make someone laugh

[Pyraxis]

  I can't imagine why the principal wouldn't just call for a little Photoshop touchup rather than getting defensive about it. I suppose he doesn't want to fund a new printing run; that could be quite expensive.

[DirtDawg]

^Meh no one on the internets has posted the unedited picture.

If they did post the picture unedited, wouldn't it be kiddie porn since the girl is only 16?

I see the girl's and her mother's point.

If that were the case could you not be arrested for having the year book.  I don't think it would be kiddie porn I think there has to be some sort exploitative nature to the photo to qualify this was just an accident.  I understand the girls and the moms side though. Don't they edit these things?  My wife does the year book at her school and I can't imagine it getting by them

The girl is so mortified, she hasn't been back to school since the yearbook came out for seniors and someone showed her the picture of herself.  She admits that she wasn't wearing panties that day because she didn't want a visible panty line.  She and her mother want the yearbooks recalled and her picture removed.  Yet the principal gave out even more yearbooks and keeps insisting that the view of her hoo-hoo up her dress is just a shadow.  Maybe the faculty member who edited the yearbook thought it looked like a shadow too.

If the angle is right and her "hoo-hoo" is indeed in view of the camera, I can assure you that it is not a shadow. That pic was taken using a camera-mounted flash, which has "almost" the same axis as the lens itself. Probably only a degree or less off axis, in reality Even deep, deep down inside shaded places, such as under skirts a flash will expose with the same intensity as the faces from such a distance. The distance from the flash to the face is only a few inches less than the distance from the flash to the "hoo-hoo"  and, by a quick flash calculation, the exposure would be effectively the same when measured from a distance of several feet and for practical purposes, identical amounts of light from the on-camera flash fell on both the face and the "hoo-hoo."

There are three important things that caring professional photographers do to prevent this from happening.

First and foremost, make certain that no one faces flat into the camera (turn everyone in slightly toward the center - no up-the-skirt views to begin with).

Second get your ass up on a ladder or at least a chair so that your lens axis is just slightly above the horizontal center line of your subject (especially important for a collective subject, such as a group of people on two or more rows. When using three or more rows, your camera lens should actually be perpendicular to the plane of the subject - in other words, considering the actual three or more rows of faces to be the collective subject, imagine a plane which intersects all their faces and keep the axis of your camera lens as close to perpendicular to this plane as possible. With large groups using many rows you are often well above the top row when following this guideline, but the benefit is that all your subjects will be more accurately sized from the front rows to the back rows - you won't make the people in the back rows seem disproportionately small when compared to the people in the front row - and you will have an easier time getting both the front and the back rows into focus at the same time).

Third, elevate the flash well above the lens, which also avoids having that nasty washed out area of direct reflection in the photograph or even better put the flash unit high up on a stand, several feet higher than the camera, but still directly behind and inline with the camera.

It seems almost impossible to imagine that, with the number of people who handle a job like imprinting a yearbook, NO ONE thought to question this image or at least edit the damn thing.

[El]

I can't imagine why the principal wouldn't just call for a little Photoshop touchup rather than getting defensive about it. I suppose he doesn't want to fund a new printing run; that could be quite expensive.

Yeah. I'd assume it's the money.

I'd also agree that no effing way would somebody not notice this in the process of putting a yearbook toegther.

[Callaway]

^Meh no one on the internets has posted the unedited picture.

If they did post the picture unedited, wouldn't it be kiddie porn since the girl is only 16?

I see the girl's and her mother's point.

If that were the case could you not be arrested for having the year book.  I don't think it would be kiddie porn I think there has to be some sort exploitative nature to the photo to qualify this was just an accident.  I understand the girls and the moms side though. Don't they edit these things?  My wife does the year book at her school and I can't imagine it getting by them

The girl is so mortified, she hasn't been back to school since the yearbook came out for seniors and someone showed her the picture of herself.  She admits that she wasn't wearing panties that day because she didn't want a visible panty line.  She and her mother want the yearbooks recalled and her picture removed.  Yet the principal gave out even more yearbooks and keeps insisting that the view of her hoo-hoo up her dress is just a shadow.  Maybe the faculty member who edited the yearbook thought it looked like a shadow too.

If the angle is right and her "hoo-hoo" is indeed in view of the camera, I can assure you that it is not a shadow. That pic was taken using a camera-mounted flash, which has "almost" the same axis as the lens itself. Probably only a degree or less off axis, in reality Even deep, deep down inside shaded places, such as under skirts a flash will expose with the same intensity as the faces from such a distance. The distance from the flash to the face is only a few inches less than the distance from the flash to the "hoo-hoo"  and, by a quick flash calculation, the exposure would be effectively the same when measured from a distance of several feet and for practical purposes, identical amounts of light from the on-camera flash fell on both the face and the "hoo-hoo."

