Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Sat, 14 Jan 2006 23:43:45 -0800 David Mann wrote: > On Jan 15, 2006, at 7:10 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: > > > If you believe that I have a really lovely bridge I could sell you. > > Low down payment and you can pay off the ballence out of your toll income. > > Excellent... my property backs onto a river. Might start my own bungy > business. > > - Dave Nice thing about Brooklyn and Manhattan bridges in NYC is that they can (and have been) sold many times to many different people. Even though I no longer live in NYC, I can sell them to you too! :-) Caveat: I suspect, no bungy jumping is allowed there. Igor
RE: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
> -Original Message- > From: William Robb [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > > > > http://fromthepen.com/condi_usatoday_scandal.html > > You are scaring me with the websites you find. > That is one wild ass moron. > > William Robb > Finding nutters on the internet isn't too terribly hard. I've got to the point where, if I want to show someone a website that supports all my reasonable, well-argued, sensible and just plain right opinions, I always have a look at some of the other pages just to make sure I'm not unwittingly associating myself with some barking mad fascist or eyeball-rolling David Icke type. -- Cheers, Bob
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
- Original Message - From: "Rob Studdert" Subject: Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes On 15 Jan 2006 at 1:10, P. J. Alling wrote: If you believe that I have a really lovely bridge I could sell you. Low down payment and you can pay off the ballence out of your toll income. It's definitely over-sharpened but it's also been doctored and poorly http://fromthepen.com/condi_usatoday_scandal.html You are scaring me with the websites you find. That is one wild ass moron. William Robb
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
On Jan 15, 2006, at 7:10 PM, P. J. Alling wrote: If you believe that I have a really lovely bridge I could sell you. Low down payment and you can pay off the ballence out of your toll income. Excellent... my property backs onto a river. Might start my own bungy business. - Dave
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
On 15 Jan 2006 at 1:10, P. J. Alling wrote: > If you believe that I have a really lovely bridge I could sell you. Low > down payment and you can pay off the ballence out of your toll income. It's definitely over-sharpened but it's also been doctored and poorly http://fromthepen.com/condi_usatoday_scandal.html Rob Studdert HURSTVILLE AUSTRALIA Tel +61-2-9554-4110 UTC(GMT) +10 Hours [EMAIL PROTECTED] http://members.ozemail.com.au/~distudio/publications/ Pentax user since 1986, PDMLer since 1998
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
If you believe that I have a really lovely bridge I could sell you. Low down payment and you can pay off the ballence out of your toll income. David Mann wrote: On Jan 14, 2006, at 6:03 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: I looks to me like the eyes were especially sharpened. To get that effect you would make the rest of the image look over sharpened or completely mushed up.. It's quite easy to selectively sharpen just the eyes. I've seen this done with portraits. Perhaps in this case someone simply overdid the sharpening and were in too much of a hurry to really notice. - Dave -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
On Jan 14, 2006, at 6:03 AM, P. J. Alling wrote: I looks to me like the eyes were especially sharpened. To get that effect you would make the rest of the image look over sharpened or completely mushed up.. It's quite easy to selectively sharpen just the eyes. I've seen this done with portraits. Perhaps in this case someone simply overdid the sharpening and were in too much of a hurry to really notice. - Dave
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Paul Stenquist wrote: Where;s Flash Gordon when we need him? He's there, if you look carefully enough.. On Jan 14, 2006, at 9:05 AM, mike wilson wrote: Bob Shell wrote: On Jan 14, 2006, at 8:31 AM, mike wilson wrote: It seems, if the party election forecasts go to plan, that the next British General Election will be between Menzies and Gordon. Menzies is pronounced Minges, usually shortened to Ming. The start of a new Ming Dynasty? I hope not. Planet Mongo is in a bad enough state already.
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Where;s Flash Gordon when we need him? On Jan 14, 2006, at 9:05 AM, mike wilson wrote: Bob Shell wrote: On Jan 14, 2006, at 8:31 AM, mike wilson wrote: It seems, if the party election forecasts go to plan, that the next British General Election will be between Menzies and Gordon. Menzies is pronounced Minges, usually shortened to Ming. The start of a new Ming Dynasty? I hope not. Planet Mongo is in a bad enough state already.
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Bob Shell wrote: On Jan 14, 2006, at 8:31 AM, mike wilson wrote: It seems, if the party election forecasts go to plan, that the next British General Election will be between Menzies and Gordon. Menzies is pronounced Minges, usually shortened to Ming. The start of a new Ming Dynasty? I hope not. Planet Mongo is in a bad enough state already.
