Save 60% On inPixio Eclipse HDR Pro
Comments

A little more "alive," than the previous shot; with a perfect shift from the more "brittle" surfaces in the image being subtly subsumed by the increasingly delicate nature of the hydrangeas. This acts to enhance their "anomalistic" contrast from their surroundings, without having to actually tamper with the visual contrast itself. Human beings accept that they simply manage to apprehend the nature of such textural differences -- that they encounter every moment of the day -- such common experiences as encountering the nature of such all common visual objects -- that present as possessing the qualities of such things that we "perceive," visually -- (and take entirely for granted, of course), as inherently possessing the qualities that we confer upon them through an admixture of our senses (we just become so very well adapted to the process -- during the earliest stages of our lives --
that we quickly reach a point where we no longer notice that it even exists; why should we? We come to "believe" that we recognize such qualities as softness, liquid, solid, rough, viscose, etc. through their "recognition" via visual processes. We don't. That's a highly adapted (and very important "illusion); that is a vital evolutionary element of the integration of the neural complex that consists of the integration of tactile and visual processes. They don't conspire to "delude" us, of course; they just engage to "teach" us what we need to know. So that we can manage to "stay" here. As human beings, we come to learn these things through the tactile interactions with all of the objects that we counter, in this world. Until the two senses come to a point where they so closely embrace each other, that we are no longer able to consciously separate them (entirely) out
from each other. Pay very close attention, and when you "touch" a surface, it never quite feels like it "looks."
Sorry if that was a bit much, Krystal. But whenever I feel that something at least deserves a detailed explanation (like the difference between the two images, as I see it, at least),
then I feel an obligation to provide the explanation (to the extent that I feel that I understand it, that is); and to do it as well as I am able to. (Besides, it's fogged in over at Steamer Lane, today, so I have a lot of time on my hands.)
Dylan
that we quickly reach a point where we no longer notice that it even exists; why should we? We come to "believe" that we recognize such qualities as softness, liquid, solid, rough, viscose, etc. through their "recognition" via visual processes. We don't. That's a highly adapted (and very important "illusion); that is a vital evolutionary element of the integration of the neural complex that consists of the integration of tactile and visual processes. They don't conspire to "delude" us, of course; they just engage to "teach" us what we need to know. So that we can manage to "stay" here. As human beings, we come to learn these things through the tactile interactions with all of the objects that we counter, in this world. Until the two senses come to a point where they so closely embrace each other, that we are no longer able to consciously separate them (entirely) out
from each other. Pay very close attention, and when you "touch" a surface, it never quite feels like it "looks."
Sorry if that was a bit much, Krystal. But whenever I feel that something at least deserves a detailed explanation (like the difference between the two images, as I see it, at least),
then I feel an obligation to provide the explanation (to the extent that I feel that I understand it, that is); and to do it as well as I am able to. (Besides, it's fogged in over at Steamer Lane, today, so I have a lot of time on my hands.)
Dylan