# In the eye of the beholder...



## gino

Serendipity2 said:


> ginocox,
> 
> "...and engage in various activities. "
> 
> Care to elaborate?



There’s always something to do. One can enjoy a game of pocket billiards, ride motor scooters, launch Loy Krathong lanterns, help guard the palace when the royal guards forget to load bullets in their rifles, study a foreign language, or go scuba diving.

However, I must take umbrage with the suggestion I would want to corrupt anybody.


----------



## Serendipity2

ginocox said:


> There’s always something to do. One can enjoy a game of pocket billiards, ride motor scooters, launch Loy Krathong lanterns, help guard the palace when the royal guards forget to load bullets in their rifles, study a foreign language, or go scuba diving.
> 
> However, I must take umbrage with the suggestion I would want to corrupt anybody.



ginocox,

Well, she IS cute! :


----------



## gino