Go Back   Steve's Digicams Forums > Post Your Photos > People Photos

Reply
 
Thread Tools Search this Thread
Old Jun 22, 2005, 11:07 PM   #11
Senior Member
 
RyanH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 452
Default

I agree as well. Blown out and out of focus.

I said it once, and I'll say it again. Seems a bit strange posting voyeur shots.
RyanH is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 22, 2005, 11:29 PM   #12
Senior Member
 
tswen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 379
Default

discodudette wrote:
Quote:

All men were obviously oogling the skirt and underwear (or lack thereof)....

Actually, she might just have been wearing a thong.

As for technical specs, yes, blown highlights, and as for the focus. It only seems slightly out of focus. Nothing a good Unsharp mask in photoshop can't fix.

I would say that the Shadow/Highlight feature may work for this picture, but i haven't tried it.

As i said in a previous post about the voyeur shots, celebrities have thier pictures taken all the time in public, whether they know it or not. This is no different. I will go again to the law side of this. This law stands in both the USA and England (different law number, but most definitions the same).

Any person on public ground under the Right to Publicity Act, can be photographed without their knowledge, as long as the picture is not being used for commerical purposes (a.k.a appropriation of name or likeness)

Exact Law: In the United States, the Right of Publicity is largely protected by state common or statutory law. Only about half the states have distinctly recognized a Right of Publicity. Of these, many do not recognize a right by that name but protect it as part of the Right of Privacy. The Restatement Second of Torts recognizes four types of invasions of privacy: intrusion, appropriation of name or likeness, unreasonable publicity and false light. See Restatement (Second) Of Torts §§ 652A - 652I. Under the Restatement's formulation, the invasion of the Right of Publicity is most similar to the unauthorized appropriation of one's name or likeness. See Restatement (Second) of Torts § 652C, comments a & b, illustrations 1 & 2.

In regards to whether it can be posted on the internet for anyone to see, here is a court case involving a picture being used in the media

According to Meetze v Associated Press, the right of privacy protects only the ordinary sensibilities of an individual and not super sensitiveness. A newspaper article about a newsworthy event including a picture of the plaintiff which was not reasonably calculated to embarrass or humiliate [the] plaintiff is not actionable. Meetze v Associated Press (1956) 230 SC 330, 95 SE2d 606.



-Travis-
tswen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2005, 3:44 AM   #13
Senior Member
 
Stevekin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,611
Default

The law may well be on the side of candid, voyeur type shots, but is it just me, or does anyone else find a little uncomfortable, the debate on whether an obvious schoolgirl is wearing underwear or not ?
Stevekin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2005, 8:05 AM   #14
Senior Member
 
tswen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 379
Default

Stevekin wrote:
Quote:
....but is it just me, or does anyone else find a little uncomfortable, the debate on whether an obvious schoolgirl is wearing underwear or not ?
That i fully agree with.
tswen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2005, 8:25 AM   #15
Senior Member
 
tswen's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jan 2005
Location: Pennsylvania
Posts: 379
Default

btw, Here is my version of the photo after some Photoshop retouching. I have corrected as much as i can of the blown highlights, the shirt around the girls shoulders was completely blown, so it was unrecoverable. Maybe if the file had been in RAW format, it might have been recoverable.

I also used the Unsharp Mask tool, with the settings of 0.9 pixels at 97%

As for the skirt, i have used the clone tool to hopefully take care of that problem. Not the greatest cloning job but it should work.



-Travis-
tswen is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2005, 9:02 AM   #16
Senior Member
 
Stevekin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,611
Default

tswen wrote:
Quote:

Not the greatest cloning job but it should work.


But the right sentiment is there.

Just for future reference Travis,with something that has a repeated pattern,it can be difficult to clone successfully. Perhaps try making a selection of a similar area and making it fit using the Transform Tools. Copy and paste the selection, then you can move it around to suit and use the eraser if necessary.

Nice to know I'm not the only one with these thoughts.

Good job on the other edits.

Steve.



Stevekin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2005, 9:50 AM   #17
Senior Member
 
Join Date: Oct 2003
Location: Indian Rocks Beach, FL
Posts: 4,036
Default

You guys are nuts. This thread reminds me of an old joke about a psychiatrist and an association test. The only thing we need is a hulk for discodudette to be fair and politically correct.

I do agree it is overexposed. I messed with it a little in Photoshop and the highlights are too blown to get a really good picture.


slipe is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 23, 2005, 10:07 AM   #18
Senior Member
 
Stevekin's Avatar
 
Join Date: Jun 2004
Posts: 1,611
Default

Actually, just Pardon ??

(Must stop jumping to conclusions when I don't understand the intent.)



Stevekin is offline   Reply With Quote
Old Jun 24, 2005, 12:30 AM   #19
Senior Member
 
RyanH's Avatar
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Posts: 452
Default

I know what the "law" states about these kind of shots.

I just find it very interesting that it seems all of SinRasto's shots on here and his site are "sneeky" pics of women.

Also, the title says "Girl in Uniform". I am not jumping to conclusions, but I don't think there are too many colleges that require uniforms anymore. So this would make me think that this girl is under age. And since this post seemed to go down the road of her undergarments, I think it is a bit on the shady side of things.

I don't say this to disrespect Sin's pics in anyway. But I personally don't think this forum is for just posting any pic of an attractive person, either male or female. Pics posted to this site should be to share your experiences, show emotion, allow others to learn, or learn yourself. IMO, there isn't anything technically good about this picture. To me, it looks like there was this hot girl and he decided to take a picture of her.

Take tswen's pics. Yes, his are candid, but there is a reason behind them. The people are having fun, showing emotion. They are fun and enlightening to look at.

I'll quit rambling now.


RyanH is offline   Reply With Quote
 
Reply


Thread Tools Search this Thread
Search this Thread:

Advanced Search

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are Off
Pingbacks are Off
Refbacks are Off



All times are GMT -5. The time now is 6:49 AM.