When photography becomes a LIE!

On Tue, 18 Aug 2015 23:24:43 -0700 (PDT), RichA
wrote:

http://stuppid.com/beauty-ads-lie/

That was nothing. What about this one?

http://tinyurl.com/njoa3q8

You can see the original face for the first second or so. And look at
what happens to the hair (along with a lot of other things).
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

RichA:
http://stuppid.com/beauty-ads-lie/

I am not surprised to learn that RichA is still a blathering twit.
Glamour photography is not documentary or industrial photography.

Eric Stevens:
That was nothing. What about this one?
http://tinyurl.com/njoa3q8

You can see the original face for the first second or so. And look at
what happens to the hair (along with a lot of other things).

That's pretty much the way I would have handled it, depending, of
course, on the client's requirements.

--
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

RichA:
http://stuppid.com/beauty-ads-lie/

That was nothing. What about this one?

http://tinyurl.com/njoa3q8

You can see the original face for the first second or so. And look
at what happens to the hair (along with a lot of other things).

Fixed: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Vtall1berDI

--
Sandman

On 8/19/2015 9:10 PM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 18:15:42 UTC-4, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
http://stuppid.com/beauty-ads-lie/

I am not surprised to learn that RichA is still a blathering twit.
Glamour photography is not documentary or industrial photography.

Forget glamour, you goon. How about quack medical and beauty treatments sold that don't do F--- all, that used some sleaze-bag photographer to fake results?


Anyone with an once of common sense knows it's not real. That sort of
thing has been done since film was invented.

--
PeterN

On 8/20/2015 11:36 AM, android wrote:
PeterN Wrote in message:
On 8/19/2015 9:10 PM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 18:15:42 UTC-4, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
http://stuppid.com/beauty-ads-lie/

I am not surprised to learn that RichA is still a blathering twit.
Glamour photography is not documentary or industrial photography.

Forget glamour, you goon. How about quack medical and beauty treatments sold that don't do F--- all, that used some sleaze-bag photographer to fake results?


Anyone with an once of common sense knows it's not real. That sort of
thing has been done since film was invented.

Not at your bedroom desk...


Bundling boards were used in the bedroom, but not at a desk.


--
PeterN

PeterN Wrote in message:
On 8/19/2015 9:10 PM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 18:15:42 UTC-4, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
http://stuppid.com/beauty-ads-lie/

I am not surprised to learn that RichA is still a blathering twit.
Glamour photography is not documentary or industrial photography.

Forget glamour, you goon. How about quack medical and beauty treatments sold that don't do F--- all, that used some sleaze-bag photographer to fake results?


Anyone with an once of common sense knows it's not real. That sort of
thing has been done since film was invented.

Not at your bedroom desk...
--
teleportation kills


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

Whisky-dave Wrote in message:
On Thursday, 20 August 2015 16:36:25 UTC+1, android wrote:
PeterN Wrote in message:
On 8/19/2015 9:10 PM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 18:15:42 UTC-4, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
http://stuppid.com/beauty-ads-lie/

I am not surprised to learn that RichA is still a blathering twit.
Glamour photography is not documentary or industrial photography.

Forget glamour, you goon. How about quack medical and beauty treatments sold that don't do F--- all, that used some sleaze-bag photographer to fake results?


Anyone with an once of common sense knows it's not real. That sort of
thing has been done since film was invented.

Not at your bedroom desk...

No first it was done in camera with multiple exposures, or on the final print using brushes and fine needle points.

Check out William Mumler in the 1860s.

And that would have been easily discovered at an ocular examination!
--
teleportation kills


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/

PeterN Wrote in message:
On 8/20/2015 11:36 AM, android wrote:
PeterN Wrote in message:
On 8/19/2015 9:10 PM, RichA wrote:
On Wednesday, 19 August 2015 18:15:42 UTC-4, Davoud wrote:
RichA:
http://stuppid.com/beauty-ads-lie/

I am not surprised to learn that RichA is still a blathering twit.
Glamour photography is not documentary or industrial photography.

Forget glamour, you goon. How about quack medical and beauty treatments sold that don't do F--- all, that used some sleaze-bag photographer to fake results?


Anyone with an once of common sense knows it's not real. That sort of
thing has been done since film was invented.

Not at your bedroom desk...


Bundling boards were used in the bedroom, but not at a desk.

Full disclosure of your family life is not necessary... ;-p
--
teleportation kills


----Android NewsGroup Reader----
http://usenet.sinaapp.com/