"DSK" wrote in message

A friend has told me about color values in JPG files, a pic that has been
cut & pasted into another will be on a different color matrix.

It's known a hue saturation... I can crop from a photo, sample the hue of
the target and apply that to the pasted image so as to make it very
difficult to tell. This method requires detailed mask with a with a selected
pixel transparency rate sufficent to match the resolution of the target and
subject files. It is paramount that both pictures have the same resolution
to be effective. Pixel by pixel editing makes the image very difficult to
identify as a merged object.

Don't know how to read this myself
but it's one reason why some digital photos will be allowed as evidence in
court. Another giveaway is the double ".jpg" in the name.

That would be a save option.... not the result of a an edit.

CM

A friend has told me about color values in JPG files, a pic that has been
cut & pasted into another will be on a different color matrix.


Capt.Mooron wrote:
It's known a hue saturation... I can crop from a photo, sample the hue of
the target and apply that to the pasted image so as to make it very
difficult to tell. This method requires detailed mask with a with a selected
pixel transparency rate sufficent to match the resolution of the target and
subject files. It is paramount that both pictures have the same resolution
to be effective. Pixel by pixel editing makes the image very difficult to
identify as a merged object.


I bet so. If you were really good at pixel by pixel editing,
you could draw a photo yourself, of anything you could
imagine (and many things I probably wouldn't).


.... Another giveaway is the double ".jpg" in the name.


That would be a save option.... not the result of a an edit.


But don't you think it indicates a sloppily done save by
more than one program?

DSK

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote
| http://www.badongo.com/pic/293243
|
| http://www.badongo.com/pic/293242



Don't even try. I think I broke their website. It seems to be down. I guess too many people
were trying to click on my links.... Maybe they'll fix it later on.


Cheers,
Ellen

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
I promised you I'd post some boat pictures to prove I really do have a Renken Tangerine.
Here they are. They were taken today.

Not according to the embedded timestamp.

I've seen a bunch of these boats, for a while they were
produced as the Tangerine 18. I have been on/in one but not
sailed one, the cabin arrangement is very practical for such
a small cruiser. They seem kinda slow compared to a racing
class but faster than some small cruisers that size.

BTW if that's your boat, you need new sails. Roll them
instead of stuffing them in the bag, too.


I've lost my baby fat that I had in those other photos.
They were taken five and seven years ago. :-) I've been working out and I'm stronger now.
Kedging off is easy....


http://www.badongo.com/pic/293243

http://www.badongo.com/pic/293242


(links left in place)

Thanks for posting the pics.

Fresh Breezes- Doug King

"DSK" wrote

| Not according to the embedded timestamp.

They don't have a time stamp embedded. I can't find any in the properties. If there's
one somewhere it probably says January 1, 2002. Every time the batteries go dead in my camera
the date goes back to 2002. I gave up resetting it all the time. I don't use the date on my pictures
anyway.

| I've seen a bunch of these boats, for a while they were
| produced as the Tangerine 18. I have been on/in one but not
| sailed one, the cabin arrangement is very practical for such
| a small cruiser. They seem kinda slow compared to a racing
| class but faster than some small cruisers that size.

There's room for two adults and two or three kids to sleep. Two long quarterberths under the cockpit.
Sitting headroom in the main cabin. No stove, no sink, not even a water tank. You have to take everything
like your going tent camping.

| BTW if that's your boat, you need new sails. Roll them
| instead of stuffing them in the bag, too.

Your right. The sails are originals and pretty stretched out. The mainsail is in better shape than the jib.
The jib has a wire along the front. It's all rusty and the sail is stained. It needs a leech line. The leech flaps
when going upwind. It's about impossible to roll up the jib. The wire's too stiff. If I roll the mainsail it won't
fit in the bag. It's too long. It's easier to stuff them. They're not for racing. They're colorful for day sailing
around. They look OK from a distance. They get smoother after a couple hours up.

| Thanks for posting the pics.

Your welcome.

Cheers,
Ellen

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
"DSK" wrote

| Not according to the embedded timestamp.

They don't have a time stamp embedded. I can't find any in the properties. If there's
one somewhere it probably says January 1, 2002. Every time the batteries go dead in my camera
the date goes back to 2002. I gave up resetting it all the time. I don't use the date on my pictures
anyway.

| I've seen a bunch of these boats, for a while they were
| produced as the Tangerine 18. I have been on/in one but not
| sailed one, the cabin arrangement is very practical for such
| a small cruiser. They seem kinda slow compared to a racing
| class but faster than some small cruisers that size.

There's room for two adults and two or three kids to sleep. Two long quarterberths under the cockpit.
Sitting headroom in the main cabin. No stove, no sink, not even a water tank. You have to take everything
like your going tent camping.

| BTW if that's your boat, you need new sails. Roll them
| instead of stuffing them in the bag, too.

Your right. The sails are originals and pretty stretched out. The mainsail is in better shape than the jib.
The jib has a wire along the front. It's all rusty and the sail is stained. It needs a leech line. The leech flaps
when going upwind. It's about impossible to roll up the jib. The wire's too stiff. If I roll the mainsail it won't
fit in the bag. It's too long. It's easier to stuff them. They're not for racing. They're colorful for day sailing
around. They look OK from a distance. They get smoother after a couple hours up.

| Thanks for posting the pics.

Your welcome.

Cheers,
Ellen

Kinda an ugly boat. BTW, who is the bimbo who got cut n pasted in
there by mistake?

wrote
| Kinda an ugly boat. BTW, who is the bimbo who got cut n pasted in
| there by mistake?



Beauty's in the eye of the beholder. If you don't have anything good to say try keeping quiet.....
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. :-o~

Cheers,
Ellen

Ellen MacArthur wrote:
wrote
| Kinda an ugly boat. BTW, who is the bimbo who got cut n pasted in
| there by mistake?



Beauty's in the eye of the beholder. If you don't have anything good to say try keeping quiet.....
Sticks and stones will break my bones but names will never hurt me. :-o~

Cheers,
Ellen

Ya know...there's not enough new people who wander in here that this
ploy will work....

"Ellen MacArthur" wrote in
message
reenews.ne
t...


Your right. The sails are originals and pretty
stretched out. The mainsail is in better shape than the jib.
The jib has a wire along the front. It's all rusty and the
sail is stained. It needs a leech line. The leech flaps
when going upwind.


You come up to Plowville and I'll put a leech line on that
sail for you.

Scotty

"Scotty" wrote
| You come up to Plowville and I'll put a leech line on that
| sail for you.



Why thank you Scotty. But however can I possibly show my gratitude? ;-)


Cheers,
Ellen