FastFreddy2

Yes. I've known this since about 1985/86. Though I'm not 100% sure an f1.4 lens focussed at infinity would have a particularly shallow depth of field (in measured yards/metres at the focal point.) To someone who sees anything out of focus as undesirable, it's a technical fault. There are some quite well known portraits of of famous, and less famous people where differential focussing has highlighted their eyes (as is normal procedure) and a good deal of everything else is out of focus. Not for me. In macro photography there are times when even f32+ won't produce a completely focussed subject, and that is an accepted handicap of the genre. In portraiture, the only time I want a shallow depth of field, is when I want to isolate the subject from anything that detracts from what I'm trying to say about the sitter/subject. From the web .... While you might be inclined to 'dress up' the physical limitations of lenses (distance vs aperture size) I'm fully aware of what it is ... A limitation. Where light (or media response speeds) prevent a completely 'in focus' image owing to the use of a wide aperture, the result can't be dressed up as something desirable, because the whole point of a £2000 lens is to get everything in the image; pin sharp. There is a whole genre of painting called "abstract", that is worth millions, if not billions. It's all bunk to me. While Picasso was undoubtedly a great artist ... the work he is famous for, is for me mostly an eye-sore... I've obviously a traditionalist. And slightly proud of it.

My international linguistic skills ended when I chose not to take French in the third year. Didn't actually do any in the second year, but I'd learned enough in my first year to get a decent pass in the end of the second year exams, much to the astonishment of myself and the French teacher. At junior school I used the little French we had been taught to ask if a fellow pupil could use the loo. Teacher was impressed. While on a motorcycle in France, and ever-so-slightly-lost, I asked one of the locals in French, where the big white mountain was. Impressed with my question, she gave me directions in the fastest French I've ever heard. I think I made out 3 of the 50 words spoken. Since I obviously had impressive skills with French ladies, it's one of my life's regrets I didn't learn a second language. Giving what I might usually consider a technical fault an exotic name, seems a bit la-de-dah to me. (He's says, slightly tongue in cheek ). As I'm too old to learn a new foreign word, I'll have to stick to out-of-focus, but I appreciate the effort in trying to educate the ineducable. Besides, the term 'differential focussing' seems much sexier. I think I did mention how mirror lenses (which might be 'old tech' to many) produces attractive little doughnuts for out of focus background highlights. Creamy doughnuts then?

Both pairs are going back, but I intend to re-purchase a size 12 when I can find a pair that has been made to the same quality as the size 14's. While there's little between them, the 14's did pucker up around the knee in a way the 12's didn't. It may be the 14's weren't quite tight enough. I haven't yet (remembered to) check I don't already own a pair of shiny leggings ... Not that it would stop me owning a second pair. .... Back in the day, I owned PVC trousers for use when I frequented a fetish club to indulge in my high heel wearing needs. There's a lot to be said for owning a pair. Technology has improved clothing during the past 30 years, and stretch-anything is now de rigueur. I would imagine the current range of materials would be a good deal more comfortable, and less prone to cracking or tearing while being worn. I look forward to hearing about a purchase.

It's a worry. And it's not like he or his dad and new wife make sure we are kept informed of safe journey arrivals either. I had a conversation with my grandson before he left. "Don't be silly, my dad wouldn't take me anywhere that wasn't safe." Well, I didn't get to take Mrs Freddy to Egypt with it being her 'surprise' honeymoon destination, because of attacks on tourists a month or so before the wedding (I think 5 or 15 killed that year) and despite her lifelong desire to go there, we haven't yet felt it safe enough to visit any time since. Even our next door neighbours who went to Egypt EVERY year, stopped going two years ago, and now visit the Canaries instead. While there are dangers everywhere - I could never cycle on roads as you do - there's a limit to how much you should push the envelope I think. There was a realistic chance I could have drowned while on a 'boys' holiday to Spetses (mentioned elsewhere) and the only danger to me was the benign but deep water. Lesson learned ... It's refreshing to hear of someone else who doesn't take the world around them for granted. So many are blind to wonders in front of them. As for being labelled "a traveller", I will take that in the spirit it is intended, thank you. But in some circles, being referred to as 'a traveller' might not be taken in such complimentary terms.

