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
> -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.
- 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 inco
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
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_usatod
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 wo
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 po
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 ne
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
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?
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
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
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 bi
- 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
o 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
ary 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
&
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.worldnetda
"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 Ro
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.
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
Journ
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." E
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
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
- 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 diffi
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
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 dif
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 pr
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 obvi
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 s
ntax-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?
>
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
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
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
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
---
MO, 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: S
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 pr
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 submi
Juan Buhler wrote:
She actually looks evil enough to me in the original...
What he said! :-)
--
Christian
http://photography.skofteland.net
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 ...
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.
http://www.worldnetdaily.com/news/article.asp?ARTICLE_ID=47066
Journalism at its best ...
Shel
41 matches
Mail list logo
