FastFreddy2

I fear I (just) missed the pinnacle of the high heel wearing era... I've memories of my mothers flip-floppy type dress mules with medium height wedge heels - that I tried and wore as often as possible when my feet grew.... I remember while at school, noticing how few girls wore a heel - which is maybe why I remember that girl walking along our road .... But for the likes of Elton John and his theatrical high heels, and those of other musical performers (Sweet springs to mind), for me the late 60's early 70's were a particularly flat period. Not until the mid to late 70's did heels really become a significant force in my life, going from a secret pleasure, to something completely indulged by wilful girlfriends.

Ahemm. Sir, we are reasonable men. (Usually). If everyone else in the room says the tree is green, but you believe it to be blue, what colour is it? If the good men (and true) to whom you ask a question provide the answer they believe is accurate, is that answer not accurate, even if the person asking doesn't agree it is? Meaning trees are green because consensus agrees what green is. If it's possible to provide what subsequently becomes a point for debate, clearly the question was not clear, even if it was in the mind of the author. Women are famous (notorious) for both asking and answering these types of questions. I am resolute in my belief, that womenfolk do not have the ability to say or no to a question a man might perceive to have only a yes or no answer. In fact, in the Freddy household there is now a 'standing order' to reflect this anomaly. "Anything other than a plain 'yes', means 'no'." Sadly, this has led to many outings being cancelled because the answer to "Would you like to go to ...... " almost never produces a "yes" answer. (Typically the first remark is "When?" followed by disfavourable comments on my timekeeping. That might be true, but have no bearing on the need for me to have a concise answer.) So, whilst in all matters you are the exactitude of correctness, I can't help but feel there may have been the minutest of vagueness in the question that led to a misunderstanding by all involved. Since I have a manufacturing background, my only suggestion to eradicate this in future, would be to suggest a moment or two reading up on the Japanese (non martial) art of Poka-Yoke. Which I ought to point out immediately, is not a computer game. Your servant sir.

While Victorian explorers and the frontiersmen of the America's had no choice about it, I'm surprised a 4x5 or 10x8 'plate' (film) camera isn't used then? Short of stealing something from Hubble Inc, I doubt even you would suggest the detail available from a digital camera would trump one of these? And I don't know we are really disagreeing either. I'm resigned to your experience in this matter, in that the image quality from a £5000 (to £7000) digital system might be superior to say 35mm film stock. I struggle to image it would be better than 6x7 but I'm okay with being ignorant to that being the case. I will do what I can (when I can) to find out more. But even a full size CMOS processor isn't the panacea of the imagining world. I have used slow B+W film in a 6x7 camera and at the enlargement sizes I used (3ft x 4ft) I failed to see any indication of grain at all. Nada. Put plainly, that film/camera combination could out-resolve the human eye, and any quality above that, is an academic exercise. The C330 (or Yashica 124) with the same film could likely produce a very similar quality image, for significantly less money than the Mamiya 67 ProS, and could certainly take on digital cameras priced under £1000. So far, you have not challenged this claim? I believe digital works at the mid to low end because it's easy/quick/cheap. I don't think it's accurate (as shown in the direct comparison above) and I'm pretty unconvinced on quality too. That said, I've done nothing with RAW images, and it maybe time I did. I have taken on-board your comment regarding .jpg stripping 80% of the image data, and will try some like for like comparisons. As detailed elsewhere, I own a Lumix G5 (as well as 2 off FE2's and a Mamiya 67). Some time ago I bought an adapter that would let me use my Nikon lenses on the G5. I also have a rather pretty girl waiting for me to do the portraits I had asked her to sit for. If only I was a better time manager?

