I had to read a Heinlein book for a literature class on sci-fi and it was HORRIBLE and the only thing that got me though it was thinking "it's time for more Deep Thoughts With Heinlein(tm)" what a strange man this author was...
my working theory is that the most foundational works of literature in a given genre are the ones that inspire the most concepts and tropes that are carried forward in the genre and this inspiring property is frequently because there is, to simplify, something deeply wrong with them
MFW I realize we gotta spend 7 weeks watching the CR main tag and the most common Campaign 4 discussion is going to be between the anti- and non-anti-Bolaire girlies.
Did... did almost everyone bar a few other peeps completely forget that Bolaire had a tiny scene at the Hallowed Round where he surrepticiously painted Himself and Figment with The Paint?
I was delighted when Brennan pulled up that callback, and it wasn't even that long ago since it was a Schemer's scene.
Guys I'm SO TIRED and I have So. MANY. Thougths. And emotions. And I'm not fixing that typo. About this episode.
But before I understandably crash out and by crash out I mean sleep like a winter bear shot with horse tranqs, I will leave you with this little thought that may get lost in the tidal flood of discussion:
Ethrand Tachonis being aggressively (and with hostility) jabbed by a finger on his pallid cheek by his dad Primus Tachonis.
Ethrand stay losing, we had your brother for like one scene and he was somehow better than you at everything.
I know everyone's going on about a lot of other big things that happened in Episode 30 (because so much happened that "oh by the way a mythical dragon rises up to greet you (not a metaphor) when dragons were thought to be so extinct that none exist in written history" is a freaking footnote) but I'm sitting here thinking about the Elves of Araman again.
Because we also got confirmation, beyond a doubt, that the reason the elves are now barren and the reason the elves had to pray to Sylandri in order to be granted the right to be pregnant, was because the Shapers bickered and quarreled and that the lack of childbirth was not the elves original construct: it was TAKEN from them.
Sylandri made the elves like any other race and wanted them to live forever as her beautiful little flower dolls, but the other Shapers complained that it wasn't fair. So they bickered and argued amongst each other and it was decided that the elves would merely not die from old age but could still die from injury and illness... but that still wasn't fair to the other Shapers, because if elves could hypothetically live forever and still have children, eventually the world would be overrun with Sylandri's stupid (perspective of the other Shapers) elves...
So the other Shapers also bargained with Sylandri to take away the elves ability to have children, as stated by Hannan. So she did. She took something inherent to the elves and made it a power exclusive to herself. She now had ultimate control over her own creations. And when she died, she took that power with her to the grave.
And as frustrated as I was with the team splits and Team Theater having way too many PCs (plus 346 armed guards) assigned to it, it was probably very important for the two elves to witness the miracle at the Hallowed Round.
They can't save those who have already passed. They can't preserve their numbers against war and conflict. After 70 years of mourning their situation, witnessing for themselves the liberation of the orc souls trapped in their hellish afterlife and possibily other orcish spirits who have been trapped in the Tenebral Reaches since their Shaper fell, it's probably the first bit of hope ANY elf has felt that one day, maybe they can be truly free of the impossibly heavy chains of a long-dead tyrant.
On the bright side, only one and a half people on Team Birdwatching died.
On the other side, that is still enough dead people for Tachonis to post-mortemly give them The Scar and forcibly siphon out all the knowledge they have, thus exposing every member of The Meeting, plus Varen and the 350 magpies, and Thimble alone isn't strong enough to carry two giant lion heads let alone two beefy full bodies.
On the other other, based on what Primus said... they have to give The Scar before killing their mark? Which would mean Thjazi may have had that wound prior to his death.
On the other other other I may have missed something about Thjazi's The Scar reveal that indicated when it was made on his body. Cuz while the dirt didn't seem to be exposed, Tachonis could have covered it up... but they're not good at coverups, clearly, especially quick ones, especially without a killer illusionist, so...
Bro that is the WORST POSSIBLE THING they could have said. ;A; Whenever they say "stay hydrated" it's always a character death or something equally horrifying.
I shan't survive the night fellas – one or more of my faves (likely on Team Fucked Birdwatching) is going to perma-die I just know it. ;_;
These outtakes where the flash didn't go off are also AI generated.
I like this spooky dutch angle one.
