FastFreddy2

The amazing 40 something year old Elizabeth Banks last year, in stunningly high Loubies. From >> here <<

Another street 'candid'. Hailey Baldwin on a night out with Kendall Jenner. From >> here << Not worth a look really. Too much like a Uni party.

A couple of 'candid' street shots of Rita Ora, leaving her ride. Don't enjoy it too much, people who do this sort of thing are called "perv's" in some circles. She is seen here wearing some SERIOUSLY high shoes. Two pictures because they are so attractive. Rita is seen >> here << in her short-lived Lagerfeld period. Worth a look.

A 'candid' street shot of Bar Refaeli. Don't enjoy it too much, people who do this sort of thing are called "perv's" in some circles. From >> here <<

The 'interesting' Caroline Flack. From >> here << This is the only heels picture ...

Me and the rest of the Western world have been taking 'candid' photo's for years (lifetimes), and the custom is getting less and less unusual, together with video'ing, as a visit to You Tube will confirm. While you claim your "advice" was well-meant, from the balance of your "advice", it becomes obvious it was far from it. Referring to me as a pervert, 'Lording it over' to the last, despite doing the same thing yourself. (Surreptitious photography.) Edit: **** On second thoughts, 'the world' doesn't really need to know about me. **** We've all done stuff. We've all had a life. We've all done things to be proud of. Hopefully, here endeth a second lecture I didn't ask for.

Again, I've not spent time keeping this up-to-date. There are many interesting outfits to be shown. (Look from September 2015)

I'm not making the time I need to publish the 'candids' I take while out and about. In the edit I mostly spend time getting subjects vertical, cropping to points of interest (outfits), removing distractions, then removing any indicators of identity. It's the last bit that can sometimes be time consuming. The process of uploading isn't quick either. For some reason they need to be presented 'square' to avoid on-screen cropping. It all adds time. I'll try to do more, but I'm about 2½ years behind ... .

And as we are now trading insults, you seem to know little about comparing apples with apples. Lets keep the point to photographing people eh? And avoid 'straw-man' point scoring. I take candids in places where people are used to having their image recorded. If you don't like it, you'll just have to suck it up. You take photographs of people who didn't want their photographs taken and where it was culturally offensive, using the same method I use, discretion. "Snap" You are doing it for money, with the full intent on publishing those images. And that doesn't make you a hypocrite? Your excuse/justification was that no individual was identifiable, "snap" again. You don't use a 'model release' where numbers make it impractical .... "Snap". "Offended precisely nobody". "Snap" again. Are you seeing any apples yet? You are right I know little of travelling despite having to 'commute' to work using aircraft for a period, but the rest; "been there, done that". And, I'm qualified to do it too! At least I'm not trying to enforce a law that doesn't exist. (And you claim to be an expert on "rights"?) Did it never occur to you that I might have friends in publishing, that I might have 'street candids' published, or had essays (on computing) published, or management guides (Uni) published? Nor business projects (3 months work) published for multimillion pound companies? I don't need to 'validate' myself by trying to demean others. You are successful, well done. But don't assume I've spent my life pushing empty trolleys around outside a local supermarket. This is another silly "debate", rather like inferring Carl Zeiss would build-in astigmatism.... When they actually spend millions trying to design it out of their lenses. If you like to argue, make it about something worthwhile ... EU -- In/Out? Immigration? But don't try and "own" photography here or anywhere, because it isn't yours to 'lord it over'. The best any of us can hope for, is an opinion that people want to listen to. And if you ever wanted to change mine, telling me how ignorant I am of your world, is not the way to do it. Have you learned nothing of Englishmen during your time here?

We have been enjoying leak-free plumbing here at Maison Freddy for some weeks now. It's allowed me to re-fit a fair amount of flooring, that had been left loose in case of further leaks .... I am remiss in not including a lot of re-work images to support the narrative, and it may be that since I can't edit old posts, I may 'catch-up' by posting a short catalogue of work completed in a short series of new posts. One thing I keep meaning to mention, is that I finally measured the water pressure here, at a disappointing 4.5 bar. Now, the expert plumbers amongst us will know that is only half (to 2/3rds) the story. There is a figure that relates to a lower pressure when the water is running. (I can't recall the term, but there is one.) This figure is worked out by turning on a tap, and measuring the lowered pressure while the tap is running. That happened to be 4.0 bar. The other half of the story, is flowrate. It happens to be around 30L/pm here. I might be more, but that rate isn't bad at all. In fact the Belfast sink I re-plumbed (pictures appear here with the new/revised waste), and it now has a mains supply too. As 'avid' readers will know, that sink flooded when the overflow failed to function. (It was blocked with Plumbers Mait it transpired.) Anyway, I've been tempted to block the sink waste to test the overflow, more than once, and had a change of mind as the water level in the sink has risen. Last week, I needed to wash away some grit left in a bowl I'd emptied and turned on the cold supply (mains) to wash away the small amount of debris. To my amazement, I found the water-flow from the tap was greater than that of the waste, meaning I got to watch the sink start to fill even with an open waste! I allowed the water to get some 3 inches deep, before deciding the 'experiment' was conclusive. When I get that combi boiler fitted, we are going to be able to go surfing in the bathroom with our flowrate!