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
On Jan 14, 2006, at 8:31 AM, mike wilson wrote: It seems, if the party election forecasts go to plan, that the next British General Election will be between Menzies and Gordon. Menzies is pronounced Minges, usually shortened to Ming. The start of a new Ming Dynasty? Bob
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
It seems, if the party election forecasts go to plan, that the next British General Election will be between Menzies and Gordon. Menzies is pronounced Minges, usually shortened to Ming. Paul Stenquist wrote: I doubt that she'll be the next president. She'll succeed John McCain in 2016. On Jan 13, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Gonz wrote: Some people have no respect for the next president of the United States. ;) rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 Journalism at its best ... Shel -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
No, they spend the same ways, and more, as well as different ways. They just spend... William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes Like a democrat ever willing lowered the deficit... I just love how the party of big spending became deficit hawks since they lost power... They just spend in different ways. William Robb -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
- Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes Like a democrat ever willing lowered the deficit... I just love how the party of big spending became deficit hawks since they lost power... They just spend in different ways. William Robb
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Like a democrat ever willing lowered the deficit... I just love how the party of big spending became deficit hawks since they lost power... Bob W wrote: He only helps those who help themselves. Republicans, in other words. Don't worry, there isn't enough money in the universe to fund the deficit for another 18 years. -- Cheers, Bob -Original Message- From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] Sent: 13 January 2006 23:22 To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net Subject: Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes God help us all ... Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist I doubt that she'll be the next president. She'll succeed John McCain in 2016. On Jan 13, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Gonz wrote: Some people have no respect for the next president of the United States. -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
RE: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
He only helps those who help themselves. Republicans, in other words. Don't worry, there isn't enough money in the universe to fund the deficit for another 18 years. -- Cheers, Bob > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 13 January 2006 23:22 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes > > God help us all ... > > Shel > > > > > [Original Message] > > From: Paul Stenquist > > > I doubt that she'll be the next president. She'll succeed > John McCain > > in 2016. > > > > On Jan 13, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Gonz wrote: > > > > > Some people have no respect for the next president of the United > > > States. > > > > >
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Or Rudy Giuliani. rg Paul Stenquist wrote: I doubt that she'll be the next president. She'll succeed John McCain in 2016. On Jan 13, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Gonz wrote: Some people have no respect for the next president of the United States. ;) rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 Journalism at its best ... Shel -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
"William Robb" <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: >I thought the picture on the right was the normal Condoleeza, and the one on >the left was toned down for public consumption. I thought *all* photos of Condoleeza were faked in Photoshop because she doesn't show up on film or in mirrors. -- Mark Roberts Photography and writing www.robertstech.com
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
God help us all ... Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist > I doubt that she'll be the next president. She'll succeed > John McCain in 2016. > On Jan 13, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Gonz wrote: > > > Some people have no respect for the next president of > > the United States.
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
I doubt that she'll be the next president. She'll succeed John McCain in 2016. On Jan 13, 2006, at 5:29 PM, Gonz wrote: Some people have no respect for the next president of the United States. ;) rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 Journalism at its best ... Shel -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Some people have no respect for the next president of the United States. ;) rg Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 Journalism at its best ... Shel -- Someone handed me a picture and said, "This is a picture of me when I was younger." Every picture of you is when you were younger. "...Here's a picture of me when I'm older." Where'd you get that camera man? - Mitch Hedberg
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Which explains why you're not in the news business. William Robb wrote: - Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes I looks to me like the eyes were especially sharpened. To get that effect you would make the rest of the image look over sharpened or completely mushed up.. Though to be honest it's difficult to compare a couple of jpegs when one is four times larger than the other., but just for kicks I tried to reproduce it by playing with sharpening and blurring the larger image then resizing it to the smaller size, I couldn't even come close. Lets face it was somebodies little joke. Which left the AP with egg on it's face. I thought the picture on the right was the normal Condoleeza, and the one on the left was toned down for public consumption. WW -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:17 PM, William Robb wrote: I looks to me like the eyes were especially sharpened. To get that effect you would make the rest of the image look over sharpened or completely mushed up.. Though to be honest it's difficult to compare a couple of jpegs when one is four times larger than the other., but just for kicks I tried to reproduce it by playing with sharpening and blurring the larger