FastFreddy2

Well done sir! The first picture is perfect and large enough to see detail. The second picture is a tad small at 24k. (Small even for my clock-work phone. ) There are circumstances where you can make a picture 'grow', but in reality you would just be stretching the same amount of detail over a larger surface. Not really worthwhile, unless printing to a hardcopy. Ordinarily/usually, you start off with a picture that's as large as you ever might want it, and then reduce it down to the size you want to present it. Fortunately, small-ish images, look reasonably big 'on screen'. There are pictures in my Albums from the time when the only images I presented were from my clockwork phone. The quality (pixel count, contrast/colour saturation) is crepe, but you get the flavour of the image which I considered more important than no pictures at top quality. Even the most basic camera phone will have a 2 mb camera which might produce an image too large to post here. The usual problem then, is reducing the image size. Worst case, you can show the image on your computer screen and use the Windows "Snipping Tool", found in the Accessories. [start - All Programs - Accessories - Snipping tool.] This assumes you (or anyone) has a hardwire/Bluetooth connection to their phone for viewing images, or media you (or anyone) can use as removable storage (USB/SD card) from a camera or other 'donor'. This will allow you to create [File - Save- Select .jpg from the filename extension options - Filename.jpg] an edited screenshot. These are small in size, but usually provide enough detail to illustrate whatever you (or anyone) is trying to show. Most of my pictures showing shoe brand styles, use a similar method by taking a screen shot. You can do a similar thing with "PrtScrn" and Paint, but it's a little more involved. Once you've done any of this once or twice, it'll become second nature. While experimenting, you may even find better/faster methods that'll let you show the rest of us how to do it more easily. I know that hh4evr1 has trouble posting images here, because of the file size. (Too big.) No excuse now though.....

You have that absolutely right as I don't browse mens shoes. I have two pairs of (mens) shoes that were originally quite expensive (to me) that came from M+S that I had stumbled across during sales periods, could be respectively 3 and 5 years ago. Never been on my feet. In fact one pair has never been out of the M+S bag I was given to get them home in. The other pair are covered in brick dust because I hadn't realised just how far the dust could travel. (10ft to the other end of the room was easy- seemingly.) I was never going to remember the name, and to be honest I thought it might be the Canadian fella (who's name I can't remember either). I read recently on a Facebook page, "It's great being 50, I learn something new everyday. And forget 5 others." That would be me too. To add a picture ..... (which I'm sure is an egg-sucking exercise really) .... You will first need to know the location of the picture you want to include. Windows typically wants you to keep your pictures in a location that's tied to your computer log-on user name (account name), like this: c:\documents and settings\username\my pictures\picture.jpg Where "c:" is the first (physical or logical) hard drive on your computer. Often a 'data' drive (one that doesn't get over-written with an OS install) will be a d: drive or e: drive. "documents and settings" is the generic data area on a windows computer. "username" will be the log-on name if you have more than one account (Mrs Puffer might be another account). "My Pictures" is one of the default Windows sub-directories. My Music, My Video's are also Windows defaults. "picture.jpg" would be the picture you want to upload. If you are loading from a USB stick, always a sensible place to keep personal photo's, the 'target' for the upload might simply be; e:\picture.jpg or, f:\picture.jpg largely dependant on what drive letter your OS had assigned to the USB stick when you plugged it in. There is also a file size limitation of 512k, which is quite small really. I tend to use a cheap/free picture editor for cropping and sizing before inclusion here. The hard part, is getting it on here - possibly..... When you use the 'quick' editor on here, the option to include picture isn't visible. You have to select "More Reply Options". With the new options visible, select "Attach files" This is where knowing the location of the file you want to upload, is important. I can't show it here as my hard drive/directory structure will be unique to my computer. At this point you are offered the opportunity to 'Browse' your computer file system for the image(s) you want to include. When the file is uploaded (should be quick), place your cursor where you want the picture to appear Your screen should look something like this: While the photo has been uploaded (stored by H4M) it hasn't been included into the post, so you have to "add" it to the post. Initially, it will just look like you've added a file name. Use the preview option to see if it has worked as you expected. And review. If all is good, carry on as normal. If the newly added picture is in the wrong place, delete the file reference in the post, re-position the cursor, and then "Add" the picture again in the right place (hopefully). If you have added the wrong picture (the one with the naked girl in heels) delete the file reference in the post as before, and use the "Delete" option which is right next to the "Add" option, to completely remove the file (picture) from being stored too. As you will know, you can only edit posts for 24 hours. That means any included pictures are here forever, after the 24 hour editing period concludes. Hopefully, I haven't missed anything out. Been 15/18 years since I've written a proper manual.

