FastFreddy2

Just got back from the Post Office, zero degrees C out there .... Not that I'm prone to dramatisation, but ..... Hehehehe

I have had. I've not been out in the cold long enough to justify hold-ups and leggings this Winter, but that may change if I'm out later in the week. TBH I'm well over-due removing some of the fur on my legs, which I should do if I'm to give the hold-ups a chance of staying up. The white stiletto's might seem appropriate, but they would fill with dust. No, but I'm almost chavvy enough to pass as one.

Bit of a traumatic weekend ...... I started a new job in 1983, working at a large factory on the shop floor. It was manual work (I'd been advised this was a good way to get into computer work I was trained for, through the backdoor, so-to-speak) and I was given a pair of overalls to work in. Luckily for me, I didn't have to wait a year before I changed jobs (as was procedure) but got a role I wanted in 3 months because a vacancy arrived and I'd already made a name for myself as someone reliable and enthusiastic. Before 1983 was concluded, I was in an office doing stuff with computers. The overalls went home, not least because they had no use for me at my employers and would have been 'binned' otherwise. I used those overalls for several short (manual) jobs later on, a few jobs on my car(s), but mostly while decorating mine or other's homes. I could conservatively estimate, they had more use by me, than any other item of clothing I've ever owned. I had to stop using them for every dirty job circa 5 years ago, because I split the crotch on them and really weren't worth having them repaired. I did still used them infrequently, but they were way past their best. On Sunday, they went in the bin. Too badly contaminated with fillers and paints, the material couldn't be reclaimed via a donation to a charity collecting clothing. That's not bad going though, 30 years active service in a life of just under 35 years. I won't miss them, but I felt really guilty disposing of them. Bit like discarding a friend....

Although cold and dry here, a bright day is supposed to give way to cooler temperatures tonight and maybe snow. A warmer Wednesday will give way to a cooler Thursday. Hopefully, if it stays cold later in the week, it will stay dry too. Today I am not in heels, as I am rubbing down a repaired wall, and expect to be covered in fine white dust later.

I would agree, anything boot related is (already) covered here and over at HHp. Jeans and trousers wouldn't need a separate forum, not enough interest even for women. The same might be true of tights, no real 'specialty' interest really. However, leggings (especially the tight shiny variety), stockings (especially Fully Fashioned) might well hold enough niche interest for a completely separate forum. Plus, there'd be a fair amount of girls/women in the prospective membership.

Weather man says that despite London being filled with heat producing buildings, Londoners will likely experience freezing conditions during the next two nights. Out here in the Home Counties, we might see -4 C. Dunno about 'boot' weather, that's stay in-doors if possible weather.

Just back from a (food) shopping trip. Absolutely 'bitter' outside. Proper cold (for the UK). Especially if leaving your home without a coat ....

You weren't burnt at the stake, nor ridiculed by a gang of 'yoofs', so a successful and anonymous visit I'd say. For me, being 'spotted' is an occupational hazard. I'm not bothered as long as I don't get abuse or ridiculed.

Not ground-breaking news, but it snowed in some parts of London this morning. Bit further North, cold but intermittent sunshine making it seem warmer than it is.

Dr Freddy here ...... Exams = demise. Studying = life journey. Shoes = distractions (any/all personal interests.) Invoice has been posted. My time was during the Boy George/Marilyn/Steve Strange (New Romantic period). Socially I could have worn a heel, but it would have crimped my employment path. Mindful the three personalities I specifically mention went on to suffer longterm drug addition, it was probably best I had the life I did. I think they were probably noticed. But it was likely a situation that didn't upset anyone.

There are at least 3 genre's under consideration: (pending confirmation) Trousers/jeans. Leggings/jeggings. Tights/stockings. Possibly OTK boots, but that ought to be covered already I would have thought.

I think I've worked out why I haven't upgraded before .... My preference is for free software (or 'donations') because every time I have spent money on software, it becomes obsolete much too quickly. Nor do I want to have software on a subscription basis unless I already have a (pertinent) income that supports it. Two free ones under consideration: GIMP and LightZone. I think I can get a legal copy of Paintshop Pro ver 7 for £3/£4. I tried to find the original RAW files from my previous attempt at using them. Several (many) fruitless searches, cost me almost an hour trawling through archives. Eventually, a reference on a review site, reminded me the file type I was looking for was; RW2. not .RAW (Duh). Files found within seconds ....

