My sister sends some pretty interesting forwards. How is this a good example of relative size?
The caption in the forward said Dog for Sale - Can't afford to feed him...
My sister sends some pretty interesting forwards. How is this a good example of relative size?
The caption in the forward said Dog for Sale - Can't afford to feed him...
Well, according to my sensation textbook, the cue of relative size is when there are two object of equal size, the one farther away will take up less of your field of view than the one that is closer. With this image, it seems the dog is large because you have the girl next to it to compare the two objects. However, how would you know how large the girl is? Would you assume she is of average height (5 feet-6 feet), or could she be really short (under 5 feet)? If there was another dog next to what seems to be a large mastiff, maybe it would seem to be of normal size. Here is a photo of what I am talking about.
http://chocolatedogblog.files.wordpress.com/2007/04/bigdoglittledog.gif
hahaha, jeez is that the best from sandlot? I would replace the girl with squints though if possible. upon further inspection we can clearly see the girl is a little ways behind the dog. this is just a trick our retina plays on us as we use relative size as a depth cue.
i guess one never really stops to think about how the brain perceives these discrepancies and then sorts them out in mostly logical ways. paintings and artists take advantage of this depth cue and create images that look "3-D" on paper, it's amazing really.
I would have to disagree with you that this picture is playing a trick to our eyes. You can clearly see that they are sitting on the same step. Yes she may be sitting a couple inches farther back on the step, but that is not a significant difference to have the dog look so large. Unless the image was photo-shopped.