Make A Digital Photo Of A Famous Person Saying Your Slogan

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by homeless.panhandler@gmail.com, Dec 3, 2005.

  1. Guest

    http://www.FamousDefaces.com

    Over 250 image generators where you can create
    funny messages embedded into a picture of a
    famous person (some live "on the fly" samples
    on the main page). Make up some celebrity
    gossip and email the pic to a friend, promote
    your site or blog with your details, etc. Endless
    fun!
    , Dec 3, 2005
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Paul Heslop Guest

    wrote:
    >


    >
    > Over 250 image generators where you can create
    > funny messages embedded into a picture of a
    > famous person (some live "on the fly" samples
    > on the main page). Make up some celebrity
    > gossip and email the pic to a friend, promote
    > your site or blog with your details, etc. Endless
    > fun!


    and put 'digital' in the subject so it's on message! wow.

    --
    Paul (Some of them, they surprise)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Dec 3, 2005
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Guest

    I am not sure if I understand you Paul...

    >and put 'digital' in the subject so it's on message!


    The word "digital" is in the subject already, could
    you expalin your comment more? What do you
    mean "so it's on message"? With that site, you
    put messages on pictures...

    --------------------------------------------------
    Shop and Look
    http://www.GigahertzInc.com
    , Dec 3, 2005
    #3
  4. Paul Heslop Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > I am not sure if I understand you Paul...
    >
    > >and put 'digital' in the subject so it's on message!

    >
    > The word "digital" is in the subject already, could
    > you expalin your comment more? What do you
    > mean "so it's on message"? With that site, you
    > put messages on pictures...
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------
    > Shop and Look
    > http://www.GigahertzInc.com


    Yes, to explain more clearly, the images are digital in that they are
    on a machine. You haven't gone out and taken a bunch of digital pics,
    nor are you asking anyone to contribute digital pics. They're just
    pics. You have used the word 'digital' to be on message for a digital
    photography group. otherwise you're just posting a link to a website
    which is probably fun, but not much to do with digital photography.

    --
    Paul (Some of them, they surprise)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Dec 3, 2005
    #4
  5. Darrell Guest

    Actually you should put SPAM in your headers, as that is all your message
    was is off-topic, off-charter commercial spam


    <> wrote in message
    news:...
    >I am not sure if I understand you Paul...
    >
    >>and put 'digital' in the subject so it's on message!

    >
    > The word "digital" is in the subject already, could
    > you expalin your comment more? What do you
    > mean "so it's on message"? With that site, you
    > put messages on pictures...
    >
    > --------------------------------------------------
    > Shop and Look
    > http://www.GigahertzInc.com
    >
    Darrell, Dec 4, 2005
    #5
  6. Guest

    I have right on my main page where it request you send me digitial
    phtos of celebs, didn't mention it here as it's already mentioned on my
    website, didn't want to seem like I repeat info too much, that's what
    spammers do...

    Where are the rules so I can get this all straight before I have to sue
    someone for slander? Hehe...

    http://beware.of.web.trolls.customsigngenerator.com
    , Dec 4, 2005
    #6
  7. Guest

    BTW (I meant to apologize before), I do apologize if I
    bothered anyone. I thought I had something related
    as I have a site with digital photos, many of the photos
    were taken with digital cameras (but not by me).

    My bad, I will not bother anyone here any more as I
    can see this is not the right place to share my digital
    photo stash of changable captions :(
    , Dec 4, 2005
    #7
  8. ASAAR Guest

    On 3 Dec 2005 20:09:40 -0800, wrote:

    > BTW (I meant to apologize before), I do apologize if I
    > bothered anyone. I thought I had something related
    > as I have a site with digital photos, many of the photos
    > were taken with digital cameras (but not by me).
    >
    > My bad, I will not bother anyone here any more as I
    > can see this is not the right place to share my digital
    > photo stash of changable captions :(


    Welcome to Preemptive_Strike_Land. :) New and/or unrecognized
    faces can be easily mistaken for spammers. Such is the internet and
    usenet land. If you stick around and contribute you'll probably
    eventually find folk more receptive to your FamousDefaces.com
    ASAAR, Dec 4, 2005
    #8
  9. Paul Heslop Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > I have right on my main page where it request you send me digitial
    > phtos of celebs, didn't mention it here as it's already mentioned on my
    > website, didn't want to seem like I repeat info too much, that's what
    > spammers do...
    >
    > Where are the rules so I can get this all straight before I have to sue
    > someone for slander? Hehe...
    >
    > http://beware.of.web.trolls.customsigngenerator.com


    I have no idea, just wanted to clarify where the digital bit comes in.
    :O)
    --
    Paul (Some of them, they surprise)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Dec 4, 2005
    #9
  10. Paul Heslop Guest

    wrote:
    >
    > BTW (I meant to apologize before), I do apologize if I
    > bothered anyone. I thought I had something related
    > as I have a site with digital photos, many of the photos
    > were taken with digital cameras (but not by me).
    >
    > My bad, I will not bother anyone here any more as I
    > can see this is not the right place to share my digital
    > photo stash of changable captions :(


    As has been already noted you're more than welcome. It's pretty hard
    to separate the real from the false nowadays and when you're a member
    of more than one NG you bump into an awful lot of false. Sorry if we
    got off on the wrong foot.

    --
    Paul (Some of them, they surprise)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Dec 4, 2005
    #10
  11. Guest

    Well I think I over reacted a bit. I had said I was not going
    to post again, but it seems like the ice has gotten a little
    thicker so treading out further may be possible now.