Only been a week, is it too early for news?

This is a worse "infringement" than anything I've ever done. Not only do I take photographs in (public) places in a culture were the expectation is everyone will be photographed and video'd, I ensure that every face and costume is obscured to avoid recognition. I don't even expect the photo's to be published, as few are. Seems to me, you are saying you have been paid to photograph people in a culture that doesn't want to be photographed, by using long lenses to furtively achieve the goal of getting those images, which you knew the subjects would not want (for cultural reasons). And doing this knowing those images would likely be published and seen throughout the world? While I had assured myself I would not respond to this thread again, I am stunned by what seems to be the hypocrisy here. At least where I take my candids, (a la Bresson) people likely have FB pages, indulge in 'selfies' and have a reasonable expectation they appear on video every time they leave their home, every time they walk into a shop or store. Not 'the pot calling the kettle black' situation, more like 'the steelworks calling the kettle black'.

I've not read all of your long 'anti' response, and as I'm banned from HHp anything written there is of no concern to me. I get you don't think it's a very 'honourable' thing to do. I don't think being videoed in every public place, shop and mall I visit is very pleasant either. But we all have to 'suck it up'. As for someone calling the police, I'm not unhappy for that to happen if it does. In fact once outside a nightclub, a doorman said he would call them if I didn't leave. I told him to call them, and I waited 15 minutes in the cold for them to arrive. They didn't. Exercising my freedom is more important to me than being 'scared' into obeying a law that doesn't exist. I'm not a vigilante, but I'm no shy wallflower either. I was once 'challenged' by someone half my age for looking at his girlfriends boots as she walked past while I sat eating. He wasn't expecting me to get up and follow him up on the challenge..... Nothing else happened, but his girlfriend must have realised his jealousy made him more of a knob than I was for noticing her as she walked past. I'm sure he became a wife-beater due to his unacceptable behaviour in public. As before, if you don't want people to look, or (increasingly these days - record), stay at home. That advice goes out to anyone and everyone, regardless to their interest in footwear. As for asking everyone in this photo for their "permission" to photograph them, I'm going to be polite and say it would be "unrealistic". Just as it would be if all those taking my photograph wouldn't be asking, nor expect me to keep clear of their camera lens.

Thank you. Bit 'technical' (I expect nothing less) but completely correct. I'm aware I put myself in exactly the same position when I go out in a heel. If I suspect my footwear has been observed (as I believed it was in the restaurant) I take evasive procedures to avoid my footwear being recorded with me. Often this amounts to no more than tucking the shoes away from a 'line-of-sight'. People holding up a phone to read something, look the same as someone using a phone to take a picture, so I've no-way of knowing which of the two they might be doing. What I can't do, is make an unsubstantiated assumptions and 'kick-off' because I'm paranoid to the point of needing medical treatment. And nor can/should anyone else.

I don't know what you've been reading, but we don't live in 1933 Germany (at the moment at least). For my part, I'm happy to use the few freedoms "we" have left. Using a camera in public is still one of them. Being "furtive" also guarantees I can't be accused of harassment, or bothering anyone due to my proximity or overt actions. There is no 'ill-will' nor malice attached to my taking photographs of people walking around in public. The original photo shows two people standing in a busy street and the photo shown further up the thread is a small cropped portion of the original. I'd be surprised if at least 3 CCTV cameras weren't recording every detail of their (and my) journey too. People living in the UK are the most watched/recorded anywhere in the world. It comes with 'the territory' .... There is no expectation of privacy on public land. And even in shops and malls, at least 2 and usually more cameras, will be recording your every movement. These signs were everywhere. As were people with cameras pointing them at other people, including me, many times. The only way to avoid it, would be staying home. (Or a paper-bag over my head, which would likely get me noticed even more.)