Not seen any like it for men since about 1962 ..... Not elongated, quite the opposite. Short - and pointed for a man's shoe. In fact thinking about it, a longer look to the shoe might make it seem less like I was wearing a heel? I'd be interested to see a piccy of your pointed boots, not least because I've no idea what "MJ" boots might be, or look like? I did a search, and mostly came up with M Jackson .....

No. In fact I may have only 2 pairs thinking about it, I may have sold a pair on the auction site .... (I'll check later). When I like a shoe, I really like it. Sometimes, how much I like a shoe gets me spending money because i think I'll never wear another shoe. First example of that was the "wear everywhere" Nine West wedge. Fully rubber sole/heel so very quiet in use. Reasonably high, so nice to wear. I bought at least 4 pairs at £42 a pop. Why? I thought I would never need/want another style. At the time, they seemed "perfect". Then along came a high thin stiletto boot from ALDO. Even better. Higher, more style .... I bought two pairs. Soon after, I found a (more disposable) version in PU. Dead ringer for the style, and a quarter of the price. In total, I think I have 7 pairs. 2 leather, 5 in PU. Yet I've only worn one pair of the PU version, two or three times. Mostly because I fear instantly wrecking the boot with a heel going into a crack in the pavement, or down a drain .... Then came another style, Carvela Menzies ..... four pairs. High, nice to wear, but "girlie". Then the surprisingly high ones shown in my avatar .... 3 pairs..... (I'll never need anything higher.) Start to get a flavour of my buying techniques?

Just had a little count up of my shoes/boots sold on an auction site .... Over 70 pairs so far ... mind you, it seems I've been selling them off for at least 4 years.... I've only bought 3 pairs this year, (all the same style). Must mean I'm winning the battle surely? The new "Mars Bar" boots. (Work, rest and play, in them.) The heel is a sensible 4½ inches, and fairly quiet. Got them in a sale (long story), so a bargain. They have a very pointed toe, which gets looked at from time to time, but I really like them.

I've just trawled through the online shops for: Dorothy Perkins Miss Selfridge Shoeaholics Kurt Geiger ALDO Schuh (lots of weird styles) Office (worth a look for courts/sandals) River Island Top Shop (Pagan 'Premium' mules) H&M (almost no size 8's) Mango (really nice ankle boot, but in brown suede) Zara Select ASOS (worth a second look) New Look (really cheap shoes) Oasis (granny shoes) I might have missed some of the upmarket brands (Karen Millen, All Saints etc) but these would usually be out of my price range anyway. Yet to do BooHoo, and one other similar store (the name of which escapes me ** Missguided**) that I know I will spend more than 3 minutes looking at.... so will do another time .... I purposely avoided Matalan, and Debenhams as they have forgotten what an attractive heel looks like. Conclusion? Lean times ahead for me. A good thing, as I'm reducing the collection. A bad thing as I've nothing in the shoe department to look forward to wearing. Duh!!! Missed Dune. (Will have to do that along with BooHoo later.) Edit: Got there in the end ...

