What's wrong with sodomizing your neighbor's wife, so long as she consents? Are you worried about her dog? I doubt he'll be too jealous.
Lose != loose
Grammar-nazi! Wait... oops!
Racial profiling is morally wrong, ineffective and easy for a criminal to defeat. It's simply not justifiable.
I wonder why he was trying to avoid being caught...
You must be new here
Wish I had some mod points. Parent is exactly right.
So fucking what? They're different issues.
Blurring from saccades is uniform in angular degrees. Blurring from lens effects isn't. The difference is measurable. In a picture it'd translate to less blurring near the center of the painting as opposed to the closest to the painter.
No, they're referring to the way we perceive exponential differences in light linearly. An example of this is the way digital cameras adjust for this behavior when concerting from raw.
You may be right. But one objection to the camera obscura theory was that such a technique had never been demonstrated. Now it has. It's far from proof, but it sure is interesting.
No. People have pointed out details that are practically impossible for a master to acheive, let alone a 20 something with no training.
Actually, getting tone right requires an awful lot... people need theory and practice. The fact is, we perceive color relative to surrounding color. The light in the local area will affect the actual color value, but affect our perception of that color much less. Getting actual tone rather than a good relative tone is probably impossible for the unaided artist.
What you're saying is true. What the article is referring to is actually the nature of perception. When we see light, we perceive differences in brightness linearly when the actual energy difference is exponential. This is something that cameras take into account when converting from raw. With paintings and photographs you're taking a huge range of brightnesses and compressing it into a very small range that depends on the lighting at the time of viewing. I don't doubt that an optical aid would give you a much more accurate brightness curve.
The unaided eye does actually have limitations. No amount of skill or intelligence can overcome that. Also, one objection had been that no such method had ever been demonstrated. Now it has. It's not proof, but it does diminish the opposing arguments.