>>5842997No, they're shit. OP's is a blurry-ass foreground of the side of a fucking tree. You call an off-center picture of bark "god-tier"?
Or
>>5842477. Might have been a marginally interesting (read: boring) picture of a dilapidated pattern were it not for only a fifth of the image not being blurred and illegible for some fucking reason. That goes for a whole lot of them, actually. Awful blur for it's own sake is about as shit-tier as you get.