Jon Winters wrote:
> James Smaby wrote:
> >
> > Is it just me, or are these CubicDesign tutorials a little too
> > close to porn howtos?
> If you've ever done any portrait work you appriciate any and all
> techniques that can be used to smooth out skin, reduce wrinkles, remove
> unwanted hair and blemishes.  Look at the covers of the magazines next
> time you're at the store... I know models have pores in real life... But
> you wouldn't know it looking at the magazines.

No, but you'd have more to work with when the object is a 95 year old
man. :)

> > Must the object of the image touchup be
> > a large breasted model?
> I've got no comment on that point.  Seems like the author of the
> tutorial chose tasteful images that work well for the techniques being
> covered.  There is nothing obscene about women in bikinis.

How about some balance.  I enjoy an atractive female as much as the next
guy, but in all fairness, how about some buffed up men in the next set
of tutorials?  Better yet, a cute baby.

> > I don't know about most people, but I
> > don't really want people thinking I'm looking at porn when I'm
> > really reading about one of these tutorials.
> I'm confident that nobody in my office would mistake those tutorials for
> pornography.  Folks in my office also know its rude to snoop over each
> others shoulders trying to spy whats on screen.

Hmm, don't have much concern here either, then again, my office is
across the hall from my bedroom.  Then again, my wife would probably do
a second take at these images if I had them on my screen, followed by:
"work?  yeah right." :)
> If folks in your office make a habit of scoping your monitor I suggest
> you invest in a pair of mirrors:

Well, depends on the country you're in, but companies are well within
their rights to look at what you display on THEIR hardware.  Whether
that's right or wrong, is not a discussion for here.

Granted, someone spotting any of these images on your monitor might well
question how it's related to your work, just as they might seeing an
image of the lastest World Series game.

> > Perhaps somthing
> > a little safer next time, like a bowl of fruit or a house.
> How exactly were those images dangerous?

One generally would not be expected to explain why they are viewing a
basket of fruit on work hardware, verses a woman in a bikini.  Surely
you would agree to that.

> > Am
> > I too nieve to think that half-naked pictures are not the best
> > thing to use as examples?
> Um... Yes.  If you find yourself becoming aroused and uncomfortable by
> those images you should shut down your browser.  (avoid internet
> surfing, watching television and looking directly at the magazine rack
> in the grocery store)
> > If a person is necessary (like when
> > flesh tones are required as in the latest tutorial), a closeup
> > shot of Clinton or Gates might make a better picture (no, I do
> > not want to see them in a bikini (although that might make for
> > a funny tutorial), I mean a closeup of thier face).
> No matter where you're at in the world you're entitled to your opinion
> and I'm certain you have your reasons but given the choice I would
> choose a beautiful woman in a bikini over an ugly old man.
> > According
> > to a slashdot observation, apache is the http server of choice
> > of the porn industry; is the gimp the image editor of choice?
> WTF does that have to do with anything?  You could replicate the effects
> demonstrated in those tutorials any decent image editor.
> I thought the tutorials were great and I will use the stuff I learned
> when photographing my family and friends.
> --
> Jon Winters
>    "Everybody Loves The GIMP!"

Until later: Geoffrey           [EMAIL PROTECTED]

Microsoft != Innovation

Reply via email to