« Random Excellence: Robert Holmgren | Main | Right Place, Right Time »

Thursday, 17 July 2008

TrackBack

TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.typepad.com/services/trackback/6a00df351e888f883400e553ba213d8834

Listed below are links to weblogs that reference Around the Web on a Thursday:

Comments

About the Iranian Photoshop disaster: Am I the only one thinking all along, 'You see what you want to see'?

Why should anybody in the Beltway media [or the government an its apologists] look twice at the Iranian propaganda when it just supports their wildest dreams of the next invasion? Humans tend to believe that which supports their prejudices.

Nice to have you back Mike

Heh, Leica Summicron. They should have used Olympus ZD 50/2, 150/2 or even 35-100. ;-)

As a side note, there's an interesting link/post on diglloyd about the true colours of Greek statues. While it's not a new thing in the history of art, this is the first time I've seen reproductions. Quite interesting.

So, what will the people of future think if they see the saturated landscapes/flowers/whatever so popular today? That it was the way we saw reality? Just like it was _de rigueur_ to admire the pure white beauty of the classical sculpture...

PS. Yeah, Mike, nice to have you back.

Mike,

It would seem your fishing expedition has refreshed you. I enjoyed you're writing very much today (especially the double-crap surprise and "Brange or Elina".

Thank you!

I don't know who Lindsey Spears is, but I'll bet she's also too young to be 1. pregnant and/or 2. photographed for magazines every day of her life.

The funniest part of the Iranian missile pic is not the copying from the other missiles, but the blatant halo and the blurry smoke under the "new" composite missile. Despite this, I noticed the duplicated parts first, and not the incredibly obvious lines around it, as well as the non-blended sky colors. Very funny that they tried this- almost endearing!

Mike,

thinking about the baby-shots, i am also so "different". Sick world we live in confirmed again.
This is new nobelness, but people are so dumb that they think we live in a modern society. If my own life wasn't affected by this stupid majority, I would only watch and laugh...

Btw, great come-back of yours!

best always
Andreas

You know, with $11 million out there, it occurs to me -- you noted it, but missed the implications -- that since all of the little snowflakes *do* look exactly alike, if you could find a nurse in a maternity ward who'd do it, for say, $1 million, you could pose a nurse with a baby room in the background, holding the two, and like, who's to know? Brandalina wouldn't even know, for sure. I'd do it, but you'd probably have to use a cell phone or a point and shoot, and I really refuse to use anything but my Leica...

JC

RE: The photoshopped Iranian missle image.

YO, Mr. Sam Zell!!! Look at the images on the front of your newspapers! This is what happens when you reduce your news staff. Get a clue--you bought into an industry you do not understand.

I rather doubt you're very different Mike. It would take a readership of what, 10 to 13 million for the gossip rags to make their money back. That would leave a far larger number of people who, like you, me, Andreas, and most likely the rest of your readers who do not give a rats a** about any current celebs.

That said, many years ago my wife, a real fan of Masterpiece Theater called me at work and said Alistair Cooke was at a book signing downtown and she wanted a picture. I worked in a camera store so I grabbed a used Spotmatic, a 200mm and a roll of Tri-X. I ran off about 15 quick shots and then got that glance from Mr. Cooke that said "thats enough" so I smiled, gave a little wave and turned heel. The missus was thrilled with the two good prints I enlarged and I came away with points good for three months.

"I think there ought to be a mini-bandwagon in the photo-hobby kingdom for this particular hybrid imaging method."
Quite right too Mike, but some people believe they have to spend big money to get good results or be taken seriously....
Me, I'm "between jobs" and flat broke but very happy with the 7000 pixel square images I'm getting from my $80 Minolta Autocord and old model Epson 4490 scanner. Now if only there were space on the walls of my tiny house for a print bigger than A4 I'd be miserable about lack of an A3 printer.

Cheers, Robin

Pixel Parsimony

I clicked on Marcia Bricker Halperin's picture to get a better look at it. The resulting image was a measly 607 × 413 pixels. With a widescreen display and a broadband connection, I am well equipped to view the world's classic photographs in glorious detail. What a pity that few are posted at high resolution. Copyright concerns, I suppose...

Hum, don't even need a pair of fake twins to score the 11M$. Just grab a picture of any freshly-popped baby and call the Iranian photoshop wizard, for Allah's sake.

The comments to this entry are closed.