There are three important things that caring professional photographers do to prevent this from happening.

First and foremost, make certain that no one faces flat into the camera (turn everyone in slightly toward the center - no up-the-skirt views to begin with).

Second get your ass up on a ladder or at least a chair so that your lens axis is just slightly above the horizontal center line of your subject (especially important for a collective subject, such as a group of people on two or more rows. When using three or more rows, your camera lens should actually be perpendicular to the plane of the subject - in other words, considering the actual three or more rows of faces to be the collective subject, imagine a plane which intersects all their faces and keep the axis of your camera lens as close to perpendicular to this plane as possible. With large groups using many rows you are often well above the top row when following this guideline, but the benefit is that all your subjects will be more accurately sized from the front rows to the back rows - you won't make the people in the back rows seem disproportionately small when compared to the people in the front row - and you will have an easier time getting both the front and the back rows into focus at the same time).

Third, elevate the flash well above the lens, which also avoids having that nasty washed out area of direct reflection in the photograph or even better put the flash unit high up on a stand, several feet higher than the camera, but still directly behind and inline with the camera.

It seems almost impossible to imagine that, with the number of people who handle a job like imprinting a yearbook, NO ONE thought to question this image or at least edit the damn thing.

Thanks for the information on how a caring professional photographer could prevent embarrassing over exposures in group pictures, DirtDawg.

I figured the young lady could tell the difference between her private parts and a shadow, but your explanation removes all possible doubt.

I heard House use "saying yoo-hoo to her hoo-hoo" as a euphemism for a young girl masturbating and I thought hoo-hoo was a funny name.

I think that some student working on the yearbook must have seen it, but I can't imagine a faculty member seeing it and not removing it.

However, the school district says that there is a long chain of command for inspecting the yearbook before it is approved and printed, including faculty advisors and an administrator, so one would think that a faculty member must have seen it.

Tampa, Florida - Page 219 of the brand new school yearbook is all the talk at Sickles High School in Citrus Park.

"There's a picture of a girl in the club pages," said senior Xander Morehouse.

The picture is of a student with, what some are saying, are her private parts showing.

And it is published in the school yearbook.

"When I saw it, I kind of flipped out. I was like, 'Oh my God', but I think that she's probably like really horrified," said sophomore Caitlin Darden.

10 Connects caught up with the 16-year-old in the photo - and her mother Jeanette. The young girl admits she didn't wear underwear that day but says it was because she didn't want her panty lines to show. She says she did not show herself like that on purpose, "Absolutely not. It is ridiculously embarrassing."

The Sickles junior says she found out about the photo when seniors got their yearbooks on Monday. She has not been back to school since. "I started crying, I was freaking out and I didn't know what to do. This is my junior year, it's so important. I didn't think I could go back to school knowing that everyone knew and had seen the picture."
http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=105906&catid=8

Hillsborough County School District spokesperson Linda Cobbe told 10 Connects the picture is not revealing at all. "We don't believe there is exposure in the yearbook.... It is a shadow."

"Is it a shadow, is it not a shadow? My whole thing is, it doesn't matter, the photo itself is damaging to a 16-year-old and should not have been published," said Jeanette.

"All of the administrators are trying to downplay it and saying I should really laugh it off and come back to school but I've been humiliated," said the junior who will not return to school for the rest of the year.

The district says there is a lengthy chain of command when it comes to approving and printing the yearbook - that includes faculty advisors and even an administrator.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090514/MOMS/305140009/-1/rss 
 

BTW, here's the photo.  What do you think about the angle?

[Blasted]

I heard House use "saying yoo-hoo to her hoo-hoo" as a euphemism for a young girl masturbating

[RageBeoulve]

^Meh no one on the internets has posted the unedited picture.

If they did post the picture unedited, wouldn't it be kiddie porn since the girl is only 16?

I see the girl's and her mother's point.

If that were the case could you not be arrested for having the year book.  I don't think it would be kiddie porn I think there has to be some sort exploitative nature to the photo to qualify this was just an accident.  I understand the girls and the moms side though. Don't they edit these things?  My wife does the year book at her school and I can't imagine it getting by them

The girl is so mortified, she hasn't been back to school since the yearbook came out for seniors and someone showed her the picture of herself.  She admits that she wasn't wearing panties that day because she didn't want a visible panty line.  She and her mother want the yearbooks recalled and her picture removed.  Yet the principal gave out even more yearbooks and keeps insisting that the view of her hoo-hoo up her dress is just a shadow.  Maybe the faculty member who edited the yearbook thought it looked like a shadow too.

