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.

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.

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.

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?

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.

LIKE EVERYTHING IS THE SAME AS A KIDS PLAYGROUND

BUT BIGGER

the St. Louis City Museum:

Playground for adults and children.