o: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
>
> From: Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
> >> And the stamp image is squeezed horizontally. Try downloading both the
> >> > photo & the stamp image and layering the stamp ov
From: Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]
And the stamp image is squeezed horizontally. Try downloading both the
> photo & the stamp image and layering the stamp over the photo at 50%
> opacity. Scale the stamp image until the two faces are the same "size".
>
Didn't you follow ~any~ of the links I
ce and examples that are pointed to. Form an opinion
about that, but don't insult me by making up opinion out of the ether and
expecting me to swallow it.
Regards, Anthony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> John Sessoms
> S
From: Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the
> right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original
> literally and exactly or not.
>
I can't agree more, that it's the artist's privilege. It's his medium after
all.
You mean those signals where they do their best to make their fingers
look like sausages in the making?
2008/10/19 William Robb <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> - Original Message - From: "Anthony Farr"
> Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize hist
John S.,
Seems to me we are in violent agreement with each other. :-)
best,
Jostein
2008/10/19 John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> From: AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
>>
>> 2008/10/18 John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
>>> So what is the basis for claiming the government "sanitized" history? And
- Original Message -
From: "Anthony Farr"
Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
My lingering doubt arises because, if the "Bette Davis Speaks" version of
the picture is the true depiction with no smoke, then why on earth would
the
and I have time to
discuss it.
"We the Sheeple" get lied to all the time, all around the world ;-)
Regards, Anthony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Mark Roberts
> Sent: Saturday, 18 October 2008 10:09 PM
&g
ment, in order to paint your opponents as paranoid.
Regards, Anthony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> John Sessoms
> Sent: Sunday, 19 October 2008 9:48 AM
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph
r looks dodgy to
anybody with the experience to recognize the dodginess.
Regards, Anthony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> John Sessoms
> Sent: Saturday, 18 October 2008 9:56 AM
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject: RE:
From: AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2008/10/18 John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
So what is the basis for claiming the government "sanitized" history? And
> who is being revisionist?
That's the second time you ask who's revisionist. What are you
actually trying to imply by that?
The governme
From: Mark Roberts <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Sessoms wrote:
> Occam's Razor sez the painter "moved" the hand so it'd fit on the stamp.
Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the
right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original
literally and exact
2008/10/18 John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Actually, that was someone else's initial comment.
Apologies. Wrong John.
> My initial comment was "Tempest in a teapot"; and IIRC, something to the
> effect "if you read the article, you'll see it's a painting, NOT A
> PHOTOGRAPH".
>
> Because it's
John Sessoms wrote:
Occam's Razor sez the painter "moved" the hand so it'd fit on the stamp.
Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the
right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original
literally and exactly or not.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
From: AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
2008/10/17 John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Smoking "makes a comeback" in quite a lot of recent Science Fiction; usually
> as a result of finding a cure for cancer. Theory seems to be that once the
> harm is removed, there's nothing wrong with it. Real world
From: Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
John Sessoms wrote:
> And I'm going to say again, I don't see any evidence that the "original"
> image was sanitized. It just doesn't look like she was holding a
> cigarette when the photo was taken.
John,
The oldest version of this picture I can find on
2008/10/17 John Sessoms <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Smoking "makes a comeback" in quite a lot of recent Science Fiction; usually
> as a result of finding a cure for cancer. Theory seems to be that once the
> harm is removed, there's nothing wrong with it. Real world, I doubt that'll
> happen, since canc
mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> John Sessoms
> Sent: Friday, 17 October 2008 11:12 AM
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
>
> From: AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> > 1984 is a long time ago already. :-)
&g
From: AlunFoto <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
1984 is a long time ago already. :-)
Btw, I'm re-reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation triology these days. In
his universe, projected from the fifties, the habit of smoking has
persisted through countless millennia into the Galactic Empire and
beyond. It's quite
Read Kundera"The Book of Laughter and Forgetting".
Norm
Anthony Farr wrote:
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist history, even if old practi
Smoking is such a bad thing to do that you can encourage as many
people as you like to emulate a man who famously sold his soul to the
devil, but you can't show him smoking!
Bob
>
> It's
> becoming evident
> that cigarette smoking is often being retouched away as the
> new commercial
> users
LOL!
ann
AlunFoto wrote:
2008/10/14 Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
Does it mean that all such images will be re-planted with proper smoking
devices???