image then resizing it to the smaller size, I couldn't even come close. Lets face it was somebodies little joke. Which left the AP with egg on it's face. I thought the picture on the right was the normal Condoleeza, and the one on the left was toned down for public consumption. WW Today's news: Breaking News SEN. BIDEN PRODUCING DANGEROUSLY HIGH LEVELS OF CARBON DIOXIDE Talkative Lawmaker Creating Environmental Threat, Scientists Fear Sen. Joseph Biden (D-Del.), who has dominated this week's confirmation hearings of Supreme Court nominee Samuel Alito with his seemingly nonstop talking, is producing dangerously high level of carbon dioxide that could pose a serious environmental threat, leading scientists said today. While many observers have found Sen. Biden's interminable orating tedious and wearisome, few suspected that the lawmaker was producing gases that could threaten the ecological balance of the planet. But at a conference in Oslo, Norway devoted to the environmental challenges posed by Sen. Biden's endless nattering, scientists today said that the Delaware Democrat was producing levels of carbon dioxide that could prove harmful to many of the earth's species. "Carbon dioxide is a necessary part of the photosynthetic process that allows plants to grow," said the University of Tokyo's Dr. Hiroshi Kyosuke. "But the massive amounts of carbon dioxide produced by Joe Biden could prove to be too much for even the hardiest vegetation to process." Dr. Kyosuke and his colleagues were mulling a number of proposals for reining in the ecological threat posed by Sen. Biden, including urging the Environment Protection Agency to issue tougher emission standards for U.S. Senators. The scientist said his peers were also "deeply concerned" about a possible environmental threat posed by Sen. Edward Kennedy (D-Mass): "There is a serious possibility that Sen. Kennedy's head will block out the sun and cause all life on Earth to wither and die." Elsewhere, at a press conference in Switzerland today, skiing champion Bode Miller made an impassioned plea for drunk skiing to be recognized as an official Olympic event.
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
- Original Message - From: "P. J. Alling" Subject: Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes I looks to me like the eyes were especially sharpened. To get that effect you would make the rest of the image look over sharpened or completely mushed up.. Though to be honest it's difficult to compare a couple of jpegs when one is four times larger than the other., but just for kicks I tried to reproduce it by playing with sharpening and blurring the larger image then resizing it to the smaller size, I couldn't even come close. Lets face it was somebodies little joke. Which left the AP with egg on it's face. I thought the picture on the right was the normal Condoleeza, and the one on the left was toned down for public consumption. WW
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
I looks to me like the eyes were especially sharpened. To get that effect you would make the rest of the image look over sharpened or completely mushed up.. Though to be honest it's difficult to compare a couple of jpegs when one is four times larger than the other., but just for kicks I tried to reproduce it by playing with sharpening and blurring the larger image then resizing it to the smaller size, I couldn't even come close. Lets face it was somebodies little joke. Which left the AP with egg on it's face. Bob Shell wrote: On Jan 13, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: True, there are no absolutes. But for news photography, alterations should be restricted to those that make the photo reproduce well: curves adjustments, BW conversion, etc. No cloning should be allowed and no modification of details to produce a different look. In this case, the eyes were obviously altered to change the look of the photo. I can't say for certain, but I believe the Times wold rule out perspective control as well. But they probably wouldn't buy a photo that was so distorted that it failed to communicate correctly. As far as I'm concerned, any alterations the photographer wishes to make are okay for fine art photography. For commercial photography, any alterations the lawyers will allow (which do not include drastically changing the appearance of a product) are okay. But the news is the news. It must strive to be accurate. Looks to me like an overall sharpening and increase in contrast was made, and this caused the demon eyes. Bob -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
It's obviously far more than that. The sharpening and contrast increase are far more exaggerated in the area of the eyes, and the pupils appear to have been made smaller. Look at the difference in the white level in the eyes between the two photos. Then look at the skin tones. The contrast difference is far greater in the eyes than it is in the flesh tones, where there appears to be very minimal change. Paul On Jan 13, 2006, at 7:06 AM, Bob Shell wrote: On Jan 13, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: True, there are no absolutes. But for news photography, alterations should be restricted to those that make the photo reproduce well: curves adjustments, BW conversion, etc. No cloning should be allowed and no modification of details to produce a different look. In this case, the eyes were obviously altered to change the look of the photo. I can't say for certain, but I believe the Times wold rule out perspective control as well. But they probably wouldn't buy a photo that was so distorted that it failed to communicate correctly. As far as I'm concerned, any alterations the photographer wishes to make are okay for fine art photography. For commercial photography, any alterations the lawyers will allow (which do not include drastically changing the appearance of a product) are okay. But the news is the news. It must strive to be accurate. Looks to me like an overall sharpening and increase in contrast was made, and this caused the demon eyes. Bob
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
