<?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"
	xmlns:sy="http://purl.org/rss/1.0/modules/syndication/"
		>
<channel>
	<title>Comments on: When the camera adds&#8230;.an EXTRA ARM</title>
	<atom:link href="http://mamapundit.com/2009/12/when-the-camera-adds-an-extra-arm/feed/" rel="self" type="application/rss+xml" />
	<link>http://mamapundit.com/2009/12/when-the-camera-adds-an-extra-arm/</link>
	<description>motherhood, and all the rest of it.</description>
	<lastBuildDate>Thu, 09 Sep 2010 19:23:09 +0000</lastBuildDate>
	<sy:updatePeriod>hourly</sy:updatePeriod>
	<sy:updateFrequency>1</sy:updateFrequency>
	<generator>http://wordpress.org/?v=3.0.1</generator>
	<item>
		<title>By: JatStraikarFan</title>
		<link>http://mamapundit.com/2009/12/when-the-camera-adds-an-extra-arm/#comment-1933</link>
		<dc:creator>JatStraikarFan</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 20:29:50 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mamapundit.com/?p=2317#comment-1933</guid>
		<description>Excuse me for being OFFTOPIC - which WordPress template do you use? It looks interesting!!</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Excuse me for being OFFTOPIC &#8211; which WordPress template do you use? It looks interesting!!</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Clisby</title>
		<link>http://mamapundit.com/2009/12/when-the-camera-adds-an-extra-arm/#comment-1932</link>
		<dc:creator>Clisby</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 17:27:15 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mamapundit.com/?p=2317#comment-1932</guid>
		<description>Emily - thanks for that clarification, because the first thing I thought when I saw the photo (obviously I read the Fug Girls way too often) was &quot;WHAT is with those sleeves?&quot;   And then I thought, &quot;Maybe they photoshopped Katie&#039;s head onto an opera singer&#039;s body.&quot;</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Emily &#8211; thanks for that clarification, because the first thing I thought when I saw the photo (obviously I read the Fug Girls way too often) was &#8220;WHAT is with those sleeves?&#8221;   And then I thought, &#8220;Maybe they photoshopped Katie&#8217;s head onto an opera singer&#8217;s body.&#8221;</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: Emily</title>
		<link>http://mamapundit.com/2009/12/when-the-camera-adds-an-extra-arm/#comment-1930</link>
		<dc:creator>Emily</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 06:28:23 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mamapundit.com/?p=2317#comment-1930</guid>
		<description>my favorite part of that terrible, terrible photo is how there is a bit of the TV screen behind your shoulder, making it look delightfully pointy... so it looks like you&#039;re wearing some sort of star trek suit,  like maybe you&#039;re from Planet BigArms.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>my favorite part of that terrible, terrible photo is how there is a bit of the TV screen behind your shoulder, making it look delightfully pointy&#8230; so it looks like you&#8217;re wearing some sort of star trek suit,  like maybe you&#8217;re from Planet BigArms.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
	<item>
		<title>By: John Barbarino</title>
		<link>http://mamapundit.com/2009/12/when-the-camera-adds-an-extra-arm/#comment-1929</link>
		<dc:creator>John Barbarino</dc:creator>
		<pubDate>Mon, 07 Dec 2009 04:26:48 +0000</pubDate>
		<guid isPermaLink="false">http://mamapundit.com/?p=2317#comment-1929</guid>
		<description>Ah, the trouble with photos grabbed so fast is that OFTEN photographers are applying an extremely wide-angle lens three feet from their subject.  Always a bad idea.  Your arm was in the foreground of a wide angle shot, notice the tiny heads?   You could have a whole blog about why are our heads so tiny and it would be right as well.   Two-shots should always be with a normal to slightly telephoto lens and not closer than say five feet?   Even TV camera folks seem bent on showing molars and roofs of mouths.  This photo people need to giver their subjects room to glow and be photogenic.</description>
		<content:encoded><![CDATA[<p>Ah, the trouble with photos grabbed so fast is that OFTEN photographers are applying an extremely wide-angle lens three feet from their subject.  Always a bad idea.  Your arm was in the foreground of a wide angle shot, notice the tiny heads?   You could have a whole blog about why are our heads so tiny and it would be right as well.   Two-shots should always be with a normal to slightly telephoto lens and not closer than say five feet?   Even TV camera folks seem bent on showing molars and roofs of mouths.  This photo people need to giver their subjects room to glow and be photogenic.</p>
]]></content:encoded>
	</item>
</channel>
</rss>

<!-- Performance optimized by W3 Total Cache. Learn more: http://www.w3-edge.com/wordpress-plugins/

Minified using memcached
Page Caching using memcached (user agent is rejected)
Database Caching using memcached
Object Caching 223/226 objects using disk

Served from: mamapundit.com @ 2010-09-09 19:28:14 -->