FastFreddy2

Unless I spend £1800 on a Nikon D500 body (I have Nikon lenses) I'm going to get the G80 despite the small sensor size. I can't afford to invest money on a semi-pro/enthusiast camera, just for taking photo's of Ebay sales stuff (as I pretty much did with the G5. ) Panasonic have knocked £100 off the price of the kit, if you commit to taking a camera in for part-ex "at some time in the future". Basically, they are temporarily reducing the price of the kit to 2016 prices to stay competitive over the Christmas period. I think Nikon are knocking £200 off the D500 too, but the body is still twice the price of the Lumix kit. To be honest, it's twice the camera, but I don't need that yet, I have in mind to buy a Sony next year. Compact full frame like the A7S II, but I'll wait for the Mark III that hopefully comes with an even better focusing system than the already improved MKII. The outlet I plan to buy from, provide a 2 year warranty with the Lumix, but I won't be buying before Black Friday since it's only a couple of weeks away and in principle, I'm not in any hurry. That said, I have my first (unpaid) commission this century, coming up next weekend. I've been asked to produce some PR images of a local Remembrance Day parade. As I understand it, the pictures are to be publishes in the local newspaper, and I've been asked because the local paper doesn't want to pay for a photographer on the day especially if it helps promote the good work done by the organisers, who have endured some criticism from the paper. If they are provided images, they will publish one, for the benefit of those who lost family members in two great wars. Taking photo's of me wearing various types of footwear is still proving to be a challenge, but I've produced some results and they will be published soon. I have used fully 'manual' settings, and this is simple for me due to my experience with film cameras. I took a lot more care with exposure levels, and made some progress. Still less than ideal, but some improvement has been achieved. Last Saturday, I used the G5 and took photo's of perhaps 10 styles of boot and clothing combo's. the first hour (or more) had me trying to work out what I had done to screw up the settings and get a 3 shot burst on every photo, no matter what I did. With the clock ticking, and light changing, I gave up and reset everything choosing to work out the problem later. The session went fine after that. The culprit was the HDR setting. On my phone, (the only place I have any previous experience of it), selecting HDR -I thought- allowed a wider dynamic range at the cost of image quality in some areas. This might be the case, but it certainly isn't with the Lumix. Selecting HDR means three images are taken and subsequently merged into a single image matrix. Image detail that would otherwise be missed by the sensor are recorded by both over exposing a frame (to get shadow detail) and under exposing (to try to recover detail, blown out in the highlights). It helped explain why I heard 3 shutter movements, but could only find one image to delete! While I was at it, I remapped the function keys to do the things I need them to, rather than what Panasonic thinks might be useful... I'm finally learning how to use the camera - as I'm about to upgrade it.

Being cynical, it might be true to look at any style during the last 5 years or so, and conclude there was/is always some 'retro' vibe being pushed somewhere. Always it seems to me, the 60's retro has an undertone somewhere, be it length, colour, and often a slight nod in style. It would be true to say I missed most of the 1960's being ever-so-slightly young to realise what ground-breaking changes were happening (I'd nothing to compare it to), so it pretty much passed me by. If ever anyone wanted to point at the greatest time of social mobility, the 1960's would be the era that should be mentioned before any other. The post-war, post austerity period saw expansion and curiosity not seen since the glory days of Prince Albert in the 19th Century. As the song went in the 60's, "the times they are a changing" and indeed they did. If a large group of people were collected together, and they could mention one thing that made them think of the 60's, I would expect a great many would suggest PVC clothing. Yes, haircut would be in there, winkle-picker and or Chelsea boots, but many would proffer PVC. This year, 2017 is THE big year/season for PVC. It maybe that Balmain (amongst others) pushed it first, and it may even have been toward the end of last year, but mainstream designers/manufacturers/retailers have produced low cost, wearable PVC-esque clothing and shoes/boots in a very wearable material - this year. It has all the immediate benefits - shiny + vivid hues - which show off shape, but is much thinner than older similarmaterials, and is very very stretchy. In some ways, it adequately replaces latex, at about a quarter of the cost (or less), with none of the skill needed to produce an outfit, or the level of care needed to look after it long term. While this style of material may not be particularly innovative - (I had womens outfits made for me in it 30 years ago at 'Midnight Lady' - then based in Luton), there are skin tight PVC clothing styles available in just about every high street brand, and certainly every mail order one. I am (pleasantly) surprised at how many stores currently have black shiny/patent/PVC ankle boots in their ranges this season. While there is already a thread regarding shiny (PVC) leggings, this thread is a 'style' reference to anything PVC/latex/shiny related as a fashion or style statement. I don't want to have a thread in the outfit section and a virtual duplicate in the shoes section. If there is any more 'legging' related pictures to be added, I will likely add them here. Unlike any other time when retro is exploited, this season if feels like PVC/shiny truly is. I am trying to buy loads of the stuff. It's hard work when you're on the sort of budget I have (not much) and a body with very slim legs .... But nothing ventured .... Pictures and links to start following soon.