I've not travelled at all really. Did three weeks riding around France on a motorbike. Went up towards the Alps to Switzerland then through the mountains to Italy and back to France along the Côte d'Azur. Then down to the Camargue (to ride a white horse), before returning to blighty via Lyon. Rained just about every day, and rained heavily every time I sat on the bike. Gale force winds on the return journey ... Storms that killed 9 when it got to Spain. This was August and September BTW, not deep into winter. Apart from two nights (nowhere to pitch one in Geneva - I was too damp by the time we got to Arles to think about pitching a tent), every night out was spent inside a tent. So cold in Northern France (first night out) we slept in all our motorbike gear - and still got cold. Happy days! About the only thing I want to see outside of Hertfordshire, is the Grand Canyon. Never going, can't be arsed with the security BS. Since I was young (8 or 9 possibly) I've been able to go into any field, and be in awe of the marvels in front of me. Honestly, nature, our natural surroundings are mind blowing. I'm immensely proud to say I've managed to grow grass from seed. It's just a-maz-ing! Talking to people, brings the most interesting 'ventures to life too. Me and Mrs Freddy were sitting in Costa at Brent Cross one afternoon not long ago. Two (older - just) ladies sat at the table next to us. They spoke in a foreign language that was hard to place, with me thinking Spanish, herself thinking Italian. As Mrs Freddy is seldom wrong about anything (she'll never read this) and there was some Italian lilt to the phraseology I was disappointed I may have guessed badly. Bear in mind it's a noisy mall, and Costa is next to an escalator, as well as being full of talking customers .... So I asked. They were both Spanish, and the one I had spoken to had lived in the UK for over 40 years. Her sister was here on a visit. We were then entertained, for at least 45 minutes, with a concise version of the ladies life. Her sister couldn't speak much English, but she nodded appropriately from time to time. We laughed a lot, we were surprised a lot, we were impressed a lot. Basically, we wanted her for our mum! My grandson at 12 years, had already seen more of the world than I will ever see. I'm a bit jealous he's been diving in Egypt, though more worried than jealous (in hindsight) he left Sharm airport only a couple of hours before the tragic Russian flight ... (Mrs Freddy stills gets sick just thinking abut it.) I'm happy he's been to see Santa way up in Lapland, and been to see Disney in America. He's dived off the Canaries, and Cyprus already too. He deserves these pleasures, he's a great (little) person. But that life isn't for me. I do love the sea, and being near water, though it remains a pleasure I deny myself. Like many, I think there's always tomorrow. Yeah, canoeing around the Norwegian fjords.... or Canadian wilderness...

Not what you told the casting director at the audition. And I quote; "I can ride a horse bare-back. I can speak 4 languages. I can dance, tap and jazz. I can sing, AND I look great in PVC!"

If they are any good (ie shiny and well fitting), do let us know.

If those boots had been shown in all their glory, the seller might have seen over £100 on that auction. The picture did his sale no favours at all.

"All comes to he who waits", and I do waiting pretty good .... Office boots, my size and brand new went through the auction site the other day ..... I missed the end of the auction, but I would not have bid that high anyway. A 4½ inch heel maybe, but not 4. Office as a brand has changed significantly since I first authored this thread. It would seem someone into heels, has joined their buying team.

Mine too, when she was two dress sizes smaller (6/8). She still looks good in tight shiny clothes, but would not leave the house wearing anything like that "because I don't want to look like mutton dressed as lamb". She came home with a 'faux' leather dress that looks great and cost almost nothing about a year ago - not anything to do with my influence, it just arrived... We don't really go anywhere she would wear it, but it's in the wardrobe. Bit of a mystery really... I seldom buy loose clothing. While women 'of a certain age' prefer comfort over glamour, I've always liked showing off my shape if I had a shape to show off. Mrs Freddy believes, along with many others, drowning a larger shape works. Not in my view. Have a quick look at this recent newspaper article >> click here << that suggests I'm not alone in this view. If you think you can tolerate tight clothing, then I would recommend trying it. I almost never wear jeans or trousers without leggings on underneath, and the more compressive the better. Shaved legs (cycling is a great 'excuse') makes anything on legs quite stimulating. The M+S "Long" comes with a 33" inseam, but can be 32-34 inches in length, sometimes. I would recommend the longer length for you if your inside leg measurement is 33 inches. Better too long than too short. I bought some shiny leggings from Forever21 late last year, that barely covered my calves. Mrs Freddy was highly amused .... (As before, 'clothing snob'.) If you are shopping around for some, don't forget to look at ASOS, Boohoo and Missguided. The latter two specialise in 'glamour wear' on a budget for the younger person. Primarni, always worth a look too. I find their products are well made, fit well, and they have easy returns in-store.

