june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be
Game of Thrones Daily

Origami Around

⁂
Acquired Stardust
trying on a metaphor
Today's Document
hello vonnie

Product Placement

Kiana Khansmith
art blog(derogatory)

Discoholic 🪩
No title available

Andulka

Janaina Medeiros
cherry valley forever
Three Goblin Art
taylor price
Peter Solarz
Cosimo Galluzzi

roma★

seen from Indonesia
seen from Ukraine

seen from United States
seen from Türkiye

seen from Belgium

seen from Malaysia

seen from Türkiye
seen from Chile
seen from United States

seen from T1
seen from Pakistan

seen from Germany

seen from Australia

seen from United Kingdom

seen from Malaysia
seen from United Kingdom

seen from Türkiye
seen from United States
seen from Germany

seen from United Kingdom
@existentialismandmakeup
june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be good june will be
incredible stuff happening out there
—❗️🇬🇧/🇮🇷 NEW: BBC is manufacturing consent for genocide in Iran, faking quotes of alleged ‘Iranian citizens’ from Tehran saying they would be ‘OK’ with an atomic bomb being dropped on Iran
@Middle_East_Spectator
I've looked the article up and they decided they went a bit overboard and just changed the quote.
Link do the article now.
Link to the archived article with the original "quote."
After a top reporter at the BBC drew outrage for publishing a quote demanding Iran be nuked, she’s been revealed as a dedicated regime chang
Deadly Friend Directed by Wes Craven (1986)
Corksniffing losers have to sully an awesome new space photo just to erroneously claim film is inherently superior.
I think this version is the original color processed version, which is still not as saturated or contrasty.
That's still an amazing result just from darkroom processing, but the deep blue version in the tweet definitely needed some help from Photoshop. And, personally, I think they overdid it.
The new photo was actually taken in darkness. It is a moonlit photo taken at extremely high gain (ISO 52,000). They did a long exposure to make it appear as if it were as bright as day. But without significant editing, that is going to make the colors less saturated and reduce the contrast.
The same thing would happen with film.
This is another version they did with a more accurate-to-eyeballs exposure.
Film is great.
Digital is great.
Space is great.
I love film.
But it was not a great medium for space.
Most astronauts are fighter pilots. And there are only a few who are genuine photographers. You can train a fighter pilot to competently use a camera, but becoming a good photographer during the days of film usually took years of practice.
During the Apollo days they would send them up there with the best camera available. Usually a 70mm Hasselblad medium format. But the astronauts proved that the only way to get amazing photos without being a photographer was mostly down to luck.
We see the best photos they took, but those only amount to a handful. And as you saw above, NASA often had to do a lot of darkroom magic to make them aesthetically pleasing.
If you look at the Apollo archives, you can find hundreds of photos like this.
I'm fond of this one.
There was no instant feedback. They didn't have any instincts for settings or focus or composition. Most of the time they were just collecting visual data.
But every once in a while the stars aligned and they took absolute bangers.
That flag one is amazingly composed. But it took them a few tries.
Digital cameras give you a better baseline of quality. They can focus for you. They can meter for you. And they have high ISO gain that film could never touch.
They are... fighter pilot friendly.
With digital, they can look at the back screen and see if they bungled the exposure.
If they take a photo like this...
They get instant feedback and can be like, "Houston, where is exposure compensation?"
There is an undeniable ineffable quality that film sometimes delivers. But the medium is far less important than the skill of the person taking the photo.
Don Pettit is my favorite astronaut photographer. A true artist.
He really makes you forget about whether film is better than digital. He makes one remember that the person taking the photo is the paramount variable.
There is a great interview from Smarter Every Day where Don talks about how he captures amazing photos from space.
Hello, friends!
thinking about when i was a kid and a little stupid and i saw screenshots of then-upcoming The Sims 1 in a magazine and i thought "Cancer" on the create-a-sim screen meant you could give your characters illnesses and i was so hyped because wow how detailed is this thing? and then it turned out to be cancer as in the zodiac sign
thinking about when i found SimEarth in a bargain bin in 2000 and thought this screen with the bird picture on the back of the box meant you could fully adjust what every species looks like and then it turned out it's really just a static picture
thinking about when Spore was being announced and it seemed like it had an infinite level of detail from microorganisms to galaxies so with endless faith in my heart i somehow convinced myself it could eventually simulate anything and would be the last video game i'd ever need
i have since learned to temper my expectations of Maxis games.
choose abortion
Life kills!
"Sure, but how bad is it when *I myself* remove the original and people are still playing the copy? That must be even worse than theft and piracy, right?" -- The Gaming Industry
IT’S NOT PITCH BLACK AT 4 PM ANYMORE
IT’S NOT PITCH BLACK AT 5 PM ANYMORE
the internet seems like a distant dream
whatever we are on rn is not the internet. It's ads
Punch, the baby monkey from Japan
the will is weak the flesh also is weak and me i am not doing too good either