Wide World of Women
http://wideworldofwomen.net/Forum/

Jenna Lee - 20-11-08 - Appearing on Sky News
http://wideworldofwomen.net/Forum/viewtopic.php?f=37&t=98167		 Page 1 of 2
Author:  Muff [ Wed Nov 26, 2008 10:45 pm ]
Post subject:  Jenna Lee - 20-11-08 - Appearing on Sky News
Image Image Image Image Image Image Image Image

Uploaded with IIIUploader
Author:  pacificRT [ Wed Nov 26, 2008 11:57 pm ]
Post subject: 
Nice--very nice!

But what's with the effects there-- they look like paintings of
Jenna rather than caps...?
Author:  Muff [ Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:47 am ]
Post subject: 
Thats down to the TV signal quality we have here, its not High Def and SD is usually quite poor in the UK
Author:  shad0w [ Thu Nov 27, 2008 1:59 am ]
Post subject: 
Muff wrote:
Thats down to the TV signal quality we have here, its not High Def and SD is usually quite poor in the UK


Well, they were altered with a photo editing program. People here would prefer the straight up caps no matter what the quality is as opposed to edited ones that look strange. 267kb is high for a non hd jpg.

Thanks, though.
Author:  flaming_cowpie [ Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:08 am ]
Post subject: 
Such a babe. I'd like to personally thank England for giving her back to us. As a show of good faith, I'll give you back Simon Cowell :Kool
Author:  darkbasic [ Thu Nov 27, 2008 12:20 pm ]
Post subject: 
thanks
Author:  Muff [ Thu Nov 27, 2008 3:05 pm ]
Post subject: 
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
Thats down to the TV signal quality we have here, its not High Def and SD is usually quite poor in the UK


Well, they were altered with a photo editing program. People here would prefer the straight up caps no matter what the quality is as opposed to edited ones that look strange. 267kb is high for a non hd jpg.

Thanks, though.


Some would be happy with caps rather than no caps
Author:  Mullin [ Thu Nov 27, 2008 4:10 pm ]
Post subject: 
Ty Muff :Kool
Author:  flaming_cowpie [ Thu Nov 27, 2008 5:43 pm ]
Post subject: 
Muff wrote:
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
Thats down to the TV signal quality we have here, its not High Def and SD is usually quite poor in the UK


Well, they were altered with a photo editing program. People here would prefer the straight up caps no matter what the quality is as opposed to edited ones that look strange. 267kb is high for a non hd jpg.

Thanks, though.


Some would be happy with caps rather than no caps

:Thumb agreed. As long as it's not caps of Rosie O'Donnell :Joker
Author:  shad0w [ Sat Nov 29, 2008 11:15 pm ]
Post subject: 
Muff wrote:
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
Thats down to the TV signal quality we have here, its not High Def and SD is usually quite poor in the UK


Well, they were altered with a photo editing program. People here would prefer the straight up caps no matter what the quality is as opposed to edited ones that look strange. 267kb is high for a non hd jpg.

Thanks, though.


Some would be happy with caps rather than no caps


It depends.
Author:  Muff [ Sun Nov 30, 2008 6:48 am ]
Post subject: 
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
Thats down to the TV signal quality we have here, its not High Def and SD is usually quite poor in the UK


Well, they were altered with a photo editing program. People here would prefer the straight up caps no matter what the quality is as opposed to edited ones that look strange. 267kb is high for a non hd jpg.

Thanks, though.


Some would be happy with caps rather than no caps


It depends.



Yes it depends


On the stupidity level of those in question if they would rather have no caps, kind of defeats the purpose of the forum!
Author:  Kevin77 [ Sun Nov 30, 2008 7:04 am ]
Post subject: 
All caps are appreciated here. :Kool
Author:  Kevin77 [ Sun Nov 30, 2008 10:42 am ]
Post subject: 
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
Thats down to the TV signal quality we have here, its not High Def and SD is usually quite poor in the UK


Well, they were altered with a photo editing program. People here would prefer the straight up caps no matter what the quality is as opposed to edited ones that look strange. 267kb is high for a non hd jpg.

Thanks, though.


Some would be happy with caps rather than no caps


It depends.


What the hell is that supposed to mean? No caps are better than what you don't want? Why don't you just skip the posts that aren't for you? :?
Author:  shad0w [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:29 am ]
Post subject: 
donkeed wrote:
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
Thats down to the TV signal quality we have here, its not High Def and SD is usually quite poor in the UK


Well, they were altered with a photo editing program. People here would prefer the straight up caps no matter what the quality is as opposed to edited ones that look strange. 267kb is high for a non hd jpg.

Thanks, though.


Some would be happy with caps rather than no caps


It depends.