I think 'shiny' materials are much less fetishistic currently, than they were say 30 years ago. Certainly over the last 3-4 years, latex and PVC-esque clothing has become mainstream. I would suggest the recent wave of PVC/shiny clothing, piggy backs on the recent pleather/faux leather surge. Styles over a short period have gone from a leather-look, to an increasingly shiny type, finally arriving at the 'wet look' (aka polished latex - wet ink) style. And why not? A PU dress in 'shiny' comes in at £20. A latex dress comes in at a tad over £100. A leather equivalent, starts at double that. If ever I escape the debate on PVC being associated with the innovations of the 60's, I'll be demonstrating what's out there at the moment.... This is what's known as a "straw man" argument, where one debater is pursuing a line in a completely different direction to the original point. At no time have I claimed the defining moment of the 60's was PVC clothing, which is what you KEEP saying is my point. NOT SO. I have said, PVC is associated with the 60's along with many other things, and that in a conversion (about that era), it almost certainly come up as a topic of conversation. I even provided a link to show there is universal support of that notion. PVC and the 60's, horse and cart, bread and jam, Bill and Ben. WITHOUT DOUBT - following on from that, PVC/PU has become a part of out life in inestimable ways. (As before, bags, clothing, purses etc etc.) To deny the role of plastics in fashion seems a bit disingenuous, even if you don't happen to like it. Absolutely right. The mini skirt for women, and long hair for men were probably the two major style changes of that decade, both of which still rumble on today. I haven't looked, but one of the notable innovations of that time (as shown on Tomorrows World - probably by the great Raymond Baxter) was a metal dress. If I remember, made from titanium from the (then recently) cancelled TSR2. A style that never caught on because of cost and probably comfort (lack thereof). And as a final word on the "debate" (which was never requested or wanted) I maintain the view that when mentioning PVC the 60's are undoubtedly associated with that time. Or indeed when talking about innovations/fashion/styles of the 60's, be that mini skirts and long hair on men, I would be surprised if PVC clothing didn't form part of the recollections of the time. (Very surprised.) I think this thread is so soured by "debate", I'm going to consider it dead. If I start another thread, please readers, either say something positive, or use your energy elsewhere. I thank you.

Rather frustratingly, I had earlier today decided 95% on the G80 and standard short zoom as the next investment. Saw this, and worked out the 4/3rds sensor is almost literally half the size of full frame. Yes, I was slow to put x2 mag with lens = half size sensor. I think I'm going to have to (gulp) pay to have a photo that was taken on my G5, enlarged so I can see what image detail looks like on paper, rather than on a screen. Sadly, the last time I was impressed with image quality, I'd just done some enlargements off slow B+W 35mm XP1 film I might have rated at 25 ASA and then processed myself. I felt at the time, it came remarkably close to matching medium format, which by that time I owned too. Thankfully, colour (print) film couldn't match that too, so there were gains to be had.

I think that's the reduction for APS-C? Focal lengths are doubled; 4/3rds against 35mm equiv's. I tried quite hard to find a better chart - and gave up after 10+ minutes.

Of course it's my choice? You've already confirmed you are disinterested in anything other that the clothes you are comfortable wearing, so my interest in any clothing/fashion is going to surpass yours. Me liking 'fetish' materials (leather/latex/PVC) for the suggested naughtiness of them - with their historic ability to enhance the female form, a matter of record. Here, and almost any conversation I've had with girlfriends/friends/family about sex and clothing for well over 40 years, has included references to them too. Even in my early 20's, I had a close friend who would try to scare girlfriends and potential girlfriends of mine, by telling them I was into the 'bondage scene and rubber gear'. While it taken by many as a joke, it opened conversations -and doors- for me. My opening statement said there were many things associated with the 60's. One of which (since this thread isn't about winkle pickers nor haircuts) would be PVC. ANYONE with any interest at all in fashion, (for the purposes of my statement to mean women's clothing) could not ignore the arrival of a new and exciting material in the 60's. Not since the commercial availability of "nylons" in 1940, had so much interest occurred in an innovative material to be used and exploited. 50 years on (from the 60's), I doubt there is a woman in this country who doesn't own PU (the modern incarnation of PVC) or PVC based; clothing, bag, purse or shoes in one variant or the other. Not only clothing, but but possibly furniture coverings, vehicle upholstery, and cutlery. It's hard to estimate the effect of PVC arriving, has had on us all, but "small", it isn't.

