while im sure it gets mentioned on the page, simply reducing the ppi resolution (ie, 72 pixels per inch), doesn't change anything. It's changing the actual image size that matters. If you have an image that is say 2000x1250 pixels in size, at a ppi of 300 pixels per inch, changing the latter to 72 ppi doesn't actually alter the file itself, just the way it is displayed. It will still be 2000x1250, and thus, have the exact same amount of detail as it did before.

and man, its gotta suck to lose your job while stationed in Iraq right now...

in the world of photographic journalism, the photos are used to draw the reader in to read the story it accompanies. With the present day situations, and the majority of the US supporting the war (at least it is so with CNN polls... which i don't reeally trust), the resulting image will garner more attention from the readers at large. this doesnt justify it in many ways, but from a journalism standpoint, where in the end the advertisement dollars are what gets counted, it is. you can be assured that most every photographer for the LA Times has done this sort of thing before, and will continue to do so. They will just be more cautious now is all.

looks even colder than quebec there...

oh, and there are plenty of lies eminating from both sides incidently.

dude, calm the fuck down.

yer on a Mac aren't ya...

and goatboy, I think it probably had more to do with getting the soldiers face along with the Iraqi man's face (the one hunched down in blue holding a child). In one or the other, their faces are turned away from view.

documentaries are very often staged actually. As I'm learning from my girlfriend (she's taking 2 documentary film/tv courses), there are many different types of documentary, some with seemingly similar names with entirely different meanings (ie: docu-drama versus drama documentary...). In one of these genres, i forget its name, the documentary is not filmed "as is", rather, the people filming the doc often watch and wait to see what happens, and when something they want happens, they ask the people to recreate what just happened so they can film it. Not only that, but generally in that genre (i REALLY wish I could remember its name dammit... but she's tossed so many different terms at me this year... mindphucked i am), they don't even post the words "Re-enactment" or anything at the bottom of the screen. This is an accepted practice. Honestly, from my perspective, I don't see anything too wrong with that specific photograph, even based on principle. The photographer wanted to convey the story in the scene as best as possible, and that meant making a minor alteration (it was seemingly an aesthetic decision). I'd probably be more interested in seeing two truths combined to form an interesting image than choosing one or the other and have the prospect of being uninterested, and while that may not be the case in this set of photos (i dont find any of the 3 that compelling, only when i read twhat was going on behind the scenes do I go "oh fudge!"), it's how I feel personally. this would make one interesting topic of discussion it would... so why not start one now? Bending the truth, or making manipulations to create the best presentation without really altering the theme, emotion, concept, and feel of the final output... is it alright? Why/whynot?

WHY THE F$%K DID YOU DESTROY IT??!?!?!?! COLLAGE IS THE GOD DAMN SHIZNICK WOMAN!!!!! seriously though, get in the habit of NOT destroying anything if you can help it. Even our worst efforts can be used later on, if nothing more than simply to see what went wrong before in order to avoid a repetition of the past. but you are mad to get rid of this, cuz this kicked ass.

having 5 or 6 people say "LKet's have a GIMP forum" isn't going to get a forum, hell, there were maybe 15 people who wanted a photoshop gallery, and that really isn't even close to enough. Seriously, GIMP is not something rosity is concerned with. As GIMP users, you must know of other, better forums for GIMP that are used by people who care as much about the software as yourselves? "I've never even used poser. Don't need to." Unfortunately, there are several thousand users on this site that REALLY use poser... Seriously, I'm an avid bitmap and vector program user, no 3D for me. I personally come here for fun, but if I want hardcore duiscussion on 2D work, photoshop, Expression 3, etc, I go elsewhere. Fireworks is very powerful. Flash is THE standard for multimedia on the internet. Quark Xpress is on every graphic designer's hard drive. These programs are either barely represented at all (we have a vector forum that isnt really used), or not at all period, and very few people have shown an interest in getting forums for these products either. 5-10 people won't get a forum. 30-50 will. And considering that over 10,000 people have registered for this site (I know, maybe half actually come here frequently, la la la), 30-50 is a really small percentage, and not much to ask for. If the interest is there, it will happen. There isn't any predjudice going on here.

you know we still don't have reliable electricity up here in Canada yet, so getting the pic of a light bulb won't be a problem, so long as its alright if it doesn't turn on...

ooooooooooo baby

do a search somewhere, anywhere.

I run a triple monitor rig. I have a Radeon 7000 powering my main monitor and an old school tV, along with my old voodoo PCI powering the old monitor in the middle. The tv isnt particularly useful for most applications, except for when Im doing sound work for a video (see above pic), in this case, it makes all the difference. the G550 is a nice card, i agree, however the Matrox Parhelia is on my wishlist, 'specially for its 10-bit per channcel colour capability and plugin for photoshop (a nice jump from 16.7 million colours, to several billion....) as for calibration, i dont give a rats ass about the TV or the Voodoo 3 monitors, all my work goes on my (absolutely sick) 19inch flat samsung screen... (sick because of its .20 dot pitch!)