On Jan 13, 2006, at 6:59 AM, Paul Stenquist wrote: True, there are no absolutes. But for news photography, alterations should be restricted to those that make the photo reproduce well: curves adjustments, BW conversion, etc. No cloning should be allowed and no modification of details to produce a different look. In this case, the eyes were obviously altered to change the look of the photo. I can't say for certain, but I believe the Times wold rule out perspective control as well. But they probably wouldn't buy a photo that was so distorted that it failed to communicate correctly. As far as I'm concerned, any alterations the photographer wishes to make are okay for fine art photography. For commercial photography, any alterations the lawyers will allow (which do not include drastically changing the appearance of a product) are okay. But the news is the news. It must strive to be accurate. Looks to me like an overall sharpening and increase in contrast was made, and this caused the demon eyes. Bob
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
True, there are no absolutes. But for news photography, alterations should be restricted to those that make the photo reproduce well: curves adjustments, BW conversion, etc. No cloning should be allowed and no modification of details to produce a different look. In this case, the eyes were obviously altered to change the look of the photo. I can't say for certain, but I believe the Times wold rule out perspective control as well. But they probably wouldn't buy a photo that was so distorted that it failed to communicate correctly. As far as I'm concerned, any alterations the photographer wishes to make are okay for fine art photography. For commercial photography, any alterations the lawyers will allow (which do not include drastically changing the appearance of a product) are okay. But the news is the news. It must strive to be accurate. Paul On Jan 13, 2006, at 12:44 AM, Igor Roshchin wrote: Paul, I agree, but then there are two related philosophical question (although the second is related to a very practical one): 1. What do you consider an accurate photography? and 2. What changes to the image are acceptable? A few thoughts aloud about each of these two questions. 1. Strictly speaking - none of the images is exact. (after all, it's a 2D "projection" of 3D objects.) E.g. can distortions from the optics be allowed? Where is a dividing line between allowed and disallowed optical distortions (e.g. bad lens vs. geniune optical effect vs. special effect filters/lenses/...)? Perspective distortion - to what extent it is ok? I can think of some cases where it can produce cartoonish image of a person that can be considered rather offensive by some. 2. I am not neat-picking here. I am just saying that policy of (dis)allowed alterations cannot be absolute; it would always be a subject to an editorial policy. One can think of many examples, but here is a simple one: In some cases a cropping can change the message of the photo. So, my point here is that there is no ABSOLUTE accuracy. All photo images are ultimately done through the eyes of the photographer (and subsequently, retoucher/editor..) Igor Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:59:55 -0800 Paul Stenquist wrote: I agree. I have no reservations about doing everything I can to make a fine art or "entertainment" photo as nice as possible. But news photography has a responsibility to be accurate. The Times seem to have a very large photo department. And for the most part, they deal with a group of pre-approved contributors, who understand the seriousness of the situation and want to protect their position. When the Times photo editors buy something from outside their circle, they can devote more time and effort to scrutiny. Paul
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Paul, I agree, but then there are two related philosophical question (although the second is related to a very practical one): 1. What do you consider an accurate photography? and 2. What changes to the image are acceptable? A few thoughts aloud about each of these two questions. 1. Strictly speaking - none of the images is exact. (after all, it's a 2D "projection" of 3D objects.) E.g. can distortions from the optics be allowed? Where is a dividing line between allowed and disallowed optical distortions (e.g. bad lens vs. geniune optical effect vs. special effect filters/lenses/...)? Perspective distortion - to what extent it is ok? I can think of some cases where it can produce cartoonish image of a person that can be considered rather offensive by some. 2. I am not neat-picking here. I am just saying that policy of (dis)allowed alterations cannot be absolute; it would always be a subject to an editorial policy. One can think of many examples, but here is a simple one: In some cases a cropping can change the message of the photo. So, my point here is that there is no ABSOLUTE accuracy. All photo images are ultimately done through the eyes of the photographer (and subsequently, retoucher/editor..) Igor Wed, 11 Jan 2006 04:59:55 -0800 Paul Stenquist wrote: I agree. I have no reservations about doing everything I can to make a fine art or "entertainment" photo as nice as possible. But news photography has a responsibility to be accurate. The Times seem to have a very large photo department. And for the most part, they deal with a group of pre-approved contributors, who understand the seriousness of the situation and want to protect their position. When the Times photo editors buy something from outside their circle, they can devote more time and effort to scrutiny. Paul
RE: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
I would guess they run the files through a program that can detect patterns that indicate alterations. I doubt that they have humans looking at them. -- Cheers, Bob > -Original Message- > From: Shel Belinkoff [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] > Sent: 11 January 2006 12:46 > To: pentax-discuss@pdml.net > Subject: Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes > > IMO, that's the way it should be. Considering the number of > photos they receive, assuming they receive a lot, is there > enough time to look carefully at each pic? >
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Most people are used to slanted news. (and no one expects the photographs to look natural any more anyway). [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote: In a message dated 1/10/2006 9:58:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: She actually looks evil enough to me in the original... j On 1/10/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 Journalism at its best ... Shel === Ditto. I think whoever did it didn't do it because of race but because of politics. Rather interesting that a lot didn't notice it. Makes one wonder... Marnie aka Doe -- When you're worried or in doubt, Run in circles, (scream and shout).