Zara passed me a Hermes tracking number on the 8th, that will be 4 days ago later today. So far, the only comment is "Order raised". Not in transit, not even collected by Hermes. Could be the boots just turn up ..... ? Or they were already out of stock when I placed the order? Maybe I need to chase them up....

You must be looking in the wrong place surely, or is size an issue? Two years ago the shops were full of 'wet look' 'black liquid' leggings. Topshop had lots, as did River Island (pricey) and New Look. I bought a few pairs myself . . . Regarding the pictures newly added above: (L to R) H&M faux leather slim trouser. Originally £16 but bought at discount. Sizing accurate, UK12 worn by model. Primarni leggings at £6. This style were made of two different materials, which led to me having to swap/return some that were less stretchy. They came up small, and not wishing to tear them in use, I bought a size up. *Editors choice.* M+S Limited Edition shiny leggings at £25 but they do monthly 20% discounts, so could be had at £20 if stock is available. The UK12's shown were not made correctly, but the larger size 14 were fine. (Thread did not break on the 14's even when fully stretched.) These were both the glossiest legging tested, and the most expensive. To help put the pricing into perspective; Topshop versions were originally sold for circa £20/£22, the New Look ones around £14/£16, Can't be sure, but the River Island ones would have been at least £25, and would have come up small in size. I mention the RI sizing in case anyone considers buying at auction. (Not only members read these pages.) What the pictures can't tell you is how they felt to wear. The H&M trousers were the most constrictive, which was pleasant, and understandable given the thickness of the material. They were not sold as leggings even if they fit like a pair. The M+S leggings were easily the more comfortable, feeling no more restrictive than tights (hose). Those shown were a 'long' and I will also road test the regular size in time. All three pairs had around an inch of length tucked up internally for the photo's. The cheapo/imitation spanx used to maintain modesty, have a seam forward of the inside leg and a rolled edge on the hem of the legs. Both the inner seam and the leg hem were clearly visible through the Primarni and M+S leggings. Pictures that might have been used in place of those shown, have been omitted because of the seams that were visible. All the photo's were taken on a Lumix G5 with 20mm f1.7 pancake lens. Manual focus was used, with a 10 second timer. Distance to camera was around 5-6ft which has shortened the apparent length of the models legs. Exposure was left to the camera (this time). Natural light was used, which played havoc with exposure settings, as you can see from the varying contrast levels in the photo's.

We made the mistake of going to Fuengirola on mainland Spain, some years ago. A seven day booking that had us held at Luton for the first day because there wasn't an air crew available ... We got to the resort the following morning at 5.30am. Things went down hill from there .... One of the places we found worth a visit, was the "Centro Comercial Miramar" at the Southern end of the resort. You'll never guess what we found inside?

I'm sure "it's" not that bad ... You make it sound like you auditioned for Shrek.

Eh? While walking around my (then) local town centre about 30 years ago, I was testing a slightly longer lens than I was used to, by just 'clicking' at anything of interest, to familiarise myself with the focussing action. I never point a camera without film, and at the time I was processing B+W stock on a weekly -if not daily- basis. I have a picture of a child standing on one of those 50p-a-go electric rocking horses, at the time, found outside some shops to keep children busy while mum or dad popped inside. I didn't even remember taking it until I processed the contact sheet. It's probably the best example of differential focussing I've ever taken. Cartier-Bresson would be proud. Amongst all the distraction of a market place, a concrete stairway immediately adjacent to the electric toy, the only thing in focus is the child and the toy. It would have been shot on a Nikon 105mm lens at f2.8 because the stairway and the balcony above made the lighting very poor. That child probably has children of his own now, older than he was in that photo. If I published it on the Facebook web site for that town, I wonder if he would be recognised? I doubt I'll ever know. I also like the effect mirror lenses give background highlights, lots of little circles .... Quite pleasing to my eye. It's like having the background covered in soft-focus flowers.

We can't keep cake in the house. Doesn't stop me eating it about twice a week, at the moment. Not helping my waistline much.

I used to be that way, but I'm now more indifferent. As a small child, (five or six) one of my adult neighbours told me I was ugly. (I was at home off school and unwell.) It stuck with me, until about 10 years ago, when I looked at a old photo I have of me that was taken with two friends - and I'm not pulling faces or avoiding the camera. I wasn't ugly at all, in fact I seem to have had quite a pleasant face. Not Brad Pitt grade of course, more a Billy Crystal really... But ugly? No. I hope that woman is burning in hell somewhere ... Not that I hold a grudge ....