I suppose my main concern (one of many) is committing to a lens system I may regret. I already have a small number of Nikon manual lenses that could save me a bit of money initially, and lead me to where I might further invest. Meaning, I could get a bit deeper into the digital process, and through experience, work out where (if I'm going to) spend £800-£1000 on THE ONE lens I want to own, if I'm going to spend that sort of money on a lens. In some respects, the G80 with a 75-150 lens ticks every box I have at the moment. (I already have a 20mm I use on my G5.) Even at the £800 price for the two items, it's half the money of the 'sexy' enthusiast/semi-pro grade D500/a7ii or even a D750 bodies. One of the worries of using a smaller sensor, is that the optics will by default, give me depth of field I don't want.

While in principle that was/is true, when many around you were taking drugs, the 'new class' of media personality (pop stars) were constantly being arrested and claiming they'd been on drugs (LSD man), it was for a time, part of the process of growing up. No different in the eyes of many, to taking up smoking. Availability in my town, meant there were few barriers to getting onto hard stuff in short order. I missed it, but as a previous post (Mr Reaper) reveals, it might have been a close call. My experience suggests the only sure way to avoid 'falling' into the drugs trap, is to never try them. Which would be my advice to young people - which I'm pretty sure would be completely ignored.

Given the social changes of the 1960's (actually around 1962 to 1973/4) I would suggest PVC in the great scheme of things played a minor part. In the context of this thread, which almost completely avoids mentioning the vast social changes, I'm surprised you would think I might "suggest" the only thing of any importance during that time was PVC? Not the case. It may be that the women I know/have known possess similar style interests as mine, and that may well have crystallised my views on fashion regarding that period when shared with them. (Meaning we all liked the same styles - excluding others.) But as the article makes plain - the 60's and the advent of PVC as a fashion item - synonymous to many of us. My intent, was to do nothing more.

In the town where I grew up, that era was strongly associated with drugs. Lots and lots of them. In fact a neighbour (playboy) used to get visits just about every month from the boys in blue. And actually disappeared for a couple of months once. Funny, I can still remember his name, and I doubt I've heard it mentioned for 40-45 years. I wonder if he survived that period?

Very happy to hear it! And that Nikon has really quite good specs given the price. Dunno about the lens though ... Bloody camera choice is driving me nuts. While the G80 (with short tele lens I probably don't want) comes in at £799, some of the 'other' cameras mentioned already have some Xmas discounts applied. The Sony a7ii, -£200 with cashback .... The Nikon D500 -£150 .... That ugly Sony gets more attractive by the day. Especially since it seems to outperform its more expensive sibling (99) on 'continuous focus' mode. Ho-hum.

While I appreciate your professional camera equipment requirements - I'm hoping you weren't referring to an £1800 camera body as a "budget" DSLR? If so, it's something of a concern.... This: I would hope, was "budget"?

No-one said or inferred the 60's were the PVC era, but ask anyone (else) about the 60's, and The Beatles, Mary Quant, Biba, Vidal Sassoon, mini-skirts, Twiggy and PVC will come up in the conversation. Fortunately I have (and had) women friends who were also around at the time. Whenever PVC is mentioned, so is the 60's. I've been interested in fashion since I was about 14. I used to hang around with people who studied at the London College of Fashion. I used to go to fashion shows of their graduates. In the mind of anyone passingly interested in fashion, they will (or should) treat PVC and the late 60's in the same way most people perceive a horse and cart, bread and jam, Bill and Ben. Before the 1960’s, plastic fabrications were only really used for protective clothing and raincoats. But PVC as a fashion fabric became synonymous with the 60’s, through the work of French designers Pierre Cardin and André Courrèges. Their futuristic shapes and colour blocked styles were widely copied and seen in films and on TV in programmes like The Avengers. The picture above is Rachel Welsh wearing Pierre Cardin and photographed by Terry O'Neill in 1967. In the mid 1970's black PVC made a comeback as part of the punk uniform for the shock value of its fetishistic connotations. I am not the author of this article, it's a Trade page about the fabric.

At circa £1100, this is a luxury I don't expect to be able to "afford" ... But it does look good! At the moment I'm looking at this: (as a solution) Looking into the Canon compact - that as you can see took me to YouTube, I got into camera reviews, the new D850 vs D5 vs the Canon 5D MKIV which led me to believe I have tastes beyond my needs. I even "discovered" the Canon 1D X MKII .... And, although I'm aware of the Nikon range, I rediscovered how good the (affordable) D500 might be.