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
On 1/11/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 > > Journalism at its best ... > > > Shel Sing the SL to the tune of "Betty Davis Eyes..." cheers, frank -- "Sharpness is a bourgeois concept." -Henri Cartier-Bresson
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
I'm sure the AP wants to disassociate themselves from this mess as quickly and fully as possible. -- Original message -- From: Jostein <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > > > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 > > > > Journalism at its best ... > > Associated Press has removed the original from their website. > > Collegial hedging? > > Jostein > > > This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program. >
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Quoting Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]>: > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 > > Journalism at its best ... Associated Press has removed the original from their website. Collegial hedging? Jostein This message was sent using IMP, the Internet Messaging Program.
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
I agree. I have no reservations about doing everything I can to make a fine art or "entertainment" photo as nice as possible. But news photography has a responsibility to be accurate. The Times seem to have a very large photo department. And for the most part, they deal with a group of pre-approved contributors, who understand the seriousness of the situation and want to protect their position. When the Times photo editors buy something from outside their circle, they can devote more time and effort to scrutiny. Paul On Jan 11, 2006, at 7:45 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: IMO, that's the way it should be. Considering the number of photos they receive, assuming they receive a lot, is there enough time to look carefully at each pic? Shel [Original Message] From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> To: Date: 1/11/2006 3:35:56 AM Subject: Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes Interesting. The New York Times won't permit any PhotoShop alterations whatsoever. Even background clutter must remain in the photo. Before I could sell photos to the Times I had to sign documents pledging that I would provide only unaltered photos. The photo editors carefully examine all submissions for any signs of alteration. I'm sure one could slip a minor cleanup by them, but anything of consequence would probably be detected. Paul On Jan 11, 2006, at 12:40 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 Journalism at its best ... Shel
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
IMO, that's the way it should be. Considering the number of photos they receive, assuming they receive a lot, is there enough time to look carefully at each pic? Shel > [Original Message] > From: Paul Stenquist <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> > To: > Date: 1/11/2006 3:35:56 AM > Subject: Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes > > Interesting. The New York Times won't permit any PhotoShop alterations > whatsoever. Even background clutter must remain in the photo. Before I > could sell photos to the Times I had to sign documents pledging that I > would provide only unaltered photos. The photo editors carefully > examine all submissions for any signs of alteration. I'm sure one could > slip a minor cleanup by them, but anything of consequence would > probably be detected. > Paul > On Jan 11, 2006, at 12:40 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: > > > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 > > > > Journalism at its best ... > > > > > > Shel > > > > > >
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Interesting. The New York Times won't permit any PhotoShop alterations whatsoever. Even background clutter must remain in the photo. Before I could sell photos to the Times I had to sign documents pledging that I would provide only unaltered photos. The photo editors carefully examine all submissions for any signs of alteration. I'm sure one could slip a minor cleanup by them, but anything of consequence would probably be detected. Paul On Jan 11, 2006, at 12:40 AM, Shel Belinkoff wrote: http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 Journalism at its best ... Shel
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
Juan Buhler wrote: She actually looks evil enough to me in the original... What he said! :-) -- Christian http://photography.skofteland.net
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
In a message dated 1/10/2006 9:58:54 PM Pacific Standard Time, [EMAIL PROTECTED] writes: She actually looks evil enough to me in the original... j On 1/10/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 > > Journalism at its best ... > > > Shel === Ditto. I think whoever did it didn't do it because of race but because of politics. Rather interesting that a lot didn't notice it. Makes one wonder... Marnie aka Doe
Re: Scary Condoleezza Eyes
She actually looks evil enough to me in the original... j On 1/10/06, Shel Belinkoff <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066 > > Journalism at its best ... > > > Shel > > > > -- Juan Buhler http://www.jbuhler.com photoblog at http://photoblog.jbuhler.com
