Very sexy! Silvery, wif stripes and spots!
8 Likes
Bus Wars!
16 Likes
14 Likes
WTF Nancy
13 Likes
She has some odd ideas, that’s certain. Thinking it’s okay for politicos to own stocks & indulge in a spot of insider trading, ferinstance.
13 Likes
17 Likes
9 Likes
There is a resemblance. Apologies, Divine.
8 Likes
I mean, wasn’t she modeled on Divine?
8 Likes
I meant Mrs Thomas.
8 Likes
OH! Yeah, I can maybe see that from the original image… but I was replying to @RickMycroft’s article about the oath keeper dude throwing Trump under the bus…
8 Likes
Wheels within wheels.
9 Likes
8 Likes
(Fanone) said his new mission in life was to “wage a one-man war against Donald Trump and the fucking people that refuse to accept reality”.
Of Republicans under McCarthy and as high in the party as Trump who have sought to downplay the Capitol attack, he said: “You call [January 6] a ‘tourist day’, You say it was ‘hugs and kisses’. I’m going to be that fucking inconvenient motherfucker that pops his head up every time you say some stupid shit like that.”
He also said he does not want to be thought of as an American hero, in part because “Motherfuckers think [former vice-president] Mike Pence is a goddamn hero” for resisting Trump’s scheme to stay in power, and “don’t lump me in with that fucking pathetic coward”.
Hmmm… might shovel some money his way for a book.
20 Likes
…What exactly is happening in that image? Is the speed of light super low or something?
6 Likes
Odd viewing angle of a projected hologram?
4 Likes
Way to clutch the pearls, Guardian.
5 Likes
16 Likes
Drama queens.
20 Likes
Digital photography without much expert image processing from RAW file?
Clearly the background buildings were included for context, fully in sunlight, and then the subject in the foreground was in shadow. So: angle tells part of the story. But.
I dunno if there was multiple spot-metering and averaging done through the camera’s internal gizmos, but if you’re shooting in a high-contrast environment (bright light + distinct shadows all in one picture) and you are trying to preserve 100% of both light and dark values, you’re gonna lose a bit of something, somewhere, in the image, unless you know how to process those issues out. And it was sorta processed, you can tell, because the cloudy bit surrounding the subject should be more contrasty and less washed out.
Inexpert masking in Photoshop (or whatever image processing program) for sure.
Unless the photo editor at Rolling Stone is trying to imply that the rotunda is more important [visually or otherwise] than the ostensible subject (Fanone).
Either that, or the photographer (if they even bothered to employ one separately or if they relied on a photojournalist or just a journalist with a camera) used the center point of the image (which may be cropped) to meter off of, and that center point (which is where most cameras default meter from) is a big dark rectangle of cooler. Or part of a shadow on Fanone. 
Whoever took the pic should have metered off of Fanone’s face.
Then the poor slob dealing with the field result in Photoshop (and it may well be the reporter, again, it’s amazing how media these days tries to pinch pennies) realizes there’s a publishing deadline, there’s not enough data in the image to work with to make the image look good without a lot of extra work (and even then YMMV on the result), and this is as good as it’s going to get before “press time” WTFTM.
ETA: grammar, clarifiers
6 Likes