This thread now just _begs_ for this:
http://turl.no/2ht
vbg,
Jostein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
2008/10/14 Boris Liberman <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> Does it mean that all such images will be re-planted with proper smoking
> devices???
This thread now just _begs_ for this:
http://turl.no/2ht
vbg,
Jostein
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
Fascinating indeed. Although I have a fair deal of Soviet background
instilled in me, this still strikes me as a rather stupid thing to do.
Suppose that in 20 years from now, it will be proven that smoking is
extremely healthy for some reason. Say, those who smoke are better
endowed to survive
rom: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> AlunFoto
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2008 6:03 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
>
> Anthony,
>
> What struck me when going through those web
1984 is a long time ago already. :-)
Btw, I'm re-reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation triology these days. In
his universe, projected from the fifties, the habit of smoking has
persisted through countless millennia into the Galactic Empire and
beyond. It's quite funny to observe how the human behavio
2008/10/14 Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
>
> Just so you know, I'm not a smoking defender. I'm a political correctness
> hater.
LOL... I'm not even that.
It's just that what's happened has happened. Removing the ubiquitous
tobacco from the pictures of that era is a denial of history. Go that
Not at all - it's a perfectly good way of providing useful work in
these troubled times. I have a friend, Winston Smith, who is a civil
servant with the Ministry of Truth. His job consists of spending most
of the day on Google Images looking for pictures of people smoking; he
then removes the offen
Anthony,
What struck me when going through those web archives was that so few
of her portraits featured a cigarette. Makes me wonder how extensive
the history rewriting is... Somehow it's difficult to believe that
they've systematically removed every little fag they could come over
just because pu
ECTED] On Behalf Of
> Joseph McAllister
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2008 5:47 AM
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
>
>
> On Oct 13, 2008, at 08:10 , Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
> >
> > BTW the Rober
Diligence fail for you. I found it. Read my posts.
Regards, Anthony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> John Sessoms
> Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2008 9:23 AM
> To: pdml@pdml.net
> Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doc
From: Anthony Farr
Prompted by Jos's efforts, I found the base image here:
http://classicmoviefavorites.com/davis/davis051.jpg
It also happens to be the image on the cover of "Bette Davis Speaks" as
pictured on Amazon.com. Even though the image has differently posed hands,
I overlaid one on the
From: Mark Roberts
oseph McAllister wrote:
>
> On Oct 12, 2008, at 12:26 , Anthony Farr wrote:
>>
>> Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
>>
>> http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
>>
>> http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
>>
>> I hate re
From: Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Besides, it is a famous photographic image.
Yeah, it's so famous Google Image doesn't seem to have a link for it.
Not one I was able to find anyway.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBS
From: John Francis <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
Even a stamp should portray visual fact. Visual reality.
> "Correcting" history should be permanently buried in the past. The
> Russians, the Germans, whoever else perpetrated this unconscionable
> editing to change reality of what was, were wrong.
>
> Al
On Oct 13, 2008, at 08:10 , Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
BTW the Robert Johnson portrait is without a doubt the same picture
that has
been massaged so that it fits better onto a postage stamp.
Regards, Anthony
You obviously missed my post on this image, Tony.
Different backg
> -Original Message-
> From: AlunFoto
> (snip)
> Now it looks like the artist has "improved" the shot to hint at her
> smoking habit. (snip)
Agreed. It seems to me that the artist, with access to the unaltered
original (which we haven't found on the web), has omitted the cigarette at
his
>
> From: Scott Loveless <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2008/10/13 Mon PM 02:20:08 GMT
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
>
> AlunFoto wrote:
> > So only one question remains. Would depicting Be
s better onto a postage stamp.
Regards, Anthony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
AlunFoto
Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 9:42 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
I will modera
AlunFoto wrote:
So only one question remains. Would depicting Bette Davis with a
cigarette in hand on a stamp actually promote smoking? I don't think
so, but I'm open to arguments... :-)
Because some people seem to think that if you photograph it, it becomes
"cool", or something like that. I
p.
