- Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And the stamp image is squeezed horizontally. Try downloading both the
photo the stamp image and layering the stamp over the photo at 50%
opacity. Scale the stamp image until the two faces
John S.,
Seems to me we are in violent agreement with each other. :-)
best,
Jostein
2008/10/19 John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/10/18 John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So what is the basis for claiming the government sanitized history? And
who is being
You mean those signals where they do their best to make their fingers
look like sausages in the making?
2008/10/19 William Robb [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
- Original Message - From: Anthony Farr
Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
My lingering doubt arises
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the
right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original
literally and exactly or not.
I can't agree more, that it's the artist's privilege. It's his medium after
all.
My
, Anthony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Sessoms
Sent: Monday, 20 October 2008 12:27 PM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Occam's Razor
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
And the stamp image is squeezed horizontally. Try downloading both the
photo the stamp image and layering the stamp over the photo at 50%
opacity. Scale the stamp image until the two faces are the same size.
Didn't you follow ~any~ of the links I
John Sessoms wrote:
Occam's Razor sez the painter moved the hand so it'd fit on the stamp.
Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the
right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original
literally and exactly or not.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail
2008/10/18 John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Actually, that was someone else's initial comment.
Apologies. Wrong John.
My initial comment was Tempest in a teapot; and IIRC, something to the
effect if you read the article, you'll see it's a painting, NOT A
PHOTOGRAPH.
Because it's a painting,
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Sessoms wrote:
Occam's Razor sez the painter moved the hand so it'd fit on the stamp.
Occam's Razor be damned, the painter, like any other artist, has the
right to paint however he or she sees fit, interpreting an original
literally and exactly
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/10/18 John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So what is the basis for claiming the government sanitized history? And
who is being revisionist?
That's the second time you ask who's revisionist. What are you
actually trying to imply by that?
The government is
the dodginess.
Regards, Anthony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Sessoms
Sent: Saturday, 18 October 2008 9:56 AM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL
Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Sessoms
Sent: Sunday, 19 October 2008 9:48 AM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: Mark Roberts [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Sessoms wrote:
Occam's Razor
;-)
Regards, Anthony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Mark Roberts
Sent: Saturday, 18 October 2008 10:09 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
John Sessoms wrote
- Original Message -
From: Anthony Farr
Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
My lingering doubt arises because, if the Bette Davis Speaks version of
the picture is the true depiction with no smoke, then why on earth would
the
stamp artist depict
Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1984 is a long time ago already. :-)
Btw, I'm re-reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation triology these days. In
his universe, projected from the fifties, the habit of smoking has
persisted
2008/10/17 John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Smoking makes a comeback in quite a lot of recent Science Fiction; usually
as a result of finding a cure for cancer. Theory seems to be that once the
harm is removed, there's nothing wrong with it. Real world, I doubt that'll
happen, since cancer is
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
John Sessoms wrote:
And I'm going to say again, I don't see any evidence that the original
image was sanitized. It just doesn't look like she was holding a
cigarette when the photo was taken.
John,
The oldest version of this picture I can find on the
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
2008/10/17 John Sessoms [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Smoking makes a comeback in quite a lot of recent Science Fiction; usually
as a result of finding a cure for cancer. Theory seems to be that once the
harm is removed, there's nothing wrong with it. Real world, I
From: AlunFoto [EMAIL PROTECTED]
1984 is a long time ago already. :-)
Btw, I'm re-reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation triology these days. In
his universe, projected from the fifties, the habit of smoking has
persisted through countless millennia into the Galactic Empire and
beyond. It's quite
Read KunderaThe Book of Laughter and Forgetting.
Norm
Anthony Farr wrote:
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist history, even if old
Anthony,
What struck me when going through those web archives was that so few
of her portraits featured a cigarette. Makes me wonder how extensive
the history rewriting is... Somehow it's difficult to believe that
they've systematically removed every little fag they could come over
just because
Not at all - it's a perfectly good way of providing useful work in
these troubled times. I have a friend, Winston Smith, who is a civil
servant with the Ministry of Truth. His job consists of spending most
of the day on Google Images looking for pictures of people smoking; he
then removes the
2008/10/14 Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Just so you know, I'm not a smoking defender. I'm a political correctness
hater.
LOL... I'm not even that.