What the hell is that supposed to mean? No caps are better than what you don't want? Why don't you just skip the posts that aren't for you? :?


First, he is the one who brought up cap quality and tried to say they look the way he posted based on the feed, etc. I pointed out that the caps were altered with an editing program. He got all snooty about it and wanted to be a smartass. Hell, I said "thanks" in my original post to him too. All he had to say was "yeah I tried to fix them the best I could" or something like that instead of taking the old capper position of telling people they should just be grateful for any caps. I'm always grateful. And I never turned this into an argument or made it negative.... even though everything I say always seems to get interpreted that way (by some).
Author:  flaming_cowpie [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 1:37 am ]
Post subject: 
Image
" Can't we all just.... get along?" :mrgreen:
Author:  Muff [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 6:51 am ]
Post subject: 
shad0w wrote:
donkeed wrote:
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
Thats down to the TV signal quality we have here, its not High Def and SD is usually quite poor in the UK


Well, they were altered with a photo editing program. People here would prefer the straight up caps no matter what the quality is as opposed to edited ones that look strange. 267kb is high for a non hd jpg.

Thanks, though.


Some would be happy with caps rather than no caps


It depends.


What the hell is that supposed to mean? No caps are better than what you don't want? Why don't you just skip the posts that aren't for you? :?


First, he is the one who brought up cap quality and tried to say they look the way he posted based on the feed, etc. I pointed out that the caps were altered with an editing program. He got all snooty about it and wanted to be a smartass. Hell, I said "thanks" in my original post to him too. All he had to say was "yeah I tried to fix them the best I could" or something like that instead of taking the old capper position of telling people they should just be grateful for any caps. I'm always grateful. And I never turned this into an argument or made it negative.... even though everything I say always seems to get interpreted that way (by some).


Snooty? Smartass? :jetserl

Now, as my works so crap, point me in the direction of your super, high quality stuff so I can see how its done
Author:  brain44446 [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 9:26 am ]
Post subject: 
HOT PICS.
Author:  shad0w [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 12:26 pm ]
Post subject: 
Muff wrote:
shad0w wrote:
donkeed wrote:
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
shad0w wrote:
Muff wrote:
Thats down to the TV signal quality we have here, its not High Def and SD is usually quite poor in the UK


Well, they were altered with a photo editing program. People here would prefer the straight up caps no matter what the quality is as opposed to edited ones that look strange. 267kb is high for a non hd jpg.

Thanks, though.


Some would be happy with caps rather than no caps


It depends.


What the hell is that supposed to mean? No caps are better than what you don't want? Why don't you just skip the posts that aren't for you? :?


First, he is the one who brought up cap quality and tried to say they look the way he posted based on the feed, etc. I pointed out that the caps were altered with an editing program. He got all snooty about it and wanted to be a smartass. Hell, I said "thanks" in my original post to him too. All he had to say was "yeah I tried to fix them the best I could" or something like that instead of taking the old capper position of telling people they should just be grateful for any caps. I'm always grateful. And I never turned this into an argument or made it negative.... even though everything I say always seems to get interpreted that way (by some).


Snooty? Smartass? :jetserl

Now, as my works so crap, point me in the direction of your super, high quality stuff so I can see how its done


That was the wrong thing to say because I can certainly point you in that direction.....

Look, I didn't call your work crap.... stop making it all out to be that way. I only commented about the photo editing and that's what gave them the "painted" look as someone else said. Then you came back at me with the age-old capper reply... and then I said "it depends" which could be taken in a bad way. Since I wrote it, it was lol!

Let's just end this. Peace.
Author:  Muff [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 3:34 pm ]
Post subject: 
There is no photo editing as such, I have only enlarged them slightly and cropped them. UK tv channels only use decent camera's on close up shots, long range shots are terrible and do look 'painted', as do live feeds from the US.

I never try and sharpen them up, I only crop, enlarge and maybe brighten, as our channels are often a bit dark
Author:  shad0w [ Wed Dec 03, 2008 4:11 pm ]
Post subject: 
Muff wrote:
There is no photo editing as such, I have only enlarged them slightly and cropped them. UK tv channels only use decent camera's on close up shots, long range shots are terrible and do look 'painted', as do live feeds from the US.

I never try and sharpen them up, I only crop, enlarge and maybe brighten, as our channels are often a bit dark


That's all considered editing. Enlarging a cap makes it worse because of the resolution. Cropping can also alter it and reduce quality depending on the source. Most SD broadcasts in the US really suck... especially Headline News. Fox used to be horrible but it's a little better since they went HD.
Page 1 of 2 All times are UTC - 5 hours [ DST ]
Powered by phpBB © 2000, 2002, 2005, 2007 phpBB Group
http://www.phpbb.com/