"Show me the money". Where are your examples of the like for like comparisons showing digital to be superior? I don't doubt you are right in that 'state-of-the-art' digital can out-perform middle-of-the-road film camera. But then we are talking £2000 (film) verses £5000 digital. If there was a digital camera or phone available that could out-perform a 6x7 medium format camera under £2500 I'd probably be interested in buying one, but I doubt that digital camera exists. That 6x6 camera I pointed out, carries more detail/colour depth than any digital image produced from a phone or camera I have seen, at what I would describe as an "affordable" price. (Though frankly, I doubt many spend £2500 on a camera and one lens.) As for the allure of film or the allure of digital ... Clients want instant gratification usually, if not always. Digital provides that in a way film seldom could. Polaroid was useful (I have read Parkinson used it rather than a light meter) but was messy and small. Could you imagine a picture editor on set now, being told they'd have to wait 24 hours to see the results of a shoot? The photographer's feet wouldn't touch the floor. I'm happy you are happy with your equipment, your work, and your income. You have mastered all the barriers and obviously have a successful career based on your expertise, and to that I bow. However, without a successful career to fund the sort of investment you have made, film still provides a more cost effective medium for superior image quality in my opinion.

Of course, and was completely understood sir, hence my riposte; Further, I not only remember the FHW brand but bought my very first pair of heels from them, with a little help from an obliging girlfriend I hope I successfully misinformed who would be the subsequent wearer. Oddly, I remember the shoes, the subterfuge, but not wearing them or keeping/disposing of them. I do remember seeing a tall girl walking along the path across the road from our home, wearing an identical pair, and the immediate effect it had on my physical state.... It was a very long time ago, more than 40 years. I am not surprised I only recall the embarrassing bits.

M+S had a 20% reduction on womens styles over the weekend. I have ordered a 12 and 14 to try on. I think they are doing returns on current purchases, to the other side of Christmas at the moment. That being the case, even I should be able to find time to take a 'selfie' of me in them. Probably best if I try to get it done before, Christmas though?

Firstly, to address your highly refined sense of pedantry, surely "or what?" invited an interpretation rather than offered one? With that now established with the good grace you often provide, I'd like to think the charming Shyheels was quite correct when he chose "the latter" of the three stated interpretations you had helpfully suggested. Taking his wise guidance (only a fool wouldn't), I gave his choice my full support. On reflection, and now with some further guidance on the matter from your good self, I would possibly encompass a group not specifically offered but might fall into the "or what?" camp. I am tempted to label them; "Theatricals". Some having wrists good enough for all sorts of DIY skills and legs strong enough for cycling. Others, possibly more interested in homely, more sensitive pursuits perhaps? I would agree wholeheartedly with the notion that ANY attire that was created with the concept a women would be the wearer, but a man chose to wear it as well, might label the him a cross-dresser. (I'm very sorry for the shocking grammar.) But being a great believer for equal opportunity across gender, the same could be said for almost every Western woman at some stage during her life. Though a cross-dressing woman is undeniably an oxymoron, if I can dare to use such a sophisticated word? I can't think of any attire that has been made, that a woman could wear and it not be socially acceptable, at least in Western culture. Does rather seem to be something of a one-way street, so to speak. We are all doing our bit to change that, of course. Frontiersmen, everyone one of us.

£50 film camera verses £50 digital camera. Like for like. Cost of film and processing, to be the allowance for any cost of man hours for post digital processing, to include the pro rata'd cost of the editing software. Like for like. You are on-the-money when you say digital photography has provided the world with an almost cost free way to create images, mostly through phones I would say. Nokia has one with a 41mp camera if I remember, and even their old N8 phone had a Carl Zeiss lens capable of stunning pictures. As far as I can see, 999.9% of the images the author's produce, are 'happy snaps'. I look to Facebook/Instagram as my references. Just to make it clear, I am not saying digital is useless. I'm saying film is still superior. While I didn't read the article, one of the places I got back from Google search of "film vs digital" was an 'Oxford' something or other. (Lots of black and white images of a very pretty girl, where the one digital image looked better than film - I thought.) There were many more images, some colour. The responders to the article seemed to rave about Ektar and the skin tones it produced. One responder even saying they had never used film and now wanted to try it. Digital is very very convenient. I carry an Olympus Tough with me everywhere. I take Cartier-Bresson type images -usually of shoes somewhere in the fame- discarding 20 pictures for every one I keep. It also allows me to take very reasonable images to use for selling. It's VERY useful for the before/after photo's of work I've done. For most of these, 'film' just wouldn't be suitable, and for that reason wasn't used 20 years ago. Without digital images, auction sites or many on-line shops, just couldn't exist. Digital is great, and getting better all the time.

