FOR RITA:

On Oct 23, 7:32 am, Noons wrote:

Sorry, but I know what photos look like, digital
or otherwise. And those eyes aren't in the original
photo: they have been doctored.

TRANSLATION: "I can't get those results so it must be fake."

Noons wrote:
On Oct 23, 2:52 am, Scott W wrote:

The site that photo is from checks the original photo to tell if there
has been illegal editing under the contest rules. Had the eyes been
photoshoped in the photo would have been disqualified, I have seen many
photos disqualified for just that kind of thing.

How about enhancing the eyes beyond any natural
look? Very easy to do and there is no way anyone
can "prove" it was done or not. I can think of a few ways in
which this could be done and circumvent just about any
checks.

Flaunting your ignorance again, Red?

--
lsmft

On Oct 23, 7:32 am, Noons wrote:
How about enhancing the eyes beyond any natural
look? Very easy to do and there is no way anyone
can "prove" it was done or not.

So why do you keep making that claim?

On Oct 23, 10:16 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

Sorry, but I know what photos look like, digital
or otherwise. And those eyes aren't in the original
photo: they have been doctored.

TRANSLATION: "I can't get those results so it must be fake."

translation: Brett doesn't have a clue how
to use PS other than to ridiculously over-sharpen
feathers to compensate for the crap quality of
his camera.

On Oct 24, 3:56 am, Scott W wrote:


Sorry, but I know what photos look like, digital
or otherwise. And those eyes aren't in the original
photo: they have been doctored.

Well now doctored is a lot different then photoshopped in, which is I
believe what you were trying to tell us. Or are you now saying the the
eyes were simply enhanced?

I don't know how that image was manipulated:
unlike everyone else here, I don't take a 800X600
image on the net and claim to know what is in the
original and how detailed it is.

But one thing I know: those eyes were majorly
altered with an editor. There is simply no camera anywhere
or image taking technique that can produce eyes that
stand out more than the rest of the facial features. No,
flash can't do that: it produces a different effect, and
I'm not talking about red eye either.

And you should know that.

On Oct 24, 8:12 am, Noons wrote:

I don't know how that image was manipulated:

Thanks for finally admitting that you are full of ****.
Like when you posted this:

-another one of those false shots, photoshopped to death?

or

- Actually, the eyes are so clearly "photoshppd-in" that it's almost
embarassing

or

-I've seen enough cases of manipulated images to sniff a rat from a
mile away.

and of course,

-Sorry, but I know what photos look like, digital or otherwise. And
those eyes aren't in the original photo: they have been doctored.

And now you write, "I don't know how that image was manipulated."
Nothing worse than a bad liar, Noons.
At least a good liar (GWB, D-Mac) sticks to his story.

On Oct 25, 12:02 am, Annika1980 wrote:

And now you write, "I don't know how that image was manipulated."

In the context of an answer that implied there was
knowledge of the actual process followed. There
isn't. No one can claim to know exactly what was
done, from a 800X600 image!

Nothing worse than a bad liar, Noons.

Nothing worse than a quote out of context, fat-arse.

At least a good liar (GWB, D-Mac) sticks to his story.

And so have I: those eyes are not natural. They were
pasted or enhanced-in, whatever method was used
is immaterial: it's not a natural image off the sensor
and to claim it is indeed the biggest lie of all.

On Oct 29, 7:38 am, Noons wrote:
And now you write, "I don't know how that image was manipulated."

Nothing worse than a quote out of context, fat-arse.

How is it out of context when you first made the claim that the eyes
were photoshopped in and now you admit you really don't know?
-------------------

"Actually, the eyes are so clearly "photoshppd-in" that it's almost
embarassing to hear such a stupid comment as yours."

"I don't know how that image was manipulated."
--------------------

Those two statements contradict each other. At least one of them must
be a lie.


At least a good liar (GWB, D-Mac) sticks to his story.

And so have I: those eyes are not natural. They were
pasted or enhanced-in, whatever method was used
is immaterial: it's not a natural image off the sensor
and to claim it is indeed the biggest lie of all.

No, you are simply wrong. The folks running that contest are pretty
strict about what can and cannot be done. What you describe would
never be accepted. If there is any question of anything they look at
the original (RAW) files to see what was done. Have you seen the
original RAW files? Well they have.
Oh that's right ... you don't like seeing the original RAW files since
they disprove all your bogus claims. I'm surprised you didn't claim
that they faked the EXIF data on that pic as well. Moron.

On Oct 29, 11:48 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

"Actually, the eyes are so clearly "photoshppd-in" that it's almost
embarassing to hear such a stupid comment as yours."

"I don't know how that image was manipulated."
--------------------

Those two statements contradict each other. At least one of them must
be a lie.

Really? so: if they manipulated the eyes with
Photoshop, they weren't "photoshppd_in"? What did they
use then? pencil and rubber?


And so have I: those eyes are not natural. They were
pasted or enhanced-in, whatever method was used
is immaterial: it's not a natural image off the sensor
and to claim it is indeed the biggest lie of all.

No, you are simply wrong.

no, you don't have a clue what you talking about.

The folks running that contest are pretty
strict about what can and cannot be done. What you describe would
never be accepted.

BWAHAHAHAHA!

If there is any question of anything they look at
the original (RAW) files to see what was done. Have you seen the
original RAW files? Well they have.

Says you. I don't believe it until I can see the original raw
myself. ****, eh?

Dude, go to deviantart and check the portrait section:
there are umpteen examples of the same eyes there.

all fake

all photoshopped-in.

painfully obvious, nothing new either

move along.

Oh that's right ... you don't like seeing the original RAW files since
they disprove all your bogus claims. I'm surprised you didn't claim
that they faked the EXIF data on that pic as well. Moron.

seeing "exif" where there ain't any?
definitely a trend with you.
talk about moronic...

Noons wrote:
On Oct 29, 11:48 pm, Annika1980 wrote:

"Actually, the eyes are so clearly "photoshppd-in" that it's almost
embarassing to hear such a stupid comment as yours."

"I don't know how that image was manipulated."
--------------------

Those two statements contradict each other. At least one of them must
be a lie.

Really? so: if they manipulated the eyes with
Photoshop, they weren't "photoshppd_in"? What did they
use then? pencil and rubber?

Just a really fine point of the English language, Red. Prolly beyond
your ken.

--
lsmft