Had a weird dream last week (I've just remembered) ..... Walking through class while at college (???) some bright spark noticed my wedge heels. Word quickly spread which I became aware of. I responded with "have a better look" and lifted my trouser leg to reveal a heel. Some looked - and at this point I woke up. It was set in the future, with me back at school, which is something I have been promising myself. (Was going to be HTML, but might now be digital picture editing - maybe with video thrown in.) Raises an interesting conundrum ... If I did go back to college in an 'art' environment, what would I wear on my feet? The answer possibly lies in where I took the course - if I'm to take one. Local, no. 15/20 miles away, possibly.

Glad I wasn't the first to ask ....

I think I need to find a better editor before I even begin any longterm 'test' regime. After writing my post, it did occur to me even the JPG files had produced better image quality than I was seeing in the EVF. It hadn't dawned on me I was seeing 'edited' down versions of the original image. (ref comments from Canon users.) I've already changed my camera settings to store both RAW and JPG. (I had done this before, but stopped doing so because there was no identifiable benefit - at that time.) Plainly, I need a better editor. And then develop the skills to use it.

The autopsy on the shoe that caused the broken skin on my toe, suggested it could be a manufacturing fault with the shoe, in that a seam inside the toe box isn't as flat as it should be. Next time I wear them, I'll use a foam and gel tube to protect my toe joint. I'd like to spend a bit more time in courts ideally. Was expecting/anticipating a trip to the West End today, but the weather suggested I stay home. We are in the middle of the UK Winter, and while there is no snow on the ground, we have all the other unpleasant bits. It's cool, with even lower temperatures due later this week. The wind is making the 5 or 6 degree C feel like 0 degrees, and intermittent rain rounded off the 'stay at home' argument, which I lost. Instead, I waited for a thin layer of filler covering large area of newly rendered wall to dry out, and had a 'play' with my new camera and old lenses. I will have to wait until mid-week for another chance of getting out in a heel. Probably an indoor visit, to somewhere like Westfield .... Roll on Spring, or a surprise job offer from a country with a higher ambient temperature.

I unexpectedly found myself with some "me" time this afternoon. Not long ago, I had tried to take some pictures on a digital camera, using an adapter and my old (Nikon) film lenses. The first try didn't go very well, and a second attempt was in order. The conclusion from the first try, was that image quality might be an issue, though shooting through a glass window with my reflection on it was unlikely to be helping. The second attempt today, didn't go much better, though switching everything on the camera to 'manual' helped with the (previous) exposure problems. My eyesight isn't helping the cause, which wouldn't have been a problem 30 years ago the first time around I got enthusiastic. Focus 'peaking' has helped (objects in focus get tinged with blue in the electronic viewfinder) but I'm not wholly convinced it works as well with 'adapted' lenses. Anyway .... I'm not totally over the moon with the results, but that might be because I don't have anything to directly compare my results to. I am on the point of spending £200 on a portrait lens, but my 50mm Nikkor f1.4 prime might do the job well enough. Ultimately, I'm aware that a 16 megapixel image may not provide the image quality I'm hoping for. Thing is, in every other respect the camera does everything I want it to. There's a 20 megapixel version of the camera (at well over twice the money), but at the moment I'm not sure that 20 is enough either. I really need to get someone in front of the camera, and enlarge a picture on printed media. If the 16 m/p output works okay on A3, I'll be happy. The other thing I need to try, is (as previously suggested) to take some pictures and store them in RAW format. One of the tips seen in a You Tube video supported that very notion. "How to get an instant upgrade to your image quality? Shoot in RAW". I had tried before, but it may be I hadn't been using the right method to compare it against JPG. Looking at getting an a mirrorless APS-C camera with a 24 m/p sensor for comparison purposes, I stumbled across remarks made by two Canon owners, who said the image quality isn't always well reported by the camera's LCD or electronic viewfinder. Consequently, I really need to test the Nikkor 50mm f1.4 with a human model, store the images in RAW, and then actually print the results to draw a conclusion. I may also need to upgrade my 15 year old editing software as it doesn't like RAW images.....

I mentioned her the other day, and realised I'd not seen anything of her in the media recently. An older photo, but one pleasant to my eye.

I thought I had 'outed' myself on that line, though I'm pretty sure I'm not as obtuse as you have been in the past. (No offence..... ) Although I will not remember this word, I never stop being surprised at the things I can learn here ...

