Politically biased lighting?

It's a bit like the Enoch Powell cover of Private Eye. "And I tell you
some of them have them this long!"

It must be every teenage boy's fantasy to publish a magazine with "it's
this big!" on the cover.

On Tue, 18 Apr 2006 01:35:13 +0100, "Pentax Fan"
wrote:


"Paul Heslop" wrote in message
...

I found a less biased shot, one that shows him in a kinder and more
realistic setting


It would be rather nice to see Griffin sue you for libel.

According the BBC, the major parties are starting to get rattled by the
surge in popular support for the BNP - who took 17% of the general election
vote, in some cases.

The British working class are, of course, not supposed to think for
themselves, nor are they allowed to support a party that represents their
interests.

I thought that's how Blair got in? Jokes on them.
-Rich

Rich wrote:

Kind of odd when professional photogs, composers, etc,
can't fix small problems....

From CNN.com a few weeks back.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57989237

Corrected

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57989240


Digital photojournalism ethics allows a much narrower latitude for
correction than film photojournalism did; to the extent that even
dodging & burning are frowned upon.

Paul Heslop wrote:


From Wikipedia

"In accordance with its stated goal to establish a racially and
culturally homogenous Britain,

So which is gotta' go? The Anglos or the Saxons? And what about them
Celts? Picts?

no_name wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote:

From Wikipedia

"In accordance with its stated goal to establish a racially and
culturally homogenous Britain,

So which is gotta' go? The Anglos or the Saxons? And what about them
Celts? Picts?

Those damned normans!
--
Paul (Take my hand, I'm standing right here)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/

Tim wrote:

Rich wrote:

Kind of odd when professional photogs, composers, etc,
can't fix small problems....


From CNN.com a few weeks back.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57989237

Corrected

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57989240

That's odd. You can't even see Bush's halo on either shot.


Probably had to lend it to Rumsfeld for a bit :-)

It looks like the original is a video still grabbed from a tv broadcast.
I'm not so sure that lighting can be fixed so easily digitaly "on the
fly" as it is going to air.
Anyway, here's my fixed version of the image:
http://members.iinet.com.au/~therealm/dj_nme/political-lighting.jpg

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:39:43 GMT, no_name
wrote:

Rich wrote:

Kind of odd when professional photogs, composers, etc,
can't fix small problems....

From CNN.com a few weeks back.

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57989237

Corrected

http://www.pbase.com/andersonrm/image/57989240


Digital photojournalism ethics allows a much narrower latitude for
correction than film photojournalism did; to the extent that even
dodging & burning are frowned upon.

IMO, the photo should reflect not what the camera saw, but what
the crowd saw. Given photography's limitations when it comes
to dynamic range, then some manipulation is needed. It is a sure
bet the audience didn't see one of the politicians in a completely
dark shadow.

Rich wrote:

On Wed, 19 Apr 2006 23:39:43 GMT, no_name
wrote:

Digital photojournalism ethics allows a much narrower latitude for
correction than film photojournalism did; to the extent that even
dodging & burning are frowned upon.


IMO, the photo should reflect not what the camera saw, but what
the crowd saw. Given photography's limitations when it comes
to dynamic range, then some manipulation is needed. It is a sure
bet the audience didn't see one of the politicians in a completely
dark shadow.

OTOH, such manipulation is not within the scopes of ethical digital
photojournalism. You're expected to work within the limitations
photographic media impose.

If the shot you get is dark shadow, dark shadow is what gets submitted
for publication.

Paul Heslop wrote:

no_name wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote:


From Wikipedia

"In accordance with its stated goal to establish a racially and
culturally homogenous Britain,

So which is gotta' go? The Anglos or the Saxons? And what about them
Celts? Picts?


Those damned normans!

Yeah! There's a guy named Norman lives across the street. Never trusted
him anyway.

no_name wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote:

no_name wrote:

Paul Heslop wrote:


From Wikipedia

"In accordance with its stated goal to establish a racially and
culturally homogenous Britain,

So which is gotta' go? The Anglos or the Saxons? And what about them
Celts? Picts?


Those damned normans!

Yeah! There's a guy named Norman lives across the street. Never trusted
him anyway.

and that Norman Wisdom was a pain the arse.

--
Paul (Take my hand, I'm standing right here)
-------------------------------------------------------
Stop and Look
http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/