I was just starting to learn flash and I didn't have all the equipment I needed. Since corgis are quite short, I had to put the lighting on the ground. The off camera flash was on a tipped over lightstand with a shoot-through umbrella to diffuse the light.
But I had no wireless triggers. And the only other way to trigger a flash, is with another flash. So I used the on-camera pop up flash to trigger the main flash.
But I had two issues.
First, I did not want that dinky on camera flash affecting my picture.
Second, triggering a flash with a flash is best done indoors. The flash will bounce all around the room and eventually hit the sensor so the main flash triggers. When you are outdoors, there is no bouncing.
SO... I took a little handheld makeup mirror and angled it toward my main flash. This blocked the dinky pop up flash and sent the beam of light towards the main flash to trigger it.
I was lying on the wet morning grass, holding a camera in one hand, a mirror in the other, trying to aim the mirror exactly toward the main flash, making crazy noises to get Otis's attention, and trying to get the focus point on his face so I didn't get a blurry photo. Also, Otis was much more interested in sniffing things than posing for a photo.
Here is an overhead view that might help explain.
I await all of your comments saying my amazing drawring is clearly AI generated.
Only 30% of the time did the flash actually go off. Aiming the mirror was tricky and I was doing like 8 things at once. I wasn't even sure I got the photo I wanted. But when I came back to the computer there was one that stood out and it is one of my favorites I've ever taken.
It was the best combination of monumental effort, great discomfort, perfect foggy sunrise light, and just pure luck.
Unfortunately, people like me who use advanced sculpting light techniques are getting accused of using AI more and more. Not really sure what to do about it—other than show the 30 awful photos it took to get the good one.
My 80s sunglasses photo and spoon photo get called out the most.
But it's just good old fashioned gradient lighting which has been used in product photography since the days of film.
Most of my photos with artificial light added would be considered "unmotivated lighting." I think that is the term you were looking for.
The short explanation is that motivated lighting always has a logical source. Like the sun or a window or a lamp off to the side.
That doesn't mean there are no lighting shenanigans used.
The overhead office-style fluorescent lights depicted in this scene were actually powerful diffused light bars that were much closer to the actors. They replaced the ceiling in post with more traiditioinal looking lights. So the lighting was still very crafted—but it has a logic and realism that doesn't set off alarm bells in your brain saying, "Where is the light coming from?"
Unmotivated lighting is the opposite. It's crafted, artificial light that doesn't need to make sense. It just has to achieve the aesthetic goal of the artist.
All studio lighting is unmotivated. I just re-edited this old photo of my dad.
There is no room in the world where he could have sat down and had perfectly sculpted light hitting his face. I intentionally directed the light to accentuate his features and capture the best, most idealized version of what he looked like.
Coincidentally I just wrote a post about motivated lighting in films.
💬 20 🔁 208 ❤️ 349 · First, thank you to everyone who is nerding out with me about motivated lighting. I love that I can have these convers
Weirdly, I expressed a preference for motivated lighting in movies with a realism-based aesthetic and a lot of people disagreed. They said that the lighting comes from the same place as the music and that you just have to suspend your disbelief.
(Personally I think that is a bad analogy because music is *very* motivated by the emotional vibe. I would say unmotivated lighting in movies comes from the same place as women's apocalypse makeup.)
But I *love* unmotivated lighting in still photography. I love crafting an image and creating it in a fantasy realm where perfect, beautiful, sculpting light can come from anywhere. I want the most idyllic lighting possible.
It's the only way I could make fingernail clippers look beautiful.
And now people are saying unmotivated lighting looks like AI or CGI and isn't authentic. Even though this aesthetic was created before computers were invented and the tools of post-capture manipulation were done in a darkroom.
I'm fairly certain this is because AI does not have a great understanding of motivated lighting. It never thinks about where the light is coming from so it almost always creates images where the lighting comes from a fantasy realm. And now people are heavily associating unmotivated lighting with AI, even if it is a subconscious observation.
I think at this point in time, people are yearning for authenticity. We know so much of our imagery is heavily manipulated for nefarious purposes. Beauty advertising with retouched skin like porcelain dolls and liquified torsos that don't leave space for vital organs. Every fast food ad shows the perfect juicy hamburger because they paid a food stylist $500/hour to perfectly cook and arrange things.
But fast food workers are not food stylists and your burger isn't going to have perfect lettuce and a non-smooshed bun.
