|
Post by Admin on Jun 13, 2020 14:20:13 GMT -5
How about a newer header picture? Okay. I'll look for one.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 13, 2020 15:12:55 GMT -5
How about a newer header picture? How is this? If you have a better one post it.
|
|
|
Post by Willyiam on Jun 13, 2020 16:18:30 GMT -5
How about a newer header picture? How is this? If you have a better one post it. This image really out of focus! Try this one - It shows Jackie as she is today!
|
|
|
Post by ursus on Jun 13, 2020 18:32:48 GMT -5
How is this? If you have a better one post it. This image really out of focus! Try this one - It shows Jackie as she is today!
I like the one which Rick posted better.
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 13, 2020 19:33:38 GMT -5
That picture of Jackie is really pretty, but the resolution is awful. How about a higher resolution photo?
|
|
|
Post by rlhamil on Jun 13, 2020 20:37:42 GMT -5
To me, the new banner photo looked edited or something (before Rick got it, I expect). Even allowing for makeup, the skin tone of face and everything else doesn't quite match; and while both face and the rest are Jackie, the face looks off somehow, as if the aspect ratio were wrong (making her face look wider), with the overall effect almost as if it was put together from two different photos.
I'm curious where it came from; that might provide a clue whether it was as heavily edited as I suspect.
|
|
|
Post by Admin on Jun 13, 2020 22:27:05 GMT -5
To me, the new banner photo looked edited or something (before Rick got it, I expect). Even allowing for makeup, the skin tone of face and everything else doesn't quite match; and while both face and the rest are Jackie, the face looks off somehow, as if the aspect ratio were wrong (making her face look wider), with the overall effect almost as if it was put together from two different photos. I'm curious where it came from; that might provide a clue whether it was as heavily edited as I suspect. Richard, I found it online. I don't remember where. How is this picture?
|
|
|
Post by rlhamil on Jun 13, 2020 23:00:57 GMT -5
To me, the new banner photo looked edited or something (before Rick got it, I expect). Even allowing for makeup, the skin tone of face and everything else doesn't quite match; and while both face and the rest are Jackie, the face looks off somehow, as if the aspect ratio were wrong (making her face look wider), with the overall effect almost as if it was put together from two different photos. I'm curious where it came from; that might provide a clue whether it was as heavily edited as I suspect. Richard, I found it online. I don't remember where. How is this picture? It definitely looks relatively unaltered, and a little clearer. I think I found what you had before, though. The face is still a different shade, but I think that's a makeup vs lighting problem at full resolution. edit: I can see the temptation to use it, esp. because it's wide enough vs the height to fill up a banner better. But the shrinking of it needs to be done in such a way as to keep as high quality as possible, so it won't look so strange. edit 2: the article that was in was dated January 2019, so the photo is almost 1 1/2 years old. Newer would be desirable, generally, if something that works somewhere near as well can be found; although that's tough; most Instagram or even Facebook pictures are phone pictures in portrait orientation, which isn't the best for a banner, probably. And googling for images with a date restriction doesn't seem to work all that well, since it reflects the date of the file and/or article, rather than necessarily the date the image first appeared.
|
|
|
Post by rlhamil on Jun 13, 2020 23:15:36 GMT -5
This one's not bad, although it's grainy:
|
|
|
Post by rlhamil on Jun 13, 2020 23:26:00 GMT -5
Or this would be fun, if it wasn't just a grainy video capture:
/photo/1
|
|
|
Post by ursus on Jun 14, 2020 0:14:24 GMT -5
Richard, I found it online. I don't remember where. How is this picture? It definitely looks relatively unaltered, and a little clearer. I think I found what you had before, though. The face is still a different shade, but I think that's a makeup vs lighting problem at full resolution. edit: I can see the temptation to use it, esp. because it's wide enough vs the height to fill up a banner better. But the shrinking of it needs to be done in such a way as to keep as high quality as possible, so it won't look so strange. edit 2: the article that was in was dated January 2019, so the photo is almost 1 1/2 years old. Newer would be desirable, generally, if something that works somewhere near as well can be found; although that's tough; most Instagram or even Facebook pictures are phone pictures in portrait orientation, which isn't the best for a banner, probably. And googling for images with a date restriction doesn't seem to work all that well, since it reflects the date of the file and/or article, rather than necessarily the date the image first appeared. I like the idea of using a wider picture, although it will probably require Rick to move the words.
|
|
|
Post by ursus on Jun 14, 2020 0:15:51 GMT -5
This one's not bad, although it's grainy: She looks somewhat haggard in this one.
|
|
|
Post by rlhamil on Jun 14, 2020 0:45:30 GMT -5
|
|
Deleted
Deleted Member
Posts: 0
|
Post by Deleted on Jun 14, 2020 1:36:30 GMT -5
I love the Kitty pics...she was so happy doing that!
|
|
|
Post by yellowstone2014 on Jun 14, 2020 8:02:11 GMT -5
Rick, could you change the surrounding color from black to another one, please? In Europe, if you have a black frame around a portrait photo, its usually is a sign of mourning. Mostly it means, the person has died recently.
|
|