If the angle is right and her "hoo-hoo" is indeed in view of the camera, I can assure you that it is not a shadow. That pic was taken using a camera-mounted flash, which has "almost" the same axis as the lens itself. Probably only a degree or less off axis, in reality Even deep, deep down inside shaded places, such as under skirts a flash will expose with the same intensity as the faces from such a distance. The distance from the flash to the face is only a few inches less than the distance from the flash to the "hoo-hoo"  and, by a quick flash calculation, the exposure would be effectively the same when measured from a distance of several feet and for practical purposes, identical amounts of light from the on-camera flash fell on both the face and the "hoo-hoo."

There are three important things that caring professional photographers do to prevent this from happening.

First and foremost, make certain that no one faces flat into the camera (turn everyone in slightly toward the center - no up-the-skirt views to begin with).

Second get your ass up on a ladder or at least a chair so that your lens axis is just slightly above the horizontal center line of your subject (especially important for a collective subject, such as a group of people on two or more rows. When using three or more rows, your camera lens should actually be perpendicular to the plane of the subject - in other words, considering the actual three or more rows of faces to be the collective subject, imagine a plane which intersects all their faces and keep the axis of your camera lens as close to perpendicular to this plane as possible. With large groups using many rows you are often well above the top row when following this guideline, but the benefit is that all your subjects will be more accurately sized from the front rows to the back rows - you won't make the people in the back rows seem disproportionately small when compared to the people in the front row - and you will have an easier time getting both the front and the back rows into focus at the same time).

Third, elevate the flash well above the lens, which also avoids having that nasty washed out area of direct reflection in the photograph or even better put the flash unit high up on a stand, several feet higher than the camera, but still directly behind and inline with the camera.

It seems almost impossible to imagine that, with the number of people who handle a job like imprinting a yearbook, NO ONE thought to question this image or at least edit the damn thing.

Thanks for the information on how a caring professional photographer could prevent embarrassing over exposures in group pictures, DirtDawg.

I figured the young lady could tell the difference between her private parts and a shadow, but your explanation removes all possible doubt.

I heard House use "saying yoo-hoo to her hoo-hoo" as a euphemism for a young girl masturbating and I thought hoo-hoo was a funny name.

I think that some student working on the yearbook must have seen it, but I can't imagine a faculty member seeing it and not removing it.

However, the school district says that there is a long chain of command for inspecting the yearbook before it is approved and printed, including faculty advisors and an administrator, so one would think that a faculty member must have seen it.

Tampa, Florida - Page 219 of the brand new school yearbook is all the talk at Sickles High School in Citrus Park.

"There's a picture of a girl in the club pages," said senior Xander Morehouse.

The picture is of a student with, what some are saying, are her private parts showing.

And it is published in the school yearbook.

"When I saw it, I kind of flipped out. I was like, 'Oh my God', but I think that she's probably like really horrified," said sophomore Caitlin Darden.

10 Connects caught up with the 16-year-old in the photo - and her mother Jeanette. The young girl admits she didn't wear underwear that day but says it was because she didn't want her panty lines to show. She says she did not show herself like that on purpose, "Absolutely not. It is ridiculously embarrassing."

The Sickles junior says she found out about the photo when seniors got their yearbooks on Monday. She has not been back to school since. "I started crying, I was freaking out and I didn't know what to do. This is my junior year, it's so important. I didn't think I could go back to school knowing that everyone knew and had seen the picture."
http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=105906&catid=8

Hillsborough County School District spokesperson Linda Cobbe told 10 Connects the picture is not revealing at all. "We don't believe there is exposure in the yearbook.... It is a shadow."

"Is it a shadow, is it not a shadow? My whole thing is, it doesn't matter, the photo itself is damaging to a 16-year-old and should not have been published," said Jeanette.

"All of the administrators are trying to downplay it and saying I should really laugh it off and come back to school but I've been humiliated," said the junior who will not return to school for the rest of the year.

The district says there is a lengthy chain of command when it comes to approving and printing the yearbook - that includes faculty advisors and even an administrator.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090514/MOMS/305140009/-1/rss 
 

BTW, here's the photo.  What do you think about the angle?