I'm not in any way suggesting a £50 camera is an improvement, nor is it easier (if you are guessing at the likely outcome). What I am saying is, £ for £ film provides greater economy, accuracy, and detail than digital UNLESS you are spending £4000 to £5000 on equipment, as indeed you do/have/will. In terms of reproduction to A4 or 10x8, I would be happy to compete in colour against ANY digital equipment in the studio with this: And if we were talking black and white, larger - much larger still. Some of the greatest photographs ever taken, and ever will be taken, have been created using similar cameras. And the issues you mention that can handicap film cameras, also handicap digital equipment, with poorly designed camera software/processors thrown in. This illustrates my experience exactly. Warm rich tones of film with good contrast, verses the apparent flat image produced by a not-inexpensive camera, as shown here, though this was produced on an expensive digital camera... I'm sure images can be found that make film look poor compared to digital, but there are significantly more with the verdict going to film. The difference of course, ease of use with digital. The closest I've seen while looking (briefly), was an edited RAW image that directly compared to film. Which again supports my 'old school' notion that digital shifts the editing from in-camera to a desk and a computer. As before, all copyrights are acknowledged. Reproduced for educational and discussion purposes.

Au contraire, my dear fellow healer heeler. Many less generous men, would venture the indicators are wholly visible in the position of the wrists, on many of the men shown. In fact the ability to rotate a wrist thus, may have borne a well known defamatory phrase like "weak wristed" or something equally disfavourable. I am with Shyheels on this, the latter has it. The is a tinge of 'theatrical performer' about many of them.

No..... One monster, with two heads possibly .... A benign Orthrus like creature, as it were ....

That, my good fellow, is entirely .... improbable. In theory, it should be achievable since the conversion of the image (light parsed to digital algorithm) should be able to filter out any colour changes induced by glass, colour shifts from geographical location, time of day or lighting medium. But does a £1000 digital camera achieve this any better than a £50 film camera with historically neutral film like Kodachrome (and unlike Fuji stock)? A £3000 camera, with £2000 lens digitally altered using a £300 software package on a £1000 computer, maybe... But then how much do you spend on a computer screen to get 'true' colours? And will those colours appear equally 'true' on another brand of screen? To a degree I am playing devils advocate here, and being ever-so-slightly playful.... I'm sure every image I've seen in a magazine for at least the last ten years has been produced using a digital camera, and I've not noticed any difference in the medium used to produce the image I look at. The kicker for me, is that these days, more time is spent in post picture editing, than setting up/taking that image. I can't help feeling it distracts from reality. Which one is "real"? All copyrights are acknowledged. Reproduced for educational purposes and discussion.

A monster is born .... P.S. "My dear fellows" ....

Zeiss primary lenses, (£500 - to over £2500) attached to (a currently 2k+) camera, and about to attach a 50mp 3k camera? "I rest my case." That deals with quality, but hue? Since each colour is 'processed' by the camera's software by way of maintaining detail, I've always felt contrast and hue were compromised. True blacks? Block colours? Is it possible to take a digital photograph of a completely red wall with no other details save the wall, without the software trying to adjust out a single colour 'it' believes is a colour cast from lighting? Entirely possible to get true colours and black shadows with transparency film used in a £50 camera.... You have some nice kit.

You two should start a double act ....