I had to look long and hard to find the answer for this. My background to this issue is in the publishing of pictures. While lying is plainly slander (if spoken) libel (if written) the issue of defamation 'in my experience' and the use of "defamation" need not carry words either spoke or written. Newer "revenge porn" laws probably make more sense as a benchmark for this. With 'revenge porn', nothing need be said or written for "ill-will" or "malice" to have occurred. The video is truthful, but there is some loss of reputation to the person identified in the film. This has been the case with photographs. If I take a photograph of a woman (any woman) and place that photo on website for "doggers" and their partners (I assume these sites exist), I haven't said or written anything defamatory. There is a 'loss' identifiable though. Typically (in old world photography parlance) portraying someone in a "poor light" could harm their reputation. That's one of the many reason why a Model Release Form is useful with contracted work, especially in the glamour industry. As an agreement/contract it both limits what the photographer can do with the images, and also allows the photographer to use them in the way he originally intended having prior consent from the model. One of the reasons "we" (me and anyone else here) don't publish the faces of any private individual, is that it's hard to defame anyone (place them in a bad light) if they can't be identified. "Public" faces, those that seek or expect publicity, those in the public eye can be treated a little differently. However, I had understood that even if "telling a truth" caused harm to someones reputation, because the truth was told "in ill-will" or "in malice", there was a case to answer. Seems not. This quote concerns a legal query from a person who had a criminal conviction that had come under the "Rehabilitation of Offenders Act" as it related to a 30 year old conviction. Someone at their workplace had informed their employer of the undisclosed conviction. It's likely that R/O Act meant this didn't need to be disclosed, and before a CRB became typical. The information was true, but sent "in malice". Just to clarify the issue, I do not intend taking action against my former employer but against the person who sent them the information. I was obviously not obliged to disclose the information due to the period that elapsed. The issue of malicious intent arises with the person who sent the letter and whose sole purpose was to cause distress and damage. There is unfortunately no action you can take against this individual for what they have done. Whilst their actions may have been with malicious intent, they are not actually unlawful. They have not blackmailed you, neither have they defamed you. What they have done is disclose information about you that is publically available – any employer can request a CRB check if they want and that conviction will still show up on there even if it is considered spent. Whilst I understand that the reason for what they did was malicious, it is not actually unlawful. I'm sorry if this is not the answer you wanted to hear but I hope you understand I have a duty to explain the law as it actually stands. Having ascertained that, I personally would not choose to insult a woman qualified in law who commands an alleged £600 per hour charge for fear she might know of some alternative route to compensation. As to failing to name anyone, it was never intended as a possible defence. Rather (as I so often tell you) it removes the opportunity for any reference to her being found. Now, a search on the ladies name, could bring a search engine to your comments. That wasn't possible from my post. It's why I leave these details out. It's why I created an image that appears nowhere else, so Google couldn't stumble across it if someone did a search on the DM originals that were published. Lastly, even if my remarks were not considered 'obtuse', I could prove that I find PVC clothing attractive, and those who wear it attractive. (And tick both boxes for this lady.) It would be impossible for this to be proved otherwise, even by someone allegedly able to charge £600 an hour for their services. I even confirmed it in writing. That said, she might well decide me finding her attractive, caused her some loss.

I think defamation, rather than slander. If need be, re-reading my original remarks you will find they were obtuse enough as to be completely oblique. Unlike your comments. I was also careful not to mention her name in my original post ..... So a search on her name would not bring anyone here. For my part, I quite like the way she dresses. Reminds me a bit of Celine Dion. I find them both attractive.

My comments were fairly specific. I also suggested any conclusion was a choice. Not everyone sits in the closet, some actually want to be seen as they are. Patrick Starr being the perfect example. To paint him as completely 'normal man' is probably insulting to him and I would say a little disingenuous. I'd suggest the same was true of RuPaul, and even Danny La Rue. These are people who want to be singled out as 'special' as does Ms Shackleton, who is something of an exceptionally well dressed celeb in her field.

Yeah well, sometimes those "leaps" are no more than realising the obvious. No leaping necessary. Not even a hiccup. I'm into my later years. Would have been a terrible waste of my time here if I hadn't worked out the blindingly obvious..... Of course, I could be mistaken .... Then there is Patrick Starr. Yes, he does many of the same things as the other social media mavens, but "I feel I'm so different. I'm a boy, I have a turban, I'm gay," Starr (not his real last name), 26, says. But I'm not! From >> here << Patrick Starr, with signature turban. (Photo: Patrick Starr)

Neither would surprise me ....

In this instance, I was being a tad fatuous for the sake of the thread .... As for not judging the morals of people by their clothing .... in some instances it's an obvious conclusion whether you care to make it or otherwise ....