No limit on stupid

[dorp]

https://davidsonwildcats.com/sports/202 ... nt-central

Davidosn Tournament Central link.

[i77cat]

Dyslexics of the world untie!

[Bill Cobb]

Raelly?

[DC69Wildcat]

Even without the speling eror, that is an awful font.

[cat44]

What am I missing?

[DC69Wildcat]

What am I missing?

Nothing now. They took it down. I hope somebody got a screen shot.

[i77cat]

Dorp did.

[i77cat]

https://gwhoops.boardhost.com/viewtopic ... php?id=547

They are really changing their name. It seems like some folks equate "Colonials" with "Colonial Masters" or "Colonizers".

The four finalists are apparently Fog, Revolutionaries, Ambassadors, and Sentinels.

https://gwhoops.boardhost.com/viewtopic ... hp?id=1755

[MLC67]

So much for the civility of the handshake line Memphis star player cold cocks Bowling Green guard after losing to BG in ladies NIT. CRIMINALLY charged with assault

[JCDC]

The title of this article seems to fit here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/maga ... thics.html

[stevelee]

The title of this article seems to fit here:
https://www.nytimes.com/2023/04/26/maga ... thics.html

The point about human perception and photo results is a valid one. When I edit photos a lot of time, I adjust things to look like how I thought they looked at the time. If the wedding was not spent with everybody staring at the pink hair, then there is no reason for videos to imply that they did.

There have been scenic shots where I have toned down the blue of the water or cut back on saturation in sunsets because the photos as shot looked phony. I adjusted to look more like I perceived things at the time. A real artist will convey how one felt at the time and maybe tell a story around that. For still photos, I shoot Raw files most of the time. There is no objective reality there, just a bunch of numbers. Software interprets those numbers according to various settings. There are sliders that let you adjust from those assumptions as you bring the numbers in to form a picture. If you shoot JPEGs, you let the camera make those decisions for you, from which it creates the picture. Canon, Fuji, Sony, and Nikon, for example, will use different assumptions behind their processes.

I shot video at a women's game to see how my newest camera would do under that lighting. The opponents wore red uniforms, and our team wore pink. That was colorful in person, and should look so in video. The summer pick-up videos I've shot under the old lights, looked too greenish or cyan using auto white balance. The sea of empty seats on the opposite side made the camera think that the lighting was too red, when in reality it was already sort of greenish. While my audience (i. e. y'all) preferred quick to good, I still balanced the color a bit, working against the somewhat spotty spectrum of the lights.

You might recall that I used calibrated test shots of the Colt 45 cap as a basis for editing the photo of Skog and me. Objectively, the cap in the photo came out within 1º on the color wheel to the right shade of red. Luckily, that adjustment didn't make our faces some odd color in the process. I did lighten his face a bit, since the shadow from the cap made it look too dark in the photo, though one wouldn't have perceived it that way in real life. I didn't make myself taller, because the photo does depict the relative heights one would have seen. (Obviously I knew you guys weren't interested in the precise shade of red, but I often use various situations as opportunities for learning how to do things. And if you have a cap and hold it up to the picture on your monitor, the colors will vary, given the settings of your monitor and the color of light on the cap at the time.)

So toning the pink hair down in video and photos to look more like reality seemed at the time is not problematic to me.

(And OK, you might be thinking that my using the linked article as a springboard for this essay is in itself testing the limits of stupid.)

[DC69Wildcat]

A really good quick test of the validity of stevelee's observations can be done with most simple photo editing software by just adjusting the white balance of a photo with a lot of color in it. I use PaintShop Pro (not as sophisticated as Photoshop, but does a good job and is much cheaper), and it allows me to choose whatever lighting conditions I want by clicking on any one of eleven possible choices under White Balance. It's pretty amazing how the color rendition changes as I go from Tungsten (2000 Kelvin) up through Standard Fluorescent (4000K) to Daylight (5200K) and finally to Shade (7000K). This is separate from adjusting saturation and intensity, which is what makes some online photos of Fall colors look so ridiculously garish.

After I had my cataract surgery 10 years ago, I was stunned by the difference in colors seen through my natural lens in one eye and the plastic lens in the post-op eye. Our lenses yellow somewhat as we age, but because it happens gradually and in both eyes, we don't notice it. However, with only one yellow lens and the other clear, it is striking. During the 2 weeks between the first and second procedures, I spent a lot of time looking at stuff while closing one eye or the other. The effect is particularly striking with white, and it was especially fun to look at clouds and toilet bowls.

[catnhat]

I have a cat who is infatuated w toilet bowls

[Dr. Bliss]

I took a close look (several close looks, actually) at a toilet bowl freshman year after after downing a bunch of that purple stuff somebody mixed up down on Patterson Court.

[MrMac]

A religious experience, no doubt.