It's just that what's happened has happened. Removing the ubiquitous
tobacco from the pictures of that era is a denial of history. Go that
way
1984 is a long time ago already. :-)
Btw, I'm re-reading Isaac Asimov's Foundation triology these days. In
his universe, projected from the fifties, the habit of smoking has
persisted through countless millennia into the Galactic Empire and
beyond. It's quite funny to observe how the human
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2008 6:03 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Anthony,
What struck me when going through those web archives was that so few
of her portraits featured a cigarette. Makes me wonder how extensive
Fascinating indeed. Although I have a fair deal of Soviet background
instilled in me, this still strikes me as a rather stupid thing to do.
Suppose that in 20 years from now, it will be proven that smoking is
extremely healthy for some reason. Say, those who smoke are better
endowed to
2008/10/14 Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Does it mean that all such images will be re-planted with proper smoking
devices???
This thread now just _begs_ for this:
http://turl.no/2ht
vbg,
Jostein
--
http://www.alunfoto.no/galleri/
http://alunfoto.blogspot.com
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
LOL!
ann
AlunFoto wrote:
2008/10/14 Boris Liberman [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
Does it mean that all such images will be re-planted with proper smoking
devices???
This thread now just _begs_ for this:
http://turl.no/2ht
vbg,
Jostein
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
Smoking is such a bad thing to do that you can encourage as many
people as you like to emulate a man who famously sold his soul to the
devil, but you can't show him smoking!
Bob
It's
becoming evident
that cigarette smoking is often being retouched away as the
new commercial
users seek
Interesting to see your arguments, John.
Some comments are interspersed below:
2008/10/13 John Celio [EMAIL PROTECTED]:
So you *want* government-sanctioned art portraying smoking as cool? Golly
gee, that's a fabulous idea. What's next, Scottish stamps of Ewan McGregor
shooting up heroin?
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
AlunFoto
Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 9:42 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
I will moderate my stance on this one. Spent the lunch break
- Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
I will moderate my stance on this one. Spent the lunch break zooming
through a couple of internet databases on stills from Bette Davis
career. There was a link to a youTube clip from All about Eve on the
original blogpost, which came close
AlunFoto wrote:
So only one question remains. Would depicting Bette Davis with a
cigarette in hand on a stamp actually promote smoking? I don't think
so, but I'm open to arguments... :-)
Because some people seem to think that if you photograph it, it becomes
cool, or something like that. I
] On Behalf Of
AlunFoto
Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 9:42 PM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
I will moderate my stance on this one. Spent the lunch break zooming
through a couple of internet databases on stills from Bette Davis
career
From: Scott Loveless [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2008/10/13 Mon PM 02:20:08 GMT
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
AlunFoto wrote:
So only one question remains. Would depicting Bette Davis with a
cigarette
-Original Message-
From: AlunFoto
(snip)
Now it looks like the artist has improved the shot to hint at her
smoking habit. (snip)
Agreed. It seems to me that the artist, with access to the unaltered
original (which we haven't found on the web), has omitted the cigarette at
his
I will moderate my stance on this one. Spent the lunch break zooming
through a couple of internet databases on stills from Bette Davis
career. There was a link to a youTube clip from All about Eve on the
original blogpost, which came close as a possible inspiration for the
stamp, where she's
From: Bob W [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Date: 2008/10/13 Mon AM 12:07:13 GMT
To: 'Pentax-Discuss Mail List' pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax
content:
http
On Oct 13, 2008, at 08:10 , Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW the Robert Johnson portrait is without a doubt the same picture
that has
been massaged so that it fits better onto a postage stamp.
Regards, Anthony
You obviously missed my post on this image, Tony.
Different
From: John Francis [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Even a stamp should portray visual fact. Visual reality.
Correcting history should be permanently buried in the past. The
Russians, the Germans, whoever else perpetrated this unconscionable
editing to change reality of what was, were wrong.
Almost
From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
Besides, it is a famous photographic image.
Yeah, it's so famous Google Image doesn't seem to have a link for it.
Not one I was able to find anyway.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
From: Mark Roberts
oseph McAllister wrote:
On Oct 12, 2008, at 12:26 , Anthony Farr wrote:
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist
From: Anthony Farr
Prompted by Jos's efforts, I found the base image here:
http://classicmoviefavorites.com/davis/davis051.jpg
It also happens to be the image on the cover of Bette Davis Speaks as
pictured on Amazon.com. Even though the image has differently posed hands,
I overlaid one on the
Diligence fail for you. I found it. Read my posts.