First things first ... If I see an advert 4 times, I don't want to see it a 5th time ..... I dislike advertisers doing this so much, I've just about given up watching commercial TV - and when I make an exception, I have a way to avoid their adverts anyway. First couple of times, the advert was a novelty, though the lower half didn't appear to belong to any Western body so the concept wasn't very polished from the get go. As with Puffer, I can't quite get the point, though John Lewis does this with much success every year. "Memorable" both, but the JL ones are done with exquisite taste - every Crimbo. The strapline "You're so money supermarket" alienates me. As for suggestions ..... Camera takes close up of subjects face, and moves backwards widening the overall view.... A hairy tramp, with long (flasher) style dirty rain mac, with drawstring bag over shoulder, swaggers along the road towards the camera position..... Tramp passes camera, and 3/4 view of tramp slowly becomes full length as he passes, revealing the high heel shoes with "Sale" label finally visible. Mrs Osbourne then says; "He's sooooo money supermarket". Concept: Even the poorest people will find bargains at M/S. Memorable? Tramp in red high heels? I think so.

Nerd .... I'm going to try to get to the next Convention. Looks like a lot of fun ..... Tried to find a piccy of the full length version of the character at this years convention, but could only find 2 low grade images with copyright watermarks that made reproducing them pointless. I like the 'style' of the character though .....

Seen at the recent Comic Convention in London ....

Well, thanks to Mrs Freddy's ability to put things off (that surpasses mine - unbelievably), I didn't get to see the film in 3D after all. Frankly, without 3D it was quite a boring film. Huge interstellar scenes, Aerial dogfights, all wasted in 2D, so just a mess really. Mila Kunis is staggeringly beautiful in the film. Eddie Redmayne is wasted talent, playing a thuggish godfather type figure, fairly badly given his build. I wore heels, which was a mixed blessing. I would like to have kicked the fella behind me, as hard as he kicked my chair (twice) during the film. When it was time to leave, I waited until we both did, and I was (usefully) taller than him. He would have been surprised I'm sure, because I had kept myself out of his line of sight during the film, and he doubtless thought I was tiny. In heels, I must be just a little shy of 6ft. His lady partner did nothing to ease the tensions either. She spent the whole film munching her way through a giant box of popcorn. The Heimlich Manoeuvre wasn't required though it had been expected. Not hard to understand why Netflix and Blinkbox are so popular. The cinema seems to be frequented by many with poorer social skills than mine. A notion I find hard to believe.....

Back to sales ..... Truth stranger than fiction .... 7 years ago when I got into heel wearing again, I bought 4 pairs of PU ankle boots from New Look. I wore one pair to death and got quite fit off the back of all the walking. I must of re-tipped those shoes at least 4 times and I think many more times. They didn't feel that high and they weren't 'going out in daylight' shoes either, which left me with 3 pairs.... Although I didn't know it, one pair sent to me was the wrong size, but they sold quickly anyway. [uK7.] Third pair (UK8) wouldn't sell, even at £5, so I reduced them to £2-99. Second week (I think) they went on a single bid, at the £2-99 price. Once dispatched, I relisted the last pair at £2-99. Days later, three bidders took the final price up to £10-50. It confirms there is no predicting an auction.

Ooooh. Bit harsh? The grammar and spelling found at DMOL is legend. I doubt there are many articles that don't carry blunders of both types. The general feeling is that it's a Brit run paper. Recently, it was brought to the readerships attention, that it's run from America. I've not idea if it's absolutely true, but it has a good fit. Mindful it is making headway into Australia, it may be there's an editorial team for each country, and I might tend to pick a lot of the US stories due to my basic interest in (i) attractive women (ii) women's clothing/dress/style, and of course (iii) heels. (Listed in reverse order, of course. ) Americanism's are rife, as is questionable spelling. Bit like my writing I suppose .... Difference is, these journo's are expected to have a good English degree to get a job there. Often I read comments suggesting the articles are written by 14 year olds with no background research having been done before publishing.

I've guilty of spending too much time reading Daily Mail OnLine. While it would seem to be an English (speaking/owned) publication, it is edited and run by Americans. You have the better of me regarding the "tautology", other than a duplicate reference to losses on shoes and jeans. This was missed though; "I haven't yet have to give anything away" Which SHOULD have read "I haven't yet had to give anything away" .... Dunno if that scores worse as bad grammar or a typo?