>
> Regards, Anthony
>
>> -Original Message-
>> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
>> AlunFoto
>> Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 9:42 PM
>> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
>> Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photog
assaged so that it fits better onto a postage stamp.
Regards, Anthony
> -Original Message-
> From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> AlunFoto
> Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 9:42 PM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doct
I will moderate my stance on this one. Spent the lunch break zooming
through a couple of internet databases on stills from Bette Davis
career. There was a link to a youTube clip from "All about Eve" on the
original blogpost, which came close as a possible inspiration for the
stamp, where she's wear
>
> From: "Bob W" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> Date: 2008/10/13 Mon AM 12:07:13 GMT
> To: "'Pentax-Discuss Mail List'"
> Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
>
> > >
> > > Perhaps
Interesting to see your arguments, John.
Some comments are interspersed below:
2008/10/13 John Celio <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>:
> So you *want* government-sanctioned art portraying smoking as cool? Golly
> gee, that's a fabulous idea. What's next, Scottish stamps of Ewan McGregor
> shooting up heroin?
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:36:03 -0400, "ann sanfedele" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
said:
>
> What! never saw "All About Eve?" get you to netflix
>
> or it will be an extrememely bump ride :)
>
> ann
>
That sounds scary - I'll check out the local DVD rentals almost
immediately.
:-)>
Cheers
Brian
> >
> > Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax
> > content:
> >
> > http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
> >
> > http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
> >
> > I hate revisionist history, even if old practices are now
> officially
> > frowned
> > upon
Joseph McAllister wrote:
On Oct 12, 2008, at 12:26 , Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist history, eve
On Oct 12, 2008, at 12:26 , Anthony Farr <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote:
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax
content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist history, even if old practices are
John --
Betty Davis was more than a celebrity - especially to women... I'm not all
up in arms over the removal -- because on a stamp I can barely see her
face let alone
noticing that the cig isn't there,however a different photo could have
been used - there
actually were lots of photos of Da
Brian Walters wrote:
Am I missing something here?
My reading of the article is that no one has doctored the original
photograph. The stamp is a portrait by an artist based on a photograph.
I don't have any problem with the artist not including the ciggy in his
work.
(Then again, I've never
Looks good. Rewriting history is ok as long as it's politically correct.
Not.
So you *want* government-sanctioned art portraying smoking as cool? Golly
gee, that's a fabulous idea. What's next, Scottish stamps of Ewan McGregor
shooting up heroin? Jamaican stamps of Bob Marley smoking p
] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
> Brian Walters
> Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 8:11 AM
> To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
> Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
>
> Am I missing something here?
>
> My reading of the article is that no on
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ditto. In fact, only the Davis pic suffered from the deletion. And then only
mildly.
...and it's not as if those publicity stills weren't retouched from the
start. (If I hadn't been told, I'd never have thought the Davis shot was
a photograph at all.)
What a silly
Am I missing something here?
My reading of the article is that no one has doctored the original
photograph. The stamp is a portrait by an artist based on a photograph.
I don't have any problem with the artist not including the ciggy in his
work.
(Then again, I've never seen "All About Eve")
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 01:25:49PM -0700, keith_w wrote:
> John Celio wrote:
>> It's just a stamp. I'd much rather have the government not portray
>> smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old
>> photo.
>>
>> John
>
> Sorry, John. No, it's NOT "just a stamp."
>
> Even a
John Celio wrote:
It's just a stamp. I'd much rather have the government not portray
smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old photo.
John
Sorry, John. No, it's NOT "just a stamp."
Even a stamp should portray visual fact. Visual reality.
"Correcting" history should
n of an old photo.
>
> John
>
> --
> http://www.neovenator.com
> http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
>
>
> - Original Message - From: "Anthony Farr" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
> To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
> Sent: Sunday, Octob
ntax-Discuss Mail List"
> Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 9:47 AM
> Subject: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
>
>
> > Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
> >
> > http://blogs.suntimes.com/e
;[EMAIL PROTECTED]>
To: "Pentax-Discuss Mail List"
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 9:47 AM
Subject: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/
We live in a world gone insane.
G
On Oct 12, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Anthony Farr wrote:
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax
content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist history, even if ol
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist history, even if old practices are now officially frowned
upon. If the picture was no good in its original fo
62 matches
Mail list logo
