<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?><rss version="2.0"
	xmlns:content="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/content/"
	xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/"
	xmlns:atom="http://www.w3.org/2005/Atom"
	>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: &#8220;Star&#8221; Fakes It for Brad, Angelina</title>
	<atom:link href="http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/29/star-fakes-it-for-brad-angelina/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/29/star-fakes-it-for-brad-angelina/</link>
	<description>The latest news about the top pixel wrangling application on the planet.</description>
	<pubDate>Sat, 30 Aug 2008 16:36:17 +0000</pubDate>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=2.5.1</generator>
		<item>
		<title>By: asdf</title>
		<link>http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/29/star-fakes-it-for-brad-angelina/#comment-470</link>
		<dc:creator>asdf</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Tue, 17 May 2005 20:18:49 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/29/star-fakes-it-for-brad-angelina/#comment-470</guid>
		<description>yo yo yo mafizzle</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>yo yo yo mafizzle</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: JohnHHarrington</title>
		<link>http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/29/star-fakes-it-for-brad-angelina/#comment-432</link>
		<dc:creator>JohnHHarrington</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 02 May 2005 06:23:18 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://photoshopnews.com/2005/04/29/star-fakes-it-for-brad-angelina/#comment-432</guid>
		<description>After seeing this and looking to obtain a copy of the magazine for a future project on ethics, I looked inside to the place where a photo credit would appear, and, without photo credits of the actual photographers, it states that the images is a composite of two photographs, fyi. I agree that it's a total breach of ethics, and could/should get sued by Pitt/Jolie over this, but since almost no magazines run photo credits on covers, and almost all "photo illustrations" are not noted as such on the cover -- whether obvious or not, what I think is quite interesting is the seeming graduation of Star/Enquirer/etc from the past expectation of altered photos (Clinton Meets With Aliens/Elvis Today/JFK Today/etc) to the expectation that they're to be expected to run unaltered photos.

John</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>After seeing this and looking to obtain a copy of the magazine for a future project on ethics, I looked inside to the place where a photo credit would appear, and, without photo credits of the actual photographers, it states that the images is a composite of two photographs, fyi. I agree that it&#8217;s a total breach of ethics, and could/should get sued by Pitt/Jolie over this, but since almost no magazines run photo credits on covers, and almost all &#8220;photo illustrations&#8221; are not noted as such on the cover &#8212; whether obvious or not, what I think is quite interesting is the seeming graduation of Star/Enquirer/etc from the past expectation of altered photos (Clinton Meets With Aliens/Elvis Today/JFK Today/etc) to the expectation that they&#8217;re to be expected to run unaltered photos.</p>
<p>John</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>