Finally gotten around to getting listed some of the shoe and jean excess listed on an auction site. Was mind-numbingly tedious work. I put too much detail in I'm sure, but it's hard to know where to stop. Have sold some shoes already at fairly low prices. For example, got £15 (less fees) for some shoes I know I paid £40 for. I still liked them, they still fitted.... But I have shoes as high that are more suitable. They've been here 4 or 5 years - unworn .... They had to go. Same with the jeans. I will lose less on each pair because I've not yet paid £40 for a pair. (Maximum stands at £28 currently). I do expect to lose 50% of their cost though. Most of those being sold, are a tad too short for the higher heels I tend to wear these days. I haven't yet have had to give anything away, (though £25 losses feel like it), and it's not like I don't need the space ....

The lovely Kelly had put on few pounds, care of a relationship that was maybe not good for her. She's back down to her fighting weight now ....

Well I went - what good it did me .... Unlike last year, I arrived at dusk. Most of the attendees were already happily ensconced inside, though I guess the big names came later as to not be seen as 'desperate' to be photographed. There was a protest group there, hogging the best vantage place for the great unwashed, banging loudly on drums and making the whole event uncomfortable for everyone. I can confirm that whatever they wanted, they would have fewer supporters AFTER their protest than before. It made videoing anything a waste of time (for me). Several people had iPhones on sticks, recording arrivals and getting a much view than was possible by extending my arm. Lesson to be had here maybe? Unusually I took my super-duper Lumix G5 with me. Possibly only the second time it's left the house - ever. Although it has a fast lens, and sensitivity is quite good, the "lighted match" that passes for an on-board flash could not get across the 25 foot gap between me and any arrivals. Car headlights produced noticeably brighter illumination. I did catch the very grounded Julie Walters arrive on foot via the Underground. I'm tempted to include an image of her, but it's so grainy it isn't worth trying. I recognised her going in, but wasn't sure I'd actually got her. Comparing published (good quality) photographs and video from the event, confirms I did see her arrive. "Next year" ..... If I should be daft enough to go, I'll have a long lens, a suitable adapter for my Metz 45, and will arrive earlier .... Hopefully it'll be raining and I won't have to bother. The upside - only upside - was that I did something I planned to do, not stayed home locked onto the couch .....

What have you found? Looks we're doing better than you so far?

2015 BAFTA's are today, Sunday the 8th February. A year ago (give or take a week) I promised myself I would be back next year (2015) with camera. Having just finished a 3 hour rubbing down/painting/repair holes in ceiling session at 2am, I'm unsure if I'm fit enough to go. That said, I don't need to be 'fit', only able to click the shutter on a camera. Last year I tried to console myself with the hope that many of the stunning outfits I saw, would be produced in newspapers or on line. No such luck. I think around 5 to 8 actresses had about 30 pictures each produced of them, and that was about it. From the fashion point of view, there were MANY better looking outfits worn, that did not get any media space I found.... Doubly disappointing .... As long as there is no rain or snow, I may have to go....

My reason for visiting the cinema, is size -and possibly type- of screen. I'll just about watch any film as long as there's not too much violence, and no harm seen done to women or children. Like most people, I find it's easier to immerse myself on a larger screen. Chick-flicks/rom-coms and semi autobiographical stories I'm happy to watch on a smaller screen, without super-duper sound systems. "Epics", in particular sci-fi films, can only be maximised by watching on a large (3D) screen with ear bending audio. Since I don't own a 3D screen, nor audio system of any sort, the short term solution to this is the cinema. Along with the munchers and slurpers. The current thinking with regard to Jupiter Ascending is, there'll be so much noise from the action in the film, the munchers and slurpers won't be heard....... I hope .....

I have my doubts anyone could wear those (lovely) silver heels, and remain upright..... Here's another seller from Germany. Well known home of fetish. Sizes up to EU46. (No idea what that is in UK sizing.) Some samples: I liked both styles because there is the prospect they might fit my skinny legs. And since they are not 'walking out' boots, I would prefer red over my usual black ....

Taking a Super-Soaker and getting away with half-drowning the munchers and the slurpers, would make it a more enjoyable experience .... I have wondered what it would add to the cost of the tickets, if I could arrange a viewing where drinks/food/phones are banned. Anyone making noises, gets hoofed out .... I can dream ..... Shoes with heels (for me) are a must.