If these came with a leather shoe attached with a 4½ to 5 inch heel, I doubt I would ever take them off. The "tight" suggesting they are not so much small, more super stretchy, that happens to be a very alluring attribute. (Which may be why they might actually be suitable for cycling. ) Not that I would wear such an expensive/attractive garment for cycling. As with my H+M versions, either the outline of the mannequins underwear or the shape built into the model, made the details of the undergarments visible. I'm thinking (for a girl) a very fine string type thong - or 'commando' for that clean look. Another reason they might be more popular with the younger rather than older woman; modesty. Mrs Freddy won't wear anything like it, despite her 'respectable' shape. Probably just as well, given my age.

I have a vague recollection of how manufacturers of women shoes make their style in 'batches'. This isn't an wholly accurate representation, but when you buy a box of 60 shoes from China, this is how they come (for example). Size ~ Quantity UK4 ~ 10 off UK5 ~ 15 off UK6 ~ 20 off UK7 ~ 10 off UK8 ~ 5 off Since the Western world (and Africa) produces taller/larger women than Asia, the ratio's are wrong for the UK and America. They might have been right 40 years ago, but no longer. Just about every women under 45 in my extended family is a size 8, and I could add one that is over 45. If there was any doubt about this, experience tells me the last size to go in almost any shoe style is a size 4, almost always the first to go is size 8. Things are changing as the demand for a UK9 grows, but the change is blinking slow. P.S. Zara size 8 is often remarked as coming up as a UK7 rather than 8, and I would agree with this. Some Europeans Spain/Italy for example, have smaller frames so come with smaller feet. You will know from your own shoe browsing experience, makers who use Italian or Spanish manufacturers, often warn "Italian sizing" suggesting you buy a half a size up.

I would choose stronger words for that group of gangsters. I would add Blair into the mix too. All of whom I hope get to burn in hell.

I have used film at 3200 (XP1 or XP2) at a 'push', and still found it wanting. I have yet to see anything from a digital camera above 1600 that didn't look flat. If I'm honest, I've yet to see anything with digital that didn't look slightly less vivid than something produced on film. While a £2000/£3000 digital camera might produce a more realistic image, (a camera that I will never own) a £50 film camera will match it in 99% of circumstances. The thing for me has always been detail. I used to read about lenses, and the astigmatism/lack of focus in corners etc. Don't ever remember reading about Kodachrome 25 not being able to catch every single detail and hue available. I sometimes used medium format, and still own an 'as new' Mamiya 67 ProS with a 180mm lens. I would be seriously amazed if any digital equipment away from a space probe, could match the detail and accuracy produced by such a camera. Not that it's done me much good. I got busy with a career in manufacturing around '84 with MRP1 and MRP2 becoming much more important than the latest film or paper from Kodak or Fuji. My foray into digital has been recent, and not without challenges of its own. My use for it has always been surreptitious low light photography. For portraits I much prefer a studio environment. More than once I've chosen properties on the length of the main room in the house. I still own 2 (as new) Bowens 400D's and a Bowens mono gold, and everything else that would be needed in the studio. Yousuf Karsh is a hero, as is Bob Carlos Clarke, as is John French. There are images I like from Cartier-Bresson, and even some from Ansel Adams.

