tomorrow never knows.

re-ne-gade:

dmabisacrazyguy:

chicksdigthephoenix:

commodoreskippy:

aetropos:

imperialchill:

theknighttoyourtime:

super-scout:

aetropos:

starexorcist:

tehmostaewsumblogevar:

starexorcist:

ecrusher:

10knotes:

M&Ms Droplets

now that’s what photography should be about… not a black and white picture of someone’s shoes

The top picture is full of M&M’s. They’re bule, red, orange, green, yellow, and brown.

But in the bottom picture we clearly see there’s white, pink, and even purple candies in the bowl.

The bottom picture is of gumballs! This concludes that the bottom picture is not taken with that camera at all. I’d even go as far to say that it was edited in photoshop with a filter!

Yes the above image and the below image are not the same photograph being taken. This is rather obvious.

BUT Mr. Wright there is one thing you overlooked. Examine the droplets on the bottom image. None of them are from the same angle. This is a natural occurance when looking through water droplets.

Is it not possible that the photographer took the second image first?

Would it not be more probable that when asked HOW it was taken he/she took the above image of their setup Using M&Ms, something much more common in a household rather than many gumballs, something they may have just bought for the original photo? 

So to claim it was not taken with the same camera is indeed a long shot Mr. Wright.

Thank you for your time.

Really Edgeworth, is that you’re argument.

Aren’t you overlooking the fact that there are no pink M&Ms. This proves undeniably that these are not, in fact M&Ms, but some other kind of candy.

And one other thing, I find it highly improbable that not one piece of candy is facing so the M logo is on the candy.

So in conclusion, there is no way these are possibly M&Ms.

hey mister I think you’re confuuuuuuused. Edgeworth agreed that they weren’t M&M’s. He was just refuting that there is a possibility there wasnt any photoshop used and that the above image was only depicting the method used in the bottom image.

I think someone might be getting a little senile hehehe

Everyone seems to be walking around the accusations by examining whether they are or aren’t M&Ms. That is not what’s important. What we should be looking at is instead, the so-called droplets, compared to the background image.

The angles within the droplets do not realistically coincide with one another! As well, I don’t spend much time staring at drops of water, but I can surely say I’ve never seen such clarity in any water droplet. Also, as in the former picture, there is an obvious fogging on the glass, surely caused by whichever process was used to spray the water. Where is the fog? 

On top of all that, the drops are amazingly tiny compared to the anonymous-candy. One could argue the sheet is further away than in the ‘example’ pic, but the blurring of the candies definitely objects to that. We could also try to assume that the spray method used in the ‘original’ photo caused much tinier water spots, but are we to believe that the photographer was so careless that they couldn’t recreate the correct droplet size in the ‘example’? Surely, they should have been able to cause at least a closer resemblance.

Sure seems like they went out of their way to showcase the methodology of how the photograph was taken, yet neglected to go far enough to ensure it could be a like-comparison?

Rather unlikely!

Actually, Mr. Godot!! 

Well, according to the properties of light and the way it’s refracted…

If you mirror it the right way, they line up just fine!

Hold on there, pups. You’re all going in completely different directions. Shih-na, if you will?

Lang Zi says: “The truth lies not at the exit, but rather, shines outside the maze itself.”

You need to see past the boundaries given to you in order to figure out the actual purpose and, as much as I’d hate to admit, both Mr. Prosecutor and the crow-girl have some pretty tame ground under their feet with those assumptions.

As said before, it’s logical to assume the photographer is merely depicting the method used in order to get the results shown in the second photo—and it can be just that.

But what if it’s something else entirely?

We’re all wolves who’ve been swindled by the coyote that has stolen our kill. How do we know if the photographer just isn’t using some clever ploy to get us all confused? He could have taken these pictures separately and simply put them together with getting us riled up in mind.

I think we all need to reconsider our options, here.

Forgotten your spatial geometry, have you, Herr Wright?

Look at the top picture for a moment. A quick comparison between the size of the candy and the objects surrounding it should make it obvious that the candies are not normal sized M&M’s, ja? They are flattened, and have less volume.

Now look at the bottom picture. The candies shown appear to be perfectly spherical, with more air space between each piece. You can even see shadows cast by some candies onto others, which can’t be observed in the first picture. You may call these gumballs or whatever you like, but the important thing to notice…

… is that none of the candies depicted are normal M&M’s.
Nein, the first clearly appear to be M&M’s minis! 

So ask yourselves… why are no normal M&M’s appearing in these tumblr-famous pictures? I’d say the answer is all too obvious, ja?

THIS IS A HIPSTER PHOTO.

AND NORMAL M&M’S ARE TOO MAINSTREAM.

You shouldn’t jump the “fraud” gun just yet, Wright. If your source is really the corresponding photo to the first, then the “gumball” picture in question might not be at fault. To put it bluntly, it might just be a copycat. 

To put it another way, this could just be a case of a mistaken and mismatched photoset..

With all the evidence provided, I think it’s safe to assume this case could be solved: The candies in the second photograph are not M&Ms, but the photo itself was not exactly tampered with. It was just a completely separate photo of separate candies, possibly just misplaced in this set by the original poster, who was completely unaware of the mismatch!

I wouldn’t call the case closed just yet! Wright may have made yet another overconfident assumption, but the debate of fraud is far from over!

Any foolish fool could tell the difference between the original sources if they stopped to think for even just a few seconds. I can only blame the substandard education of this country.

Even so, the question is not if the pair of images is a successful fraud…

…But if fraud was the intent in the first place.

Copyright law is a tricky business beyond the grasp of the sputtering fools who live here. It is too easy for one lackwit to emulate another’s work as an attempt to grasp at the fame and reputation they earnestly worked for. It is a lamentable result of the half-evolved minds of this country.

Let’s consider the facts, shall we?

We have three photographs. The incongruous original pair, and a third supposedly from the original source. Take a moment to stop drooling and analyze the Second and Third image.

Do you see the difference? The technique is very similar, but the overall aesthetic, the design, and the finesse of the Third image is FAR inferior to the Second! Simpleminded peons might not notice such elegant details, but to a refined and sharpened mind such as mine it is clear as day.

The work is clearly that of a copycat…

…and I posit that was the intent all along.

Presenting the first two images as a pair suggests to the viewer that they belong together as a set. Not only has the original poster done so, but has also provided a false “source” image to prove validity. It is the foolery of a foolish lawbreaking fool.

AND LAWBREAKERS RECEIVE NO MERCY!

It was clearly the intent from the beginning for the inferior to claim the credit and reputation for the result of a far superior artwork! Photo manipulations aside, deception is at play here!

And, now ladies and gentlemen…

Your case is closed.

Aah… these M&M’s droplets

So colourful… reminds me of the days of my youth!

the red ones remind me of my hemorrhoids… *cough*

What in God’s name does any of this have to do with the murder in question!?

AND NORMAL M&M’S ARE TOO MAINSTREAM.