It feels like your primary subject, the rock tower, is too centrally located in the composition, which reduces the context too much. My first inclination is to suggest that the tower be further to the left in the image, perhaps allowing you to capture more of the trees in the foreground, which would make them feel more like a part of the image and give better foreground context. That might bring too much of the peak on the right into play, though, which could confuse things in its own way. Alternately, you could bias the tower to the right and get rid of said pine trees altogether, using more of the darker, plant covered ridge on the left as your primary context. Both options would be a little more dynamic and draw the eyes toward your subject in a more natural way. A final option would be to go for more of a portrait style for the tower, zooming in so that just clouds surround it, which would get rid of the context issues altogether and focus more on the textures and whispy clouds.
Probably not. I don't think farts have the right kind of moisture content, the way your exhalations do. We would have more jokes about that if it were a thing.
Clive Barker. The Books of Blood are short stories and lean harder into straight up horror than his novels, which blend a little into dark/urban fantasy stuff. Still great, but depends on if you like that. Obviously Hellraiser is an awesome book, but hard to go in blind to that one. Quick read, though.
You can also refill the disposable cartridges with a syringe. The not-sharp variety for like irrigation or whatever are the best. Just be careful. Good writing!
I took an into to CS class (basically just Turbo Pascal [yes I am old]) being taught for the first time by a math prof. The only things he could come up for us to program were complex, advanced math problems. We couldn't understand the problems, let alone figure out how to program a solution. So many people failed that class...
Once upon a time, I made a lifelong friend because for the longest time they were the only other person I knew who had seen the weird cut with the automated pulse rifles scene. No one else would believe us that it existed for years. I guess until the interwebs.
Frequency response is the really the most meaningful tech spec. The larger the range, the more sounds the phones can reproduce on the low and high end. However, that does become less meaningful when listening to heavily compressed and processed sources. Also, I would guess that all the options you are considering have the same frequency response, so might not really be a consideration.
Bluetooth version is the next consideration. You want the newest version available, or at least no older than the version your source device runs. The higher versions provide more bandwidth, so theoretically less compression during transmission. It seems common to use older chips in more budget friendly headphones in order to save cost. The average user probably doesn't care, but if you are concerned about sound quality, it can be a factor.
Honestly, your source material is probably more of a hindrance to quality than your equipment. Compression is the enemy. Unless you are going to get into lossless codecs and/or analog sources, you won't be pushing the limits of the headphones you are considering. This is not to say you shouldn't get a nice pair, more just a fair warning that you're not gonna get a major quality boost from just changing your headphones.
rich people?
Feathers.
It feels like your primary subject, the rock tower, is too centrally located in the composition, which reduces the context too much. My first inclination is to suggest that the tower be further to the left in the image, perhaps allowing you to capture more of the trees in the foreground, which would make them feel more like a part of the image and give better foreground context. That might bring too much of the peak on the right into play, though, which could confuse things in its own way. Alternately, you could bias the tower to the right and get rid of said pine trees altogether, using more of the darker, plant covered ridge on the left as your primary context. Both options would be a little more dynamic and draw the eyes toward your subject in a more natural way. A final option would be to go for more of a portrait style for the tower, zooming in so that just clouds surround it, which would get rid of the context issues altogether and focus more on the textures and whispy clouds.
Probably not. I don't think farts have the right kind of moisture content, the way your exhalations do. We would have more jokes about that if it were a thing.
This is how you get ghosts...
Maybe they are full of face huggers?
Clive Barker. The Books of Blood are short stories and lean harder into straight up horror than his novels, which blend a little into dark/urban fantasy stuff. Still great, but depends on if you like that. Obviously Hellraiser is an awesome book, but hard to go in blind to that one. Quick read, though.
You can also refill the disposable cartridges with a syringe. The not-sharp variety for like irrigation or whatever are the best. Just be careful. Good writing!
My Neighbor Totoro.
The hole enchilada, of course.
This is totally a rock.
I do have a mean running stitch. 🪡 Damn disinformation is difficult to pin, though.
Just invent the fucking floaty doctor chairs already, so we can all become fat floating dimwits with heads full of advertising.
Could you use dynamic DNS? Pretty sure there are some free options.
I took an into to CS class (basically just Turbo Pascal [yes I am old]) being taught for the first time by a math prof. The only things he could come up for us to program were complex, advanced math problems. We couldn't understand the problems, let alone figure out how to program a solution. So many people failed that class...
I tolerate continued existence out of a morbid sense of curiosity. You can too!
Once upon a time, I made a lifelong friend because for the longest time they were the only other person I knew who had seen the weird cut with the automated pulse rifles scene. No one else would believe us that it existed for years. I guess until the interwebs.
I stare into the void, as all things are destined for nothingness.
The North Shore of Lake Superior, in Minnesota. You need a car, though.
Frequency response is the really the most meaningful tech spec. The larger the range, the more sounds the phones can reproduce on the low and high end. However, that does become less meaningful when listening to heavily compressed and processed sources. Also, I would guess that all the options you are considering have the same frequency response, so might not really be a consideration.
Bluetooth version is the next consideration. You want the newest version available, or at least no older than the version your source device runs. The higher versions provide more bandwidth, so theoretically less compression during transmission. It seems common to use older chips in more budget friendly headphones in order to save cost. The average user probably doesn't care, but if you are concerned about sound quality, it can be a factor.
Honestly, your source material is probably more of a hindrance to quality than your equipment. Compression is the enemy. Unless you are going to get into lossless codecs and/or analog sources, you won't be pushing the limits of the headphones you are considering. This is not to say you shouldn't get a nice pair, more just a fair warning that you're not gonna get a major quality boost from just changing your headphones.