I may be able to avoid cobbled areas, having used Google Streetview to have a virtual wander around. It's rather looking like I may have to park right next to the gig, as the town has no on-street-parking unless you have access to a Blue Badge, and neither me nor Mrs Freddy has - well not on that night anyway.... We are to get there early as Mrs Freddy wants to see the warm-up act. The plan at the moment is to get there early - eat, and get to the gig at 7.30/8.00pm. the clocks will have gone back by then, so the whole time we'll be there, it'll be dark. Well, dark outside and away from street lighting, away from car park lighting, away from restaurant lighting .... I still can't decide what to put on my feet. Mrs Freddy expects to be dancing to the music we'll hear, I'm not convinced so 5" stiletto's aren't off my footwear list. 2000+ people with camera phones is a little bit of a worry. Thing is, if I don't wear them at places like this, where am I going to? I suppose I could wear some block heeled boots while we eat, and a change into something less comfortable later..... The shoes I'd like to wear ... So far, I've worn them for 10-12 minutes, (once) walking around the mall at Bluewater after the shops had closed. Those heels are too delicate for shlepping around on outdoor pavements. And unless I had black opaque hose on, hard to disguise as a mans shoe.

Being cynical, it might be true to look at any style during the last 5 years or so, and conclude there was/is always some 'retro' vibe being pushed somewhere. Always it seems to me, the 60's retro has an undertone somewhere, be it length, colour, and often a slight nod in style. It would be true to say I missed most of the 1960's being ever-so-slightly young to realise what ground-breaking changes were happening (I'd nothing to compare it to), so it pretty much passed me by. If ever anyone wanted to point at the greatest time of social mobility, the 1960's would be the era that should be mentioned before any other. The post-war, post austerity period saw expansion and curiosity not seen since the glory days of Prince Albert in the 19th Century. As the song went in the 60's, "the times they are a changing" and indeed they did. If a large group of people were collected together, and they could mention one thing that made them think of the 60's, I would expect a great many would suggest PVC clothing. Yes, haircut would be in there, winkle-picker and or Chelsea boots, but many would proffer PVC. This year, 2017 is THE big year/season for PVC. It maybe that Balmain (amongst others) pushed it first, and it may even have been toward the end of last year, but mainstream designers/manufacturers/retailers have produced low cost, wearable PVC-esque clothing and shoes/boots in a very wearable material - this year. It has all the immediate benefits - shiny + vivid hues - which show off shape, but is much thinner than older similar materials, and is very very stretchy. In some ways, it adequately replaces latex, at about a quarter of the cost (or less), with none of the skill needed to produce an outfit, or the level of care needed to look after it long term. While this style of material may not be particularly innovative - (I had womens outfits made for me in it 30 years ago at 'Midnight Lady' - then based in Luton), there are skin tight PVC clothing styles available in just about every high street brand, and certainly every mail order one. I am (pleasantly) surprised at how many stores currently have black shiny/patent/PVC ankle boots in their ranges this season. While there is already a thread regarding shiny (PVC) leggings, this thread is a 'style' reference to anything PVC/latex/shiny related as a fashion or style statement. I don't want to have a thread in the outfit section and a virtual duplicate in the shoes section. If there is any more 'legging' related pictures to be added, I will likely add them here. Unlike any other time when retro is exploited, this season if feels like PVC/shiny truly is. I am trying to buy loads of the stuff. It's hard work when you're on the sort of budget I have (not much) and a body with very slim legs .... But nothing ventured .... Pictures and links to start following soon.