    I shuda mentioned before, I have taken 3 digital photos
    myself for that site:
    http://www.famousdefaces.com/?person=son
    is my son (not a celeb, but to me he is) and there are 2
    actual wax statues I took photos of (from wax museum)
    to use for the famous people photos, that's what got me
    to doing these types of image makers for famous faces
    as I didn't know what else to do with the pics. I am not
    going to tell which 2 photos are actually fake wax statues
    though... I didn't mention any of this before because I
    was kinda upset and didn't see the need to prove myself
    as the proof was right on the site.

    I blog alot around the net, I at home all day, disabled.
    Thanks for making me feel welcomed again ;)
    , Dec 4, 2005
    #11
  12. Paul Heslop Guest

    wrote:

    > I blog alot around the net, I at home all day, disabled.
    > Thanks for making me feel welcomed again ;)


    Ah, me too in a way so we're in a similar boat. Sadly I have found my
    ability to get out and take pictures seriously curtailed of late. When
    I first got my digital camera I was everywhere, walking mile. now I
    can hardy keep the camera steady most of the time.

    You will find grumpy sods like me everywhere :O)

    --
    Paul (Some of them, they surprise)
    -------------------------------------------------------
    Stop and Look
    http://www.geocities.com/dreamst8me/
    Paul Heslop, Dec 4, 2005
    #12
  13. ASAAR Guest

    On 4 Dec 2005 09:46:34 -0800, wrote:

    > I shuda mentioned before, I have taken 3 digital photos
    > myself for that site:
    > http://www.famousdefaces.com/?person=son
    > is my son (not a celeb, but to me he is) and there are 2
    > actual wax statues I took photos of (from wax museum)
    > to use for the famous people photos, that's what got me
    > to doing these types of image makers for famous faces
    > as I didn't know what else to do with the pics.


    I didn't look for the wax statues but had some fun making captions
    for JPGs I'll send to some relative. Some observations:

    Most of the JPGs were ok, but at the cost of only a slight
    increase in file size to get a bit higher resolution, they could
    have looked better.

    A few of the JPGs were not very good. See one of the Godzillas,
    which was quite murky.

    I didn't check all of the caption makers, but the one for Gary
    Coleman had no JPG to work with.

    I noticed that trailing blank caption lines are handled nicely.
    It might be too much effort to also handle captions that have too
    many characters per line, but some alternatives, such as the ability
    to use a smaller font or to switch to a larger balloon which could
    hold more text would also be nice. As I said, though, it was fun
    and thanks for the effort. And the Betties. :)
    ASAAR, Dec 5, 2005
    #13
  14. Guest

    Yeah, about 20% of the images do not meet my quality, some are scans
    from newspapers/magazines which give bad quality when shrunk down and
    others are the best choice I had for getting a free image (stock
    photography places want 50+ dollars per image). The 80% I have reduced
    the quality to try to keep the generated images under 20KB, if i made
    full quality (that I would prefer) images would be about 60KB-100KB
    (would take a long time to load on dial up internet).

    I fixed the Gary Coleman one (and found a few others that needed
    fixing).

    I made the text sizes varying, you can make the text smaller or larger
    by points (negative pts will make text smaller, positives will make
    larger). Not a perfect fix, but it helps get more text into the
    balloon... Added a forth line of possible text to add also!

    Thanks for the suggestions. I love the internet for getting help. I am
    a good programmer, but not always a logical one....
    , Dec 10, 2005
    #14
  15. ASAAR Guest

    On 9 Dec 2005 17:50:08 -0800, wrote:

    > Yeah, about 20% of the images do not meet my quality, some are scans
    > from newspapers/magazines which give bad quality when shrunk down and
    > others are the best choice I had for getting a free image (stock
    > photography places want 50+ dollars per image). The 80% I have reduced
    > the quality to try to keep the generated images under 20KB, if i made
    > full quality (that I would prefer) images would be about 60KB-100KB
    > (would take a long time to load on dial up internet).


    Well, I use dialup and while I'm sensitive to excessively long
    display and download times, 60kb to 100kb wouldn't be so large that
    I'd find downloading the images objectionable. A possible solution
    would be to provide a second link (without a duplicate space wasting
    icon) to allow people to select a higher or lower resolution image,
    defaulting to the lower res. version. It might tax your ISP's
    servers a bit more, but if it gets to the point that the ISP
    notices, that might be considered a positive outcome. :)


    > I made the text sizes varying, you can make the text smaller or larger
    > by points (negative pts will make text smaller, positives will make
    > larger). Not a perfect fix, but it helps get more text into the
    > balloon... Added a forth line of possible text to add also!


    That was quick. Thanks. I'll redo a couple that were made for
    some friends and relatives I'll be visiting later this month.


    > Thanks for the suggestions. I love the internet for getting help. I am
    > a good programmer, but not always a logical one....


    You're welcome. Sometimes even good programmers miss things that
    impact ease of use and other aspects of their programs because they
    know too their programs so well that they can get the results they
    want almost instinctively. Good beta test programs try to get
    testers with a mix of capabilities, including some that are barely
    computer literate. This makes it easier to spot and fix minor
    problems that many people might not even notice.
    ASAAR, Dec 10, 2005
    #15
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Charles
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    590
    Leonidas Jones
    Mar 12, 2005
  2. =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=

    OT: The Advertising Slogan Generator

    =?iso-8859-1?Q?Frisbee=AE_MCNGP?=, Aug 1, 2003, in forum: MCSE
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    526
  3. Chet39

    Saying it's legal doesn't make it so

    Chet39, Jul 15, 2006, in forum: Computer Information
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    299
    olfart
    Jul 15, 2006
  4. Frank Calidonna

    Newsweek Article saying digital is killing photography

    Frank Calidonna, Dec 8, 2007, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    12
    Views:
    544
    Paul Furman
    Dec 13, 2007
  5. Jeffy3
    Replies:
    17
    Views:
    963
    Jeffy3
    Dec 17, 2007
Loading...

Share This Page