>>4313775Hey did you know that some nerd begged me to post a photo that I took that had 3d pop for discussion about 3d pop, dimensionality, depth, etc.
When the nophotos come in and start ragging on me it tells me one thing. They are angry I took a great photo.
You notice how this is the first time I even qualified my image aside from having 3d pop? Maybe 3d pop does not exist, or it cant even have an objective definition, but the way my photo is lit, composed, sharpness, and MF film resolution give it greater depth, dimensionality, perspective than photos without those elements. Compared to your example my dog is popping off the screen!
Here is an example of another image I took. I would say that this does not have the same depth, 3d pop, whatever as the other. Maybe the guy has some, but not nearly the same as my other examples.
Your post screams inflated ego, btw. It's kind of funny to witness all this outrage and blatant thread derailment from a single nice photo I took.