I finally got around to doing some pictures on Sunday, of the PVC leggings I bought a couple of weeks ago. (I really like them.) Might have been made for me the fit is so good, but I have my doubts they'd be comfortable after a couple of hours - especially somewhere warm. I wore them for around 40-50 minutes while taking photo's, and had to peel them off when I had finished. I hadn't long been out of a wet environment, so my legs may have been damp to start with, but I might need to wear something on my legs (hose) to stop them clinging to my (freshly shaved) legs another time... During the 'session' (of 6 articles to be worn and photographed) I realised/remembered I had suggested previously I ought to get a remote switch to go along with using the self-timer, to get better images. 90% of the time I'd set the timer, I'd barely compose myself by the time the first image (of three) was taken. It was rushed anyway as I needed to get out with Mrs F in the afternoon, but running across the bedroom floor in 5 inch heels, pulling bits (clothing/boots) up, and then pulling my belly in, was usually too much of a challenge. At least one set of thigh high boots will need to be re-shot. Two reasons: The first is that in rushing back to my (pre-focused) 'spot' and trying to compose/tighten everything, with this particular boot, I seem to have missed my spot in every shot. So every image is soft. As importantly, especially when taking a pictures of black suede, exposure can't be under, and every frame was. Although the session was over before I could confirm this, I realised that -once again- using natural light wasn't prudent on a day when there was intermittent cloud cover. It's bad enough getting the exposure right when sat behind the camera, almost impossible when the light levels are bouncing all over the show, and my eyes are all too ready to accommodate the variance. It reminded me why I bought my strobe kit, 30 years ago. I still have the big light (good enough for small apertures on a medium format film camera with 1100ws), but I sold my two fill lights a couple of years ago - planning to replace them all with modern (digital) grade gear. In fact my main strobe has been on sale for a while too. It occurred to me, I might justify an upgrade to a G80 by virtue of the wifi function? (Which I know pretty much J/S about - on a camera.) Later in the day, I had yet another look at the G80 at JL Oxford Street, and this time there was a Panasonic rep there helping potential customers. It seems, the camera's wifi function is there (if you use an "app") so pictures can be taken remotely by a phone (as I understood it) and the outcome can be seen on the phone? Speaking as Mr app-less, I'm not keen, but it could solve half the problem I have. The other half would be firing flash. "I think" the strobe system I'm looking at (£1200 for 3 mono heads) has remote (on camera) wifi driven firing option. I did ask Miss Panasonic if the camera's onboard wifi system could be used for firing the strobe, and she believes not. And surprise surprise, Panasonic sell a bit of kit that attaches to the camera, to do that very thing: remote/wireless firing of strobes. While this seems like a lot of trouble for what is essentially a 'selfie', until I'm able to control my working photographic environment, I'm not able to make offers to others about paid work. I'm not looking to challenge portraitists for magazine work, but there is still a market for a well done portraits of the young, and old. It could be, I even find myself getting into budget wedding portraits - those at registry offices for example. (Where people might be getting married on a shoe-string.) Unlike 30 years ago, images taken are instantly assessable and 'goofs' shouldn't happen. The idea, is to make some money from photography, possibly enough to help pay for equipment. Or not. Speed I work, I'll be in a wheelchair by the time I get this sorted out. Tomorrow, I will just have to make do.

I hadn't considered for one second a line of 'disciplinary action' at all. It was more a line of garnering support to avoid or thwart the possibility of abuse or ridicule.

I was referring to the mouse, which predates the song by some years.

As I'm sure many do.

We've all been teenagers, and it's a time for pushing boundaries (to find out how far they can be pushed).... If they had the choice, I'm sure many 14/15 year olds would dress like "hookers", (celebrity female singers) announcing to the world their desirability to the hormonal boys chasing them. It's part of growing up, feeling your way out of a close family environment and making your own way into the world. Until now, a mistake (going too far, getting too deeply into an undesirable situation) was a mistake made by one person. These girls are media leaders in their field. Commerce (advertisers) and retailers will suck them into their money-making world, knowing that a picture at a Hilfiger bash, produces advertising so great as to be unaffordable otherwise. There is no magazine I'm aware of, that has the world-wide circulation of the Mail OnLine, nor the Instagram/Twitter/Facebook following these girls have. Today, 100's of thousands of young girls will be buying make up and clothes (heels) to replicate the younger Miss Crawfords look. Much later today, hundreds of them will find themselves in unpleasant situations they were not expecting. Young girls being brought into the spotlight isn't new. Young girls emulating older women isn't new. But the worldwide promotion of it, is new. I'm too old to be affected (hopefully), but the outlook for the younger generation isn't good. And I'm sure it will lead to more and more abuse. As a man, I'm too well aware that an attractive girl walking in my line of sight in provocative clothing (inappropriate short skirt, thigh high boots with heels, large amount of breast visible) is going to grab my attention. To some men, that look would be seen as an invitation. (Which is exactly what it is in some inner city streets after dark.) I'm disappointed our culture encourages this "look". I have no answer or solution to the adage 'sex sells' as plainly it does. But I don't agree with it being pushed toward the young, who are (often willingly) exploited by commerce.

Back on thread ..... PVC is big this year .... (The PVC thread is being worked on....)

Amelia Gray .... Daughter of Lisa Rinna (Days Of Our Lives and The Real Wives of Beverly Hills) and Harry Hamlin (L.A. Law and Mad Men) at a Tommy Hilfiger bash. Headlined as "aspiring model" and "genetically blessed" by mother.... I didn't even realise she is 16 until I read some of the blurb under the picture .... It's not even a subtle look!