is of order of a kilometer in diameter or more. So far we don't have anything that large.The ISS is about the size of a football field, about 108 meters in length.To resolve it with a width of, say, 2 pixels, you'd need a picture of the Earth more than 250,000 pixels in diameter. Or a total of 62,500,000,000 pixels.The largest images made would be high enough resolution to see the ISS.Anything with more than 60 gigapixels or so would be able to show the ISS as a couple of pixels or more in an image of the world.E.g. this 320 gigapixel image of Mont Blanc. More examples here: Largest photographs in the worldIf someone produced an image of the Earth to this resolution, the ISS would be about 4 to 5 pixels across.But you'd only see it if you knew where to click to zoom in. And that's pretty small so it would need to be noticeably different in colour or some such to spot it.Apart from that, the only chance of seeing them would be in the dark sky around the Earth - but then they would be indistingishable from stars, so you'd need to know your constellations very well.And anyway - most of those images are exposed in such a way that the stars can't be seen, because the brightness levels are adjusted to show details on the much brighter Earth.Here the pale-blue-dot of Earth photographed from Saturn was a crescent only 0.12 pixels in size. But we could see it because it’s much brighter than the background dark sky. However in photographs of the Earth, usually they are exposed at the right setting to show details on Earth, and that’s under exposed for the stars so you don’t see even bright stars. If the stars were visible, you’d need to know your constellations very well to spot the very faint satellites as seen from a distance.
Do pictures show what you really look like or mirrors?
Yes. Pictures show what you really look like. Ironically, not what you look like to others, however. A picture is a two dimensional representation of a person recorded with a single lens, or "eye". Discounting for any distrortion a lens could introduce, the picture is the TRUE representation of what was photographed. However, what you see and perceive with your two eyes/brain in the mirror, or what others with two eyes/brain looking at you percieve, is a three dimensional representation which is subjectively processed in the mind.
Why are photos taken in space sometimes devoid of stars (just black space)?
There are thousands of photos, taken in space, showing stars in the background. They show up with the simplest Google search, such as "ISS stars".There are also as many images where the background appears black - not a star visible. The difference between these pictures is quite simple - exposure. Go outside with a camera at night and take a picture of a street light. You won't see any stars behind the streetlight because the camera cannot show both the faint stars and the brilliantly bright streetlight at the same time. Heck, look right at the streetlight for a few seconds and you won't see any stars, either.The pictures with no stars have a bright object in the foreground. The pictures with stars do not have a bright object in the foreground.