As a photographer, I am constantly amazed at how these posts really only serve to show how ignorant (sometimes willfully so) the writers are in regards to Photoshop (and anything to do with photography, really). I mean - it's all right there in the video embedded in the story; the difference between the final studio…
I also posted this, addressing that point specifically.
Exactly. I wonder how many of the anti-Photoshop people wear makeup? Or clothing that makes them appear thinner, etc.?
Same goes for any model wearing makeup & hair product.
The most significant and noticeable changes to the model's appearance in this video (contributing to the "unrealistic view of beauty") occur before the image is even taken into Photoshop.
Yup - just round up the bill to calculate the tip, then round up the tip so you only have to add a whole dollar amount when totaling the final amount. My dining life is so much easier now after having that epiphany - and the server ends up with a little bit more, too..!
What's funny is I also used to do the same when pumping gas; try to stop the pump at an exact dollar amount. Why? What's the purpose? I have no idea...
RE: 2: I used to do that, until I realized that 1) there is no benefit to charging an even number amount to my card over an odd amount and 2) it's way easier for me (when totaling bill + tip) to simply round up to the nearest whole dollar . I have no idea why I ever thought it was better to charge an even amount to…
So where are the proceeds from the sale of this song going?
You do realize you are promoting a service that allows users to easily and anonymously harass, stalk, intimidate, threaten, and bully others, do you not? "The Leak rules say that you should only use anonymous email for good, but who would ever do that?" - exactly.
Good to know (if true)..!
A person might try to argue that the act of photographing a child in and of itself is harassment, but that is not what the law says:
Why...? Jezebel regularly rails against paparazzi taking photos of celebrities' children and people publishing said photos of celebrities' children (claiming "invasion of privacy!" even when the photos are taken in public), yet is happy to publish them. You don't see any hypocrisy there...?
That law addresses harassment, not photography.
Jezebel sure seems to want it.
"They are people trying to do a job and provide a product which millions of people want." - including jezebel writers / readers..! Hypocrisy at its best..!
So is jezebel going to remove all photos of celebrity children from the site...?
"Free advertisement" is no guarantee of anything. And the point that you are missing is that (with few exceptions) it is up to the copyright holder when, where, how, and if their intellectual property can be used, and what the appropriate fees and conditions will be for said use - it is not up to the person who wants…
Yes, she says she had permission - but as of yet, there is no evidence of this (at least I have not seen any). Do you believe everything any criminal claims in their defense? If she did have permission, then I'm sure she will produce evidence of it (such as copies of a licensing agreement). That has not happened.