The concept of retouching photos is a touchy subject.
Photographers must ask themselves: When does retouching a photo cross over into going too far? Is editing a photo to convince viewers of something false an acceptable practice? Does retouching a photo set unrealistic and false expectations for consumers?
We’ve outlined both sides of the argument – and want you to decide for yourself. What side are you on?
It’s a Lie: The Argument Against Retouching
Programs like Adobe Photoshop allow users to make changes to pictures so they look slightly or completely different from their original appearance. These programs can enhance certain features, diminish or completely erase certain features and even add features.
When magazines, businesses and advertisements retouch photos, a common argument is that this delivers a false message to the consumer. The photo is not truthful and therefore it is lying to the consumer.
Answer:
<em>You haven't attached Paragraph 4, so I'll answer the question according to my understanding.</em>
C) They sailed to France and Belgium and told them that England and Scotland was a land they (the Phoenicians) had been to and found tin and lead there.
Explanation:
"Phoenicians" were very skilled in <em>building ships</em> and <em>navigating turbulent waters.</em> This allowed them to<em> travel and trade</em> from one place to the other.
Upon reaching the Islanders, they were able to trade with them. The Islanders gave them metals in exchange for their goods. These people in Britain were actually poor savages and didn't look clean. Yet, the Phoenicians sailed to France and Belgium and told them that "Britain" <em>(England and Scotland)</em> was a land where they had found "tin" and "lead." <u>These materials were very important during those times. </u>The French and the Belgians were then convinced and decided to come over the Islands as well.
The statement is partially correct, the laws would be extreme in numbers and there would be far more punishments than a state with a moderate amount of laws. There would be more laws or regulations broken or violated when it would regard certain things. But the number of laws however does not exactly show how corrupt the state may be, but how extensive or extreme the punishments for the crime would be.
Answer:
that's logic if you are learning English then it's eat because the subject "I" is referring to one or single so the verb needs to be singular.
Explanation:
