There is a web site for her Self Evident Truths project, with thousands of these beautiful portraits. Worth a look if portrait photography is your thing.

nice avatar meatbag! is this a self portrait?

Portrait view FTW!

This is the perfect format for filming anything that is taller than it is longer. Youtube and most of the world is simply not ahead of the game. Cropping this would not do much, unless you mean crop it so that it cuts off the top of the video.

FYI Quicktime auto-detects changes in format filmed on Apple products, so if you switch from portrait to landscape, it will flip it to the proper format. Pretty awesome, unless you're rooted to old convention.

Comment hidden because you are ignoring dag. (show it anyway)

It's a fair criticism. FTR, we have three different mobile optimised versions of the site. There is a tablet sized one, suitable for viewing on a portrait iPad that is almost indistinguishable from the full site. Then there are two smaller version that are made for landscape and portrait versions of phones. I think those are the ones you are talking about.

I agree that there is a hell of a lot of vertical scrolling involved to get to the bottom of the page for the phone versions - we supposed that's the price to pay to wanting to display all of the site content (not a restricted subset) on a phone. Maybe we could have been smarter about progressively displaying information - but as you can probably guess, we didn't put quite as much focus on those two phone versions as we did the primary UI. Although mobile traffic proportion is growing, we're seeing it more on tablets than phone sized devices. Less than 4% of our traffic comes in at a screen resolution small enough to trigger the super-compact UI version. You could make the argument that if the UI was better that number would be higher - maybe.

I also agree that we should have the option to allow the non-mobile optimised version to be displayed like before. Give us some time on that one.

First feminist brave enough to comment here....

It's more a case of Statistics.... There are lies, damn lies and statistics.

Talk about cherry picking the facts to create a portrait of victimhood.

That is the funniest thing about this -- the stink of victimhood from the ruling class. Sounds like neo-Nazis, going on about how they are oppressed by people of color.

Funny how the existence of baby Xs and baby Ys are left out of all these "statistics." Homelessness for women is less than homelessness for men? I suspect it is more that homelessness for custodial parents is less than homelessness for individuals. This whole video is rife with such cherry picking.

Are there inequities in our culture? Sure. There are things to fix. Let's get to work on it, shall we?

The feminists that I admire most? They aren't just feminists. They are humanists.

If they aren't also humanists, then they are no different than "male chauvinist pigs", if I might resurrect a term from the 70s.

And humanists are heartsick at how boys are falling behind in school, for example. Our education system is broken for so many children.

Listening to this made me feel ill. Such distortion. Such victimhood. Such a budding Mein Kampf to justify further, continuing inequities against women with zero self-reflection.

I hope that anyone who listens to this and thinks that something profound has been revealed about the oppression of men by women and by society in general will take just a moment and think about the situation more deeply than this cartoon.

It's not just DOF. He appears to be using some kind of wide angle lens that is distorting the long straight lines in the field of view. Particularly the long vertical lines of the architecture are all somewhat concave to the centre of the scene while the "portrait on the wall" is distorted differently, probably from the top being closer to the lens than the bottom. So good concept but photography sucks.

I loved all the portraits of these amazing kids who are embracing exactly who they are. The world is changing.

tl?

This guy does some very impressive portraits. He did some skewed perspective ones a while back that were pretty mindblowing.

>> ^artician:

I find that culture like this disgusts me, and the perspectives held by those within are vapid and illegitimate.


Well then sir, I find you fit for active duty and responsible for any corrections of non-beneficial rifts created in the time continuum that are within your capacity to correct.

You are hereby ordered to refrain from copulation which may lead to procreation!

>> ^Nexxus:

That's the way I react when people hold their cellphone cameras vertical instead of horizontal. Don't do it people!!


People complain about this constantly, but I think it's more a problem with youtube and other video sites than with the cell phones.

Holding a phone in portrait mode, you're capturing just as many pixels. For some scenes you might be capturing a more relevant set of pixels, as well.

It's just that the videos are needlessly squished because the Youtube player won't resize accordingly.

Thanks!
In reply to this comment by deedub81:
*quality

I friggin' love this kinda stuff: http://videosift.com/video/Five-Contemporary-Portraits-of-Modern-Teenage-Girls

>> ^chingalera:

>> ^xxovercastxx:
I voted for Jackson but she technically doesn't qualify since she was never First Lady.

Wha?? Rachel Jackson (Donelson) Marie to Andrew until her death..second husband-I should take her off the list cause history say she was a real looker before some hack did the portrait in the link above...


She died 3 months before he took office.

>> ^xxovercastxx:

I voted for Jackson but she technically doesn't qualify since she was never First Lady.


Wha?? Rachel Jackson (Donelson) Marie to Andrew until her death..second husband-I should take her off the list cause history say she was a real looker before some hack did the portrait in the link above...

I'd already watched it but forgotten. I'm so suggestible. At least I'm learning.>> ^ReverendTed:

>> ^messenger:
My best guess: water would shoot out the top and bottom, and soon after, the sides of the bottle would be sucked in from the momentum of the water leaving and nothing replacing it.>> ^grahamslam:
So what would happen if he exploded it without the cap on it?

Exactly like we see in their "self portrait" burst. The top flies off and the sides of the bottle collapse inward.