Shes a stupid bitch anyway. Who the fuck wears a skirt with no underwear? She wanted that shit to be seen. Idiot.

[Callaway]

Shes a stupid bitch anyway. Who the fuck wears a skirt with no underwear? She wanted that shit to be seen. Idiot.

She may have done an idiotic thing in wearing a dress without underwear, but I don't think she wanted it to be seen.  She was completely humiliated.   In the picture you can see she's sitting with her legs pressed together. 

If she actually wanted it to be seen, she would have opened her legs like Sharon Stone did in Basic Instict.

[RageBeoulve]

Shes a stupid bitch anyway. Who the fuck wears a skirt with no underwear? She wanted that shit to be seen. Idiot.

She may have done an idiotic thing in wearing a dress without underwear, but I don't think she wanted it to be seen.  She was completely humiliated.   In the picture you can see she's sitting with her legs pressed together. 

If she actually wanted it to be seen, she would have opened her legs like Sharon Stone did in Basic Instict.

Well. Shes still a fucking moron then. I have no sympathy for faggotry like that. She deserved whatever grief she got for it.

[DirtDawg]

^Meh no one on the internets has posted the unedited picture.

If they did post the picture unedited, wouldn't it be kiddie porn since the girl is only 16?

I see the girl's and her mother's point.

If that were the case could you not be arrested for having the year book.  I don't think it would be kiddie porn I think there has to be some sort exploitative nature to the photo to qualify this was just an accident.  I understand the girls and the moms side though. Don't they edit these things?  My wife does the year book at her school and I can't imagine it getting by them

The girl is so mortified, she hasn't been back to school since the yearbook came out for seniors and someone showed her the picture of herself.  She admits that she wasn't wearing panties that day because she didn't want a visible panty line.  She and her mother want the yearbooks recalled and her picture removed.  Yet the principal gave out even more yearbooks and keeps insisting that the view of her hoo-hoo up her dress is just a shadow.  Maybe the faculty member who edited the yearbook thought it looked like a shadow too.

If the angle is right and her "hoo-hoo" is indeed in view of the camera, I can assure you that it is not a shadow. That pic was taken using a camera-mounted flash, which has "almost" the same axis as the lens itself. Probably only a degree or less off axis, in reality Even deep, deep down inside shaded places, such as under skirts a flash will expose with the same intensity as the faces from such a distance. The distance from the flash to the face is only a few inches less than the distance from the flash to the "hoo-hoo"  and, by a quick flash calculation, the exposure would be effectively the same when measured from a distance of several feet and for practical purposes, identical amounts of light from the on-camera flash fell on both the face and the "hoo-hoo."

There are three important things that caring professional photographers do to prevent this from happening.

First and foremost, make certain that no one faces flat into the camera (turn everyone in slightly toward the center - no up-the-skirt views to begin with).

Second get your ass up on a ladder or at least a chair so that your lens axis is just slightly above the horizontal center line of your subject (especially important for a collective subject, such as a group of people on two or more rows. When using three or more rows, your camera lens should actually be perpendicular to the plane of the subject - in other words, considering the actual three or more rows of faces to be the collective subject, imagine a plane which intersects all their faces and keep the axis of your camera lens as close to perpendicular to this plane as possible. With large groups using many rows you are often well above the top row when following this guideline, but the benefit is that all your subjects will be more accurately sized from the front rows to the back rows - you won't make the people in the back rows seem disproportionately small when compared to the people in the front row - and you will have an easier time getting both the front and the back rows into focus at the same time).

Third, elevate the flash well above the lens, which also avoids having that nasty washed out area of direct reflection in the photograph or even better put the flash unit high up on a stand, several feet higher than the camera, but still directly behind and inline with the camera.

It seems almost impossible to imagine that, with the number of people who handle a job like imprinting a yearbook, NO ONE thought to question this image or at least edit the damn thing.

Thanks for the information on how a caring professional photographer could prevent embarrassing over exposures in group pictures, DirtDawg.

I figured the young lady could tell the difference between her private parts and a shadow, but your explanation removes all possible doubt.

I heard House use "saying yoo-hoo to her hoo-hoo" as a euphemism for a young girl masturbating and I thought hoo-hoo was a funny name.

I think that some student working on the yearbook must have seen it, but I can't imagine a faculty member seeing it and not removing it.

However, the school district says that there is a long chain of command for inspecting the yearbook before it is approved and printed, including faculty advisors and an administrator, so one would think that a faculty member must have seen it.

Tampa, Florida - Page 219 of the brand new school yearbook is all the talk at Sickles High School in Citrus Park.

