Random Blog of Choice!

I was just wondering...

Why is it that we in Canada are not allowed to say "Merry Christmas" anymore?! It's always "Happy Holidays". Sure, I get it! It's because we are MULTICULTURAL..but..what does that have to do with Christmas and expressing how adoring we are of the holiday?! I have nothing against others and what they celebrate but please! I will not give up saying Merry Christmas! I will not say Happy Holidays! Christmas is what i celebrate!

Not to mention, some people want to change our national anthem. Ok yet again, I understand the whole MULTICULTURAL thing, I really really do! But, I was confused learning the national anthem as it is, let alone if it is changed!! Can't we do other things to show we are multicultural other than making it practically illegal to say Merry Christmas and changing our national anthem?!

The next time a person in a store says "Happy Holidays!" i'm going to say "and a Merry Christmas to you!" ..It's just the way it is!

=]

rant over.

Is This Photo Fact or Fiction !?

What does the saying "It's a Kodak moment!" mean to you? Is a frozen memory meant to be tampered with? Now a days, pictures have taken a new meaning. They can be changed any way possible--may it be the colour, brightness, saturation, exposure, scene effects, fun effects, highlighting, and the list continues! Sometimes, it can be fun to play around with images and see what you can do with them. Despite the fact photo manipulation can be interesting, is it acceptable to play with an image that is meant to be viewed by the public? A simple change in a photo could totally alter a person's perception of that image. It could be a tiny false alteration that could be a major mistake.

Shortly after OJ Simpson was arrested for murder, both the above magazines were out for sale. One of which is a photo manipulation. The Time magazine had their photo of OJ manipulated. They were accused of making it look "darker" and more "menacing" than the original mug shot. When confronted, James Gaines, the managing editor explained it was to "remove dust marks and enhance the photo". It is obvious that "removing dust marks and enhancing the photo" changed the emotion and message of the manipulated photo compared to the original. People have different opinions of what those emotions and messages are but it STILL changes the photo no matter what way you look at it. It is then that people ask WHY? Why was there a need to change this image? To attract reader's to Time magazine compared to Newsweek? Or maybe to make OJ appear worse than he already did. Either way it seems unethical to show the public a false image.

Of course Photoshop, a well known graphic editing program, has become popular when it comes to magazines and other forms of media related images. They can simply do anything with it by the click of a button. Gap in your teeth? That can be fixed. Crooked nose? No problem! It can all be fixed to make you look as close to perfect as possible. Is this really what we want to teach people? You have to change yourself because perfection is key? Why are celbrities appearances changed to be on the front of a magazine? Are they not fine the way they are?

I guess the woman above had too many flaws. Her hair must not have been blond enough and her chest must not have stood out as much as it could! Well, how must the REAL woman on this magazine feel? Knowing she wasn't good enough as she is to be on the magazine, they had to fix her! I know I'd feel a little upset and the self confidence level would probably plummet.

We all have to remember that we cannot possibly believe all the images we see, as convincing as some may be. Photo manipulation can be fun to play around with but it is best to inform the public when this has happened. Photo manipulation can be a dangerous thing to mess around with!