Mailwatch(ed) Forum

I meant it as a cunning way of both getting a dig in at his output quality, and referencing the old "reports of his condition are said to be satisfactory" saying we use when someone universally unpleasant has carked it.

But yes, Nanfister is very good.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... -Zero.html

You know the drill. Caahncils, abuse of authority, petty dictators in hi-vis etc, my old grandad got covid every day and lived until he was 90 then he got run over by a bus etc.

An electric bus, ferrying a load of poofs to diversity training?

my North London barber Harry

Yeh he exists. “Watch the match last night, sir? Something for the weekend, sir?”

An analog bullshitter in an age of digital deceit.

https://www.verobeachbarbers.com/index.php

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... y-Guv.html

Standard whingeing about cops not doing proper coppering any more, isn't American TV better than British, some riffing on mods and rockers, and ha ha aren't all Scots fatties.

Slightly surprised he didn't go with the story about Morris dancers ditching blackface. Still, there's always Friday.

https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... s-you.html

When is a portashrine not a portashrine? When it's a multi-faith memorial funded by loyal Mail readers!

Dickie's in nostalgia mode this morning. 125 years of the Mail, memories of Fleet Street, name dropping, aren't the British press wonderful? Then some lazy shit about Morris dancers, isn't Lozza wonderful, and Minder.

Cunt.

And some surprising omissions from that “glorious” history of 125 years worth of front pages

Andy McDandy wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 9:40 am https://www.dailymail.co.uk/debate/arti ... s-you.html

When is a portashrine not a portashrine? When it's a multi-faith memorial funded by loyal Mail readers!

Dickie's in nostalgia mode this morning. 125 years of the Mail, memories of Fleet Street, name dropping, aren't the British press wonderful? Then some lazy shit about Morris dancers, isn't Lozza wonderful, and Minder.

Cunt.

It's spelled "Looza".

The Mail is claiming ownership of the world's most famous press photos to cover its mediocrity

Youngian wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 1:19 pm The Mail is claiming ownership of the world's most famous press photos to cover its mediocrity

Look, here is a glimpse into the world's chaos and complexity via other people's pictures! Aren't we important?

Now that's over with, let's talk about wardrobe malfunctions and why racism doesn't really exist.

I though for a second that the sailor in the centre-left photo was Prince Creepy

And the bastards are colourising them. I hate that.

I've changed my mind about colourisation in certain contexts. Like cleaned up news reel footage from the 19th century and WWI. The results are stunning. But they would have been shot in colour if it was available. Colourising iconic B&W photos and films is an abomination.

I am angry about this. The originals just wouldn't have worked as well if they had been shot in colour. The Vietnam picture was shot on Kodak Tri-X (like most Vietnam shots) even though colour film was available because it was stark, punchy and direct. Most photographers used Nikon lenses because they enhanced that effect. It was their choice. Their artistic choice.

In earlier photographs the photographer adapted his lighting, lenses etc to suit the medium.

Would the Mail support re-colouring the Mona Lisa? Or giving David a coat of Dulux?

Can you imagine that Vietnam scene in Kodachrome?

Watchman wrote: ↑Fri May 07, 2021 2:03 pm I though for a second that the sailor in the centre-left photo was Prince Creepy

No way: He's a full-vice Admiral (Except when he's playing rear admiral).


I know where's a lot of inter-service banter about what the lonely men get up to on their ships, but some of those Rank titles don't do themselves any favours.

I notice they’ve omitted their Enemy of The People front page from a couple of years ago...

There’s a well regarded Soviet attempt at a Busby Berkeley musical that was recently colourised to great applause. This was an example of a director who dreamt this film in colour and shot it as if it was. But there was no colour film available. That makes sense and the directors family were delighted as it was seen as a completion of his vision not a tacky bastardisation of it.

One swallow etc.

I'd like to put in a word for Peter Jackson's "They shall not grow old".

I know there was a whole lot of technology applied to old footage, so not just colourisation.
A soundtrack was added, and a lot of judder smoothed out.
Like most of Jackson's work it would have been better at 2/3rds the running time.

What the colour did for me was humanised the faces.
You rarely make out the features beyond a walrus moustache in old B/W cine of the time.
For me, this has imposed a bit of a barrier to empathy with the subjects.
(I can empathise fine when reading a book, but those olf WW1 soldiers never looked as human as the colour shots form 'Nam).

I really noticed this with the slow panning shots across a line up of soldiers.
I was seeing faces and thinking "That's how Gus at work would look if he grew a 'tache".
"I wonder how old that lad really is, he's the spitting image of the shelf-stacker at Farmfoods".

And there ends my plea for "enhancement", when done well, in a few cases.