I think social media has done what it does best, skewing people perspective. Look up almost any tattoo artist on social media and you'll see a portfolio of beautiful work. Artists never post their bad tattoos (Ariel DeJesus excluded). It makes it seem like everyone is giving and getting amazing tattoos. Then when someone gets a tattoo and it's just average, they are disappointed.
"He is the first North American to be elected pope and, before the conclave, was the U.S. cardinal most mentioned as a potential successor of St. Peter."
I can eat unlimited eggs and never feel full (hyperbole, but getting my point). 150g of fat plus a salad with lettuce, tomato and cottage cheese makes me full, which is something hard to achieve for me
That's complete nonsense if you are TRULY hungry. If a salad fills you up, you have psychological hunger, not a real energy need.
I have been in a situation where I accepted very light super (even though I run every day), in particular salads and invariably I have been awoken at night hungry as hell.
Real hunger is satisfied with calories (and your ability to process them) not the volume they have.
I live in Germany. One reason the toters can be smaller is because there places to dispose of your recyclable goods (free) on almost every corner. The toters are just for compost and regular trash.
It was taken on a wet plate camera (capturing images on sensitised glass pates), which has remarkable resolution, typically far beyond most smaller cameras even today.
The photo was artificially lit, most likely with flash powder or magnesium ribbon. Those create incredible amounts of light - obnoxiously so, which is why they were replaced by safer flash bulbs and later on electronic flash in subsequent decades.
The light would have been more than enough to illuminate the people standing and posing for the photograph in that enclosed room.
I wonder how different things would have been if we were not able to capture the past 100-150 years so well on monochrome film. What a remarkable time to be alive, and to have been able to look back on the past using a mostly-reliable and truthful medium - now long since lost with the advent of digital imaging.
Flash photography was a thing then, this photograph looks like a Flash is illuminating it.
> through the 1920s, flash photography normally meant a professional photographer sprinkling powder into the trough of a T-shaped flash lamp, holding it aloft, then triggering a brief and (usually) harmless bit of pyrotechnics.
Yes, it looks like a flash was used. A pyrotechnic "big chemical flash" was the standard kind in 1921, so that too.
I am not sure if it was "bounced against a wall to soften" or not, I don't think that our experience about what an electric flash looks like with and without bounce will apply, the pyrotechnic flash won't look exactly the same. The pyrotechnic won't be such a point light source for a start. So I wouldn't leap to the conclusion that there has to be a deliberate bounce.
reply