This is the time of year I'm doing the pricing and sizing for the post-Christmas Winter sales. There isn't much I would pay full price for, but the likes of Zara seldom buy enough shoes to satisfy demand, and this year seems to be no exception. The style with the biggest interest for me are the very slim leg Zara thigh-highs, mentioned elsewhere. I will continue to report about them on this thread (rather than continue to hijack the other thread). A reminder: Currently have a pair of UK8/EU41 on order at £139. Being suede, and likely to be loose on my skinny legs, they probably won't be 'keepers'. However, Mrs Freddy intimated tonight (after I mentioned I had used her C/C while she slept) they could be my Chrissy present if I chose to keep them? (Bless!) What else is on the agenda? I mentioned in Spring, Office (shoes of London) were a good place to shop for courts, and they still are. All of these look good, though black leather is always a winner for me. I have not seen the last pair 'in store', so might be a new addition. The middle pair, have a measured 5 inch heel. As with the courts, I have not seen the last pair 'in store' yet. The other two pairs, are typical of those I already own. I think I may have mentioned the Carvela OTK boots elsewhere; These have a peculiar purple/damson colour on the soles... Lastly, today's surprise, from River Island; These have already sold out in the size 9. Since RI often come up small (but not always) it might be the typical story that the larger size (actually UK8) have disappeared off the shelves almost immediately. While the blurb claims a heel height of 10.5cm, the pair I saw today were higher. These won't be making the sales in anything like my size, especially as they are a Limited Edition to start with. This isn't a comprehensive list by any means, but a taster of what's out there at the moment. ALDO have nothing of interest, and the vast bulk of the KG/Carvela/Nine West range together with Steve Madden have been struck with a serious dose of mediocrity. At this moment in time, Office shoes, stand head and shoulders above the rest. Since I'm feeling a bit broke (money tied up in supplied materials etc) I'm dis-inclined to spend money on shoes at the moment. Meaning, money I expect to KEEP invested. Given the choice, (money falling from the sky) I would own all three styles of the Office courts, and possibly the River Island ankle boots. Since the better part of £300 isn't expected, I will have to go without. Office are another outfit like Zara who don't over-stock, so "Sales" opportunities especially in larger sizes, are almost unknown. Ho-hum.

And back off-thread ..... Also saw some 'shiny' leggings in M+S today (same location - free parking innit.) Lady 'dresser' was putting a pair on a mannequin that was positioned quite close to the front of the store. I have a thing for shiny leggings so .... The lady told me these would be popular in the smaller sizes, (6 and 8) with the younger customer. Struggling, she said they looked great on, but were very tight. Given it took her the better part of 10 minutes to get the leggings on an inanimate object, I don't doubt her word. I am currently working out how I could possibly justify owning another pair of these, at this price too. I paid £7 or £8 EACH for the H+M versions. These come in at £25.

By way of getting the thread back on track, by an almost unbelievable "link" ..... Was at Brent Cross today. Had some social activity I could no longer avoid. Walking around one of the bigger stores, I looked at every pair of boots on display. This frequently involved picking up anything of interest, mostly to check for heel height. I use my middle finger which provides a measurement depending on where the heel ends on my knuckle. (Mrs Freddy has assured me, given the chance that finger will get removed. Charming eh?) So I'm mooching around the LADIES shoe section in Fenwicks, alone (in a heeled boot), picking up high heeled long boots or ankle boots. Along comes a young lady, and asks if she can help. I respond that I'm okay at the moment, thank you. Big smile and lots of enthusiasm. there was nothing there I really wanted to try. Some Dune branded ankle boots at £175 were a ridiculous price given the questionable quality of Dune shoes.... Even if they were a perfect fit NOTHING would induce me to buy them. And the link? The helpful assistant was wearing flat knee boots .... And cycling shorts.

I haven't forgotten about this thread, in fact I have been adding picture references to 'my favourites' on an almost daily basis. As I have to download the image I want to include for each post (not knowing an alternative) the process is quite time consuming, which I haven't had a lot of recently. I hope to attend to the outstanding updates soon.

The Sloe Gin from Gordon's is proving a big hit with my palette. I've probably drunk more spirit in the last four weeks, than the previous 20 years, and I make no exaggeration when I say that. I still can't manage more than one, and that has to be with food too. I may have to write to Elizabeth R, to recommend it; "My liege,"

Thank you. Checked on-line stock when I got home tonight (circa 8.30pm) and the size 8's had sold out again. All other sizes are available a day after the re-stock, but no 8's. And still no shop held stock of 8's in the London area either. The phrase "rocking horse (poop)" springs to mind.