(Before you reply with urban legends about food styling, they don't use fake materials. They are required to use the actual ingredients. Those myths came from movie prop masters who needed to maintain the look of food during hours of shooting.)
I think AI just turned our uncomfortable relationship with unrealistic imagery up to 11.
It's a little depressing for me because I love to use light as my artistic medium. I say I am a photographer, but my passion is more focused on lighting.
And I often incorporate my other passion, which is image manipulation. I sometimes add another layer of unreality to my images by artistically editing them.
This is days of work.
I worked very hard for the in-camera image. Dragging a heavy chair and lighting equipment into a field on a hot summer day was not easy for me.
But I also worked very hard on the edit. The RAW file is overexposed, but once I corrected that, the lighting on him and the grass is actually what I captured. I hid a flash in the lampshade and lit him with my big 7 foot umbrella off to the right.
I could have shot this at night, but my area has so much light pollution, I would never have achieved the sky I wanted in my head. So I took the photo knowing I'd replace the sky later.
I like crafting images. I like picturing something in my head and then trying to manifest it in a photo.
I get why people are starting to prefer more natural looking images. I understand why they are currently preferring everything to be captured as it was in the moment. I know why they disparage the amazing work of CG artists and demand that every movie use only practical effects.
When everything is fake, a small dose of reality feels special.
But I see my photography more like a drawing or a painting. Light is my paintbrush and I am just trying to manifest my imagination into an image. I don't claim I don't use artificial light. I never say anything is "straight out of camera." I am very open about my use of Photoshop. If I were able to leave my house and go to more beautiful places, perhaps I would take a more motivated approach.
I mean, I love when the world is just beautiful all on its own and all I have to do is competently pick settings on my camera.
But I enjoy my artistic process and while some of my images may not be realistic, I think my artistry is always authentic.
I don't need every person to like every one of my photos. But when I work hard on a photo and there is clear talent and skill involved, I'm hoping people will still acknowledge that. I hope they will respect the effort and artistry involved.
I didn't enjoy the show Breaking Bad. I disliked all of the characters and the story just depressed me more and more as I watched it. But I still think it is an amazing show created by talented artists. I can acknowledge the monumental artistic achievement even if it wasn't my cup of tea.
That "the lightning comes from the same place as the music" idea started out as a frustration response to the recent trend in TV & movies to just... not have lights in night scenes, leading to the viewer not being able to tell wtf is even happening on screen (as opposed to older works which use blues, dark backgrounds, strategic shadows, etc to achieve the effect of 'nighttime' while still maintaining visual clarity on the important parts of a scene). Specifically, iirc, it was originally from a discussion of the Battle of Helm's Deep in the second Lord of the Rings movie - a night scene which is well lit (for both meanings of the term) from nondiagetic sources - directly visually contrasting it to the big night battle in the last season of Game of Thrones which was apparently lit "realistically" (ie only by real fires & torches in the scene) and which many, many people who watched it couldn't parse at all because it was so incomprehensibly dark.
Clearly, the idea has been taken from its original context & turned into a universal axiom, which is imo a mistake. I'm presuming a lot of people were equating motivated lighting with this style of "realistic" lighting that they find so (understandably) annoying, despite the two not being the same thing, & pulling out the stock phrase they've learned is the response to "realistic" lighting in movies.
The only thing that could be better than this episode is if in the Crescendo, Primus Tachonis attempts to mess with Hal's play in some big style gambit trying to be like Yanessa Jesus Halovar (whom I hate (affectionate) and want to dearly punch in her old people face) in making big theatrics but not only does it fail but he gets his ass kicked when all the murals painted with secret psychopomp blood come to life and start beating him up.
I want that man huddled on the ground being kicked by a bunch of 2D orcs.
I feel like that episode would have been normal length if the Schemers trusted that the magical blood paint was currently on their side because it seems Thjazi and only Thjazi was holding all the strings of the paint, especially as they keep accruing evidence in this aspect.
Similar to how Azune said to trust they wouldn't be in trouble regarding Lady Cormoray because no one saw anything so nothing can be tied back to them, so they calmed down and dropped the topic and everything actually was fine.
It was reasonable to check to see if at any point the paint got tampered with, but once they found out it hadn't, that should have been the end of it.
origamiaround
ellievsbear
yousharknotpass
amandla
vaporwave
gummygunk
kianamaiart
blakekathryn
pixelskylines