I would agree on that. The "long" in their jeans (of which I have many) have to be trawled for the right length. It has taken some time, but I have two pairs of the 'perfect' jeans with 34" inside leg. A frequent/familiar user of M+S (ie your wife - possibly) will know, M+S don't do a 34" leg. The reason it took so long to find these, wasn't the absence of a 34" in what is supposed to be a 33" leg (aka "Long"), but finding two pairs that had the left leg sewn straight, was a problem. The first couple of pairs I bought, and perhaps the next 10 I didn't buy, all had a twisted seam on the left leg. If I'm honest, one of the two pairs I settled with has a slightly wonky hem on one leg, but is so minute even I struggle to see it when they are worn. I had to wait until the first 'batch' was sold out, and I bought from the second or third wave of replenishment. I've found Primarni (Primark) have a much more reliable product. I bought some mens jeans from them, before they went to 'worn out look' only. A bit baggy, so I don't wear them any longer, but ALL the 34" leg lengths were 34". Mrs Freddy won't even go into a Primarni (bit of a clothes snob) but their clothing is as good as anything M+S produce, in the (cheaper) lines that they sell. As I mentioned, I bought a 12 and a 14 in the shiny leggings. Not much between them, but enough. I didn't notice at the time of purchase, but they are both 'long' which is a mixed blessing. It means they are long enough if I bend my leg (don't ride up) but are ever-so-slightly too long. Picture to follow. The 12's are a perfect fit, if I say so myself. Again long. (Duh!) This is perhaps no bad thing as I think these are the only size already sold out on-line. However, some of the thread used may not have been elasticated. As I put them on, I could feel the thread breaking on the waistband, and as I took them off, on the leg seams too. Just to confirm, these are stretchy, and I've no hips or arse to speak of (refer to picture) so I've not over-stretched anything. The 14's are almost identical but for half an inch and I had no problems with those. A woman/girl getting the 12's on, would have had to yank them significantly more than I did, so someone has done something wrong somewhere. I had this once with a BHS garment. I could feel the waistband 'popping' threads as I put it on. As I say, I've no hips/bum to speak of, so it was much easier for me to get the BHS item on, than it would have been for a girl. Faulty then... The M+S leggings are really attractive, and feel nice to wear. I sat in the 12's and actually forgot I had them on. The 14's had a slightly looser waist, and allowed a little rippling on the leg at the knee. I'm not overly keen on a loose waist, as this allows the garment to get 'pulled' down my legs. The 12's were great. If I can find a pair that don't have the breaking thread problem, I will buy a 'keeper' pair if I can get them with discount. £5 isn't a great deal of money, but it's enough to tip the scales to a point of being too expensive to keep. Since I have a 12 Long here that are faulty, I'm wondering if the 12 Long sold out so quickly because they are ALL faulty, and people like me have bought several times to find a pair that are made correctly? Picture added. The only 'work' done to these, has been cropping, and hiding a light socket that was in frame. Ohh, and disguising the inner seam of my cheap spanx. (Worn only so as to not frighten - or amuse anyone.)

Not a great night .... Visited a Zara store in the West End, and found 3 pairs (wrong size) in the long boot I have on order. The 'long' bit, is practically a sock. The heel is wonderfully high, over 4½ inches, but there is nothing to support the shaft save a leg inside them. The pairs I saw in store, were actually hung up, to show them off. More details when the boots arrive, but at £139 there is no way I'm keeping them even if they were a gift. That said, two trendy black girls practically pushed me over while reaching for them, and subsequently raving about how good they looked?

I've not found that. Though it does seem harder for some than others? They do run out of some lines quite quickly I've found which can be quite frustrating. End of line sales, are a complete waste of time, unless you are a size 24 with very short legs. Was out tonight in heels, and bought a 12 and a 14 at £25 each to try for size. As I sit writing this, I'm wondering why I didn't try them on immediately I got home? Oh yeah, was making a cup of coffee first, then sat down while the kettle was boiling and got immersed in H4M.