"There's a picture of a girl in the club pages," said senior Xander Morehouse.

The picture is of a student with, what some are saying, are her private parts showing.

And it is published in the school yearbook.

"When I saw it, I kind of flipped out. I was like, 'Oh my God', but I think that she's probably like really horrified," said sophomore Caitlin Darden.

10 Connects caught up with the 16-year-old in the photo - and her mother Jeanette. The young girl admits she didn't wear underwear that day but says it was because she didn't want her panty lines to show. She says she did not show herself like that on purpose, "Absolutely not. It is ridiculously embarrassing."

The Sickles junior says she found out about the photo when seniors got their yearbooks on Monday. She has not been back to school since. "I started crying, I was freaking out and I didn't know what to do. This is my junior year, it's so important. I didn't think I could go back to school knowing that everyone knew and had seen the picture."
http://www.wtsp.com/news/local/story.aspx?storyid=105906&catid=8

Hillsborough County School District spokesperson Linda Cobbe told 10 Connects the picture is not revealing at all. "We don't believe there is exposure in the yearbook.... It is a shadow."

"Is it a shadow, is it not a shadow? My whole thing is, it doesn't matter, the photo itself is damaging to a 16-year-old and should not have been published," said Jeanette.

"All of the administrators are trying to downplay it and saying I should really laugh it off and come back to school but I've been humiliated," said the junior who will not return to school for the rest of the year.

The district says there is a lengthy chain of command when it comes to approving and printing the yearbook - that includes faculty advisors and even an administrator.
http://www.courier-journal.com/article/20090514/MOMS/305140009/-1/rss 
 

BTW, here's the photo.  What do you think about the angle?

I think the photographer was an incompetent fool, but this young girl will be the one who suffers from the photographer's incompetence.

I fully believe that she has more education due to her in how to prevent panty lines from showing - I have quite a treatise on the subject, if anyone is interested - but none of that excuses the horrible picture that was made, nor the negligence of numerous faculty members who surely must have been responsible for choosing which photographs were to be used in a yearbook. i don't blame the Printing Company, because they require that the job presented to them is "print ready"  meaning that all editing has already been done and that the document as presented to them is ready for publication. The school saves quite a bit of money by doing the simple things for themselves.

To me, it seems like one of the simple things that must be done is to keep "nudity" out of a publication of teens, especially if that is one of the goals, as it should certainly be in a school yearbook.



... but, fuck it!   LoL!!

[Parts]

It was Sickles High School in Tampa plenty of non censored ones out there meh making a lot out of nothing

[Blasted]

Epic fail.

[Blasted]

[odeon]

/dies 

[DirtDawg]

 :lol:

excellent.

[renaeden]

See that smug look on the paperclip's face.


#349567 +(13051)- [X]
Rabidplaybunny87: Okay, so my neighbors officially hate me
GarbageStan23: why?
Rabidplaybunny87: Well, me, david and andrew were having a bonfire in the backyard, and we were making s'mores and all... and suddenly we here sirens, and see a firetruck turn into the street in front of us.
Rabidplaybunny87: So we all went running to see what was up, and our neigbor's house was on fire!
GarbageStan23: oh shit!
Rabidplaybunny87: Yeah, and when we got there, the wife was crying into her husbands arms, and we were just kinda standing there, and then she saw us, and then like for 10 seconds, gave us the dirtiest look ever
Rabidplaybunny87: Turns out, we were still holding our sticks with marshmallows on it, watching the fire....
Rabidplaybunny87: talk about bad timing...

#881393 +(1757)- [X]
<jax> I think the thing I've been most ashamed of doing with my penis
<jax> was trying to see if I could register it as a fingerprint on my laptops fingerprint scanner
<jax> JUST so I could login with a penis print
<jax> it didn't work

#881368 +(646)- [X]
Enetheru: Freud... he'd have a ball with that.
Enetheru: Man, I wish he was still alive.
Enetheru: "Hey Freud, I want to introduce you to 4chan."
Enetheru: "Say Hi, 4chan."
Fizzkittens: Argh!
Enetheru: Freud wouldn't be able to do enough coke to keep up.

#877430 +(3942)- [X]
<richcollins> christ how long does a reboot take
<w3wsrmn> took him 3 days

#881349 +(1353)- [X]
<@Xenon> You know what the best feeling in the world is?
<@Xenon> It is when you have a headache, and you take pills, and you can feel the pain becoming less and less every couple of minutes
<@Xenon> It's so satisfying
<@malevolence> you've clearly never been laid