Regards, Anthony
-Original Message-
From: [EMAIL PROTECTED] [mailto:[EMAIL PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
John Sessoms
Sent: Tuesday, 14 October 2008 9:23 AM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize
October 2008 5:47 AM
To: pdml@pdml.net
Subject: RE: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
On Oct 13, 2008, at 08:10 , Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
BTW the Robert Johnson portrait is without a doubt the same picture
that has
been massaged so that it fits
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist history, even if old practices are now officially frowned
upon. If the picture was no good in its original
We live in a world gone insane.
G
On Oct 12, 2008, at 9:47 AM, Anthony Farr wrote:
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax
content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist history, even if
]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 9:47 AM
Subject: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http
doctors photograph to sanitize history
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist history, even if old practices are now officially
frowned
://www.neovenator.com
http://www.cafepress.com/neovenatorphoto
- Original Message - From: Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED]
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List pdml@pdml.net
Sent: Sunday, October 12, 2008 9:47 AM
Subject: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Perhaps it's
John Celio wrote:
It's just a stamp. I'd much rather have the government not portray
smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old photo.
John
Sorry, John. No, it's NOT just a stamp.
Even a stamp should portray visual fact. Visual reality.
Correcting history should be
On Sun, Oct 12, 2008 at 01:25:49PM -0700, keith_w wrote:
John Celio wrote:
It's just a stamp. I'd much rather have the government not portray
smoking as cool than accurately reproduce a tiny version of an old
photo.
John
Sorry, John. No, it's NOT just a stamp.
Even a stamp should
Am I missing something here?
My reading of the article is that no one has doctored the original
photograph. The stamp is a portrait by an artist based on a photograph.
I don't have any problem with the artist not including the ciggy in his
work.
(Then again, I've never seen All About Eve)
[EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Ditto. In fact, only the Davis pic suffered from the deletion. And then only
mildly.
...and it's not as if those publicity stills weren't retouched from the
start. (If I hadn't been told, I'd never have thought the Davis shot was
a photograph at all.)
What a silly
PROTECTED] On Behalf Of
Brian Walters
Sent: Monday, 13 October 2008 8:11 AM
To: Pentax-Discuss Mail List
Subject: Re: OT - Govt Agency doctors photograph to sanitize history
Am I missing something here?
My reading of the article is that no one has doctored the original
photograph. The stamp
Looks good. Rewriting history is ok as long as it's politically correct.
Not.
So you *want* government-sanctioned art portraying smoking as cool? Golly
gee, that's a fabulous idea. What's next, Scottish stamps of Ewan McGregor
shooting up heroin? Jamaican stamps of Bob Marley smoking
Brian Walters wrote:
Am I missing something here?
My reading of the article is that no one has doctored the original
photograph. The stamp is a portrait by an artist based on a photograph.
I don't have any problem with the artist not including the ciggy in his
work.
(Then again, I've never
John --
Betty Davis was more than a celebrity - especially to women... I'm not all
up in arms over the removal -- because on a stamp I can barely see her
face let alone
noticing that the cig isn't there,however a different photo could have
been used - there
actually were lots of photos of
On Oct 12, 2008, at 12:26 , Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax
content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist history, even if old practices are
Joseph McAllister wrote:
On Oct 12, 2008, at 12:26 , Anthony Farr [EMAIL PROTECTED] wrote:
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist history, even
Perhaps it's not OT regarding photography, but there's no Pentax
content:
http://blogs.suntimes.com/ebert/2008/10/thank_you_for_smoking.html
http://tinyurl.com/4qun6c
I hate revisionist history, even if old practices are now
officially
frowned
upon. If the picture was
On Sun, 12 Oct 2008 18:36:03 -0400, ann sanfedele [EMAIL PROTECTED]
said:
What! never saw All About Eve? get you to netflix
or it will be an extrememely bump ride :)
ann
That sounds scary - I'll check out the local DVD rentals almost
immediately.
:-)
Cheers
Brian
62 matches
Mail list logo