Coincidently, there was a girl in my class would wear these. She was very slim, which was not that unusual in pre-fast food outlet times. (Back then 'fast food' was the chippie or the Chinese take-away.) She was a bit self-concious about this, and almost always wore white woven-cotton tights. Not fish-nets, but a 'girlie' cousin to them. She always wore light colour on her legs, in the belief it made them appear 'thicker' in the way black is supposed to be thinning? I remember her name still, as she was the class Alpha female, who oddly, married and stayed married to the class Alpha male. As I've mentioned before, I've little or no experience of anything close to OTK boots other than a short/pleasurable experience with a pair that lasted around 4 weeks. I really liked them, and wore them most of my waking hours for that 4 weeks. With my legs, I feel that might never change... My 'walking friend' has a couple of pairs of boots, that most would consider OTK boots. Neither has a heel. One pair were typical of the swash-buckling type, with a larger thigh (or maybe even an open thigh) to aid knee movement. The other pair, go just over the knee and are a skin-fit. They were made by Faith, and those boots got a lot of interest from me, 20 years ago. I might even have a photo somewhere ... She still has them, but her feet are in such poor shape (literally) she can no longer get them on without considerable discomfort. I can understand the appeal of something like a long boot. The closest I may have come to experiencing the feel of something 'hugging' my legs (which I enjoy) is wearing support stockings, which doesn't sound very attractive at all. Shiny spandex sounds like a lot more fun, and I am minded to buy some. I have a medical condition (inherited from my mother) called 'restless leg' syndrome. It means my legs don't like resting while I'm in bed. At the moment I manage by having one or both feet hanging out from underneath the bedding, being 'cooled'. I have REALLY hot feet and this makes my restless legs worse. I have wondered if wearing something tight on my legs at night, would make things better? Probably not, though they would be less inclined to feel itchy. (The 'restless' bit.) Ho-humm. Have you provided any pictures of your OTK boots yet?

As before, I've taken your advice on-board. With no (realistic) limits on equipment budgets, I see no reason to expect film to out-perform digital, and it certainly is considerably more flexible in just about every respect. I'd like to see a portrait using digital that produced 'warm skin tones' and good (read realistic) contrasts. Not processor controlled over-exposure where the darkest/blackest object is a shade of grey. My shtick in this matter, remains at the other end of the money scale in terms of price/performance, where I obviously have more (frustrating) experience. Again, I will endeavour to use RAW and see if I can't get my Nikon lenses fitted to my Lumix. I don't need auto-focus for portraits, and where I need speed, the camera has a fairly fast pancake lens anyway. (If ever there was an Americanism ..... )

Again, actually laughed out loud. In a discreet way, of course. (It's gone midnight.) Whilst not being able to profess 'expert witness in court' as part of my life history, I was in fact on 'the list' if the day in court didn't go the way it did. In this instance the police had their case kicked out, on the day I was to appear for the 'defence'. As it was, the court didn't need my help to decide the police were 'barking' up a bad tree. As a programmer/analyst toward the middle/end of my career in manufacturing, I too had to write manuals that were tested by the smartest stupid people ever employed by a blue-chip (listed) company. I also help author/actually author a set of rules/manual that involved overview by the police and in an environment where mistakes could get people killed, and this was an understood fact. (Not me dreaming up potential dangers.) If there's anything other than a dead end to a question, someone - usually the first person to read the question after the author - will find the route to anything other than the yes/no answer the author thought were the only answers possible. The concept of Poka-Yoke is to design out the opportunities for anything other than the expected yes/no answer. A great example of this, is the UK wall plug. It can only be fitted one way. You might then think a question followed by a "Yes" box, and a "No" box would satisfy meeting the concept? I'm sure you have been there too, when you felt the need to either tick both, or tick neither? The fault there then, (and here is the punchline), is how the question is presented ..... If the person(s) answering the question is/are something of a fool (tick) better make the question fool-proof. As always, your servant sir.

I was surprised too, they came in a long length. Bad news for regarding my order .... It was cancelled because the person doing the ordering, didn't add the 20% voucher code. Then when she went to reorder some 20 minutes later, all the quantities had doubled up and it proved too much of a challenge to rectify that. (Novice on-line shopper.) The discount will come around again in a month or so, but I'll pay full price to try some on. I had planned to keep a pair at the £20 price. I've no idea why ....

You are not alone in this. People shopping on auction sites do so for one of two main reasons. Price, and choice. My experience suggests bargains are to be had for reselling, if you can catch something in demand at a buy-it-now price that is significantly lower than the item might make at auction. It has to be lower because the auction site, takes around 15% of your selling price if you make a sale. That's quite a big handicap. The 'in demand' bit is quite important too. I'll three pairs of sandals that are quite attractive, but summer is over so no-one even looks at them.