I tend not to do anything illegal. I'm unobtrusive, and very discreet. My camera looks like a bit like a phone, and I hold it next to my body. I think it has been spotted, once or twice (in several thousand snaps) but even then, why would anyone think I'm using it when it's held in such a way? Conversely, walking across the open space of Trafalgar, I must have had my photo taken AT LEAST 10 times. It was unavoidable with people 'snapping' away. These days it's harder to keep away from having your picture taken, than getting your picture taken. We had the same problem when we arrived at Covent Garden. People with phones taking pictures, people with cameras, video equipment ... Anyone overly paranoid about having their photo taken in these places, need to either wear a paper-bag over their head, or stay home. It's completely unrealistic to expect to walk around these places and not get included in someone's digital image. Even for me, and I'm about as paranoid about it as anyone could be.... "Publishing" can be a little more fraught of course. I go to some lengths to make sure the subject isn't identifiable, and I seldom make unfavourable comments. (I can only think of one, over many many years.) I'm generally promoting someone's good taste, so it would be hard for anyone to suggest I was trying to 'defame' them. I don't do this to upset people.

Thank you. The equally 'candid snap' of the lady in heels, is much more interesting though. To me at least. She was lovely.

And might even be the motivation to do extraordinary things ... Would I have driven to Covent Garden yesterday evening (primarily to walk amongst people in high heels) and enjoy the hustle and bustle of several landmarks known throughout the world, enjoying a meal with my nearest and dearest in the heart of the capitals theatre-land? I think not. Nor would I have had the pleasure of watching an attractive lady walk around in some Carvela courts I know to have a 5 inch heel.

And there's me thinking that these were your (well-hidden) secret talents, Freddy! And obviously I'm doing a great job of keeping them secret.

That remark begs for a banter-style (slightly abusive but well-meant) response..... Sadly I don't have the intellect or wit to take up the challenge. Anything on order yet?

Well done. Yes. When I first read about 5" heels, I thought that starting off in a stiletto that high would be counter-productive, until I saw the shoe size of 44/45. (Counter-productive as in 'too hard' and might encourage failure.) With a size 10 foot, a 5" heel should might well be a challenge, but achievable for a determined wearer. What to buy, and what not to buy? Firstly, what not .... Only yesterday I was in TKMaxx, trying on an attractive pair of Diesel strappy ankle boots. (Sorry, no piccies at the moment.) They were a size EU40/UK7 and had a zipper up the back. I don't usually get on with this position of fastener, so I was surprised I got the shoes on, but I did. While I have regular sized 8 feet in length, they are slender (ish) so I sometimes manage a large 7, which these were. They had (have) a 5" metal heel, which is what drew me to them. Mrs Freddy had tried them on first, and didn't want to try to walk in them, so despite me being a bit close to home, I tried them too. They looked great on, had the upper end of my wearable heel height, but .... They were lethal. So unstable, I would reasonably expect to have a broken ankle on my first outing with them. I can only liken it to wearing a high heeled slipper and the heel tip was machined to a point. If I didn't move, the 'heel wobble' wasn't so bad, but even breathing induced movement. I've been wearing a heel for some time, and I couldn't wear them. I would recommend Pleaser. They are stable, being designed for men to wear, and their range is quite large. They are no longer as inexpensive to buy in the UK as they used to be, and few outlets carry stock. (The exception might be Banana Shoes, who I also recommend.) The newer Pleaser style with the vertical heel are hard to walk in, so I would suggest one of the older (classic) styles with the curved (inclined) heel. There is some discussion on this board about heel-tip position that is pertinent regarding these styles, that might bear some reading if you are unfamiliar with it. While you are into boots, getting the right size might take some work, so I suggest getting the sizing using shoes. Either ordering 2 or 3 sizes at a time, or hoping to get lucky and ordering what might seem like the right one will almost certainly involve returning products, and returning shoes is cheaper than returning boots. I am thinking (aloud) that faffing about with shoes to get the right size, could be easier/cheaper than faffing around with boots. Once you have the size, then you can order new or buy 'unused/unwanted' at a better price - possibly, in a style you prefer. Boots and shoes from the defunct Little Shoe Box (aka LSB), now "Leatherworks" or Burlesque Blue, will all be strong enough to support a 6ft man. I believe Burlesque Blue (and maybe Leatherworks) still offer a made-to-measure service if you have that sort of inclination. There are other people offshore who might do the same or similar thing for a bit less money, but the makers I mentioned are in the UK where you might get the benefit of some face-to-face advice if your interest progresses. Often resellers/retailers will recommend going up a size if wearing a heel. I have never found this good advice for myself. In fact with a court shoe, I've found the opposite to be true. When I put on a size 8 court, it fits. When I've been wearing it for 10 minutes (and my feet have reshaped themselves) my foot falls out of the shoe. Wide feet might get some benefit from a larger shoe, but I don't have wide feet (thankfully). All that said, there is at least one 'local' heel enthusiast around your size who is a member here. It may be you could meet up for a 'trial' that would be no more expensive than the cost of travel to a mutually convenient venue. There are more active members on HHP, and maybe you've already had a similar offer from one or two there?