File :-(, x, )
Anonymous
Soup /p/, how do you suppose this photo was taken? I have a set of 17 taken in a similar fashion, but get lukewarm responses to people I show them to.

I think it looks cool...
EXIF data available. Clickhereto show/hide.
Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakeSONYCamera ModelDSC-T5Maximum Lens Aperturef/3.5Image-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2006:01:10 00:54:23Exposure Time1/50 secF-Numberf/3.5Exposure ProgramCreativeISO Speed Rating64Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModePatternLight SourceFlashFlashNo Flash, CompulsoryFocal Length6.33 mmColor Space InformationsRGBImage Width2048Image Height1536RenderingNormalExposure ModeAutoWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationHighSharpnessHard
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
resize it before i tell you how shit it looks.
>> Anonymous
OP here, ignore the grammarfuck in my post. Also, can anyone suggest a step up in quality from my faggoty Sony Cybershot for under $500AU
>> Anonymous
>>114429
Resize it to what you abrasive fuckwad?
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114431
something under 1mb and less than 1000x on the largest size generally or ofc fuck off and die because its a shit picture of a bo- no wait, no subject whatsoever taken by someone who thinks blurry shit is cool.
>> Anonymous
>>114433
cbf
Art need not have a subject to have aesthetic value. The patterns were formed from something a laser aimed directly into the lens. I've yet to see anything similar by another means and would love to find out what causes them.

Now if you'll excuse me, I'll let you get back to tugging over your own pictures and go find something productive to do away from your tripfaggotry.
>> Anonymous
Shitty photo. Shitty OP. Shitty thread.

Sage.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114437
art is shit and if you have to explain it, its not art.

also you answered your own question, no im not going anywhere because i have already achived more today than you will ever achive in your life time.
>> Anonymous
>>114440
butterfly is right, unfortunately. If you need to explain it, art (or a joke for that matter) isn't any good.

More helpfully, it looks to me like you're just seeing the laser diode in the bright spot, and the rest of it is just bleed off of the laser, or reflection off of what looks like a fingerprint. Maybe also, it's a flare-intense picture of the sun with some of the color channels suppressed.
>> Anonymous
>>114442

butterfly is always right
>> Sicko !L3HRY/miC.
     File :-(, x)
>>114437

I'd be impressed if it wasn't on Metacafe and then Digg.

http://www.metacafe.com/watch/856328/cigarette_lighter_laser_show/

Camera-Specific Properties:Equipment MakePENTAX CorporationCamera ModelPENTAX K100DCamera SoftwareGIMP 2.4.0Sensing MethodOne-Chip Color AreaColor Filter Array Pattern564Focal Length (35mm Equiv)0 mmImage-Specific Properties:Image OrientationTop, Left-HandHorizontal Resolution72 dpiVertical Resolution72 dpiImage Created2008:01:02 22:39:31Exposure Time8 secF-Numberf/0.0Exposure ProgramManualISO Speed Rating800Exposure Bias0 EVMetering ModeCenter Weighted AverageFlashNo FlashFocal Length0.00 mmRenderingNormalExposure ModeManualWhite BalanceManualScene Capture TypeStandardContrastNormalSaturationNormalSharpnessNormalSubject Distance RangeDistant View
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114443
>>114442
<3
I am right sometimes, generaly when not talking about gear :P
>> ac !!VPzQAxYPAMA
>>114437
Butterfly's an abrasive bitch, but she ain't wrong.
>I have a set of 17 taken in a similar fashion, but get lukewarm responses to people I show them to.
If this sort of photo makes you happy, feel free to keep on taking 'em. But don't bother showing them to us (especially at the full three megapixels. FUCKING RESIZE) because we're of a similar opinion to the other people you've apparently shown them to:

It's just ugly. Looks like it was taken by mistake. You can call it art and that's fine, and art is in the eye of the beholder, but you're probably the only person who's going to think this is good art and you're thoroughly biased.
>> MQ
>>114440
In fact, you're not right. I agree that this is a shitty picture, but it is not necessarily shitty art just because you'd have to explain it for it to have meaning. If you think so, then you haven't grasped the concept of modern art, and should get yourself some education before speaking about it.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114459
yes but i think modern art is all shit too. A bunch of paint thrown at some canvas is not impressive and I dont care how many thousands of words you write on how it relates to the concept of god and humanity and how the devil within us is going to shit down our necks.
I know im bias and I expect a lot of people to disagree with me, they are perfectly allowed too, but these are my views and if you want your own you must accept that i have them too.
>> Anonymous
>>114427

oh wait, so you're not a troll?
>> Anonymous
>>114461
For the first ever I agree with Butterfly.

Modern art is all complete shit, and I hope those that do it all die.
>> Butterfly !xlgRMYva6s
>>114490
thats like 4 times in one thread, the world is going to end.
>> Anonymous
First of all, the photo is shit and you need to GTFO. Second, you are looking at interference patterns. Laser light is collimated, so it's wave properties are quite visible. Most likely what caused them is the coating on the lens elements, or perhaps the elements themselves. When the laser light enters the lens most of it goes right through the element, but some is reflected back outwards. When that reflected light hits the outer surface of the lens coating on the way out, again most of it goes through and a little is reflected. That light that is reflected again is now traveling in the same direction of the original beam, but is out of phase with it. In places where the two beams are exactly half a phase out of sync, you will see a dark band. Since this effect happens with every surface the light passes through, you will get numerous interference patterns building on top of each other. All the other non-striped light is just flare and bloom from the laser.
>> Chib
>>114498
I'm still in love with you.
Your saucy attitude only makes me realize this more and more.

Also sage for my love rant.
>> hurrrr OP
but wait, i'm not done explaining why you should think my art is good.
>> Anonymous
>>114459
Bullshit as well. Modern art should be pleasing without explanation to. And yes, I've taken education on that. And modern art does not mean "LOL i can point my mouse laser light at my lens wtfff2omg"
>> Anonymous
Also, we get trolled too easily.
>> Anonymous
>>114602
I say you're as full of shit as OP, and that's a lot. Modern art may not suit everyone, but mostly it is because we expect too much, or too little, from it, since we expect it to be anything like traditional art. Actually, I do like traditional art better, but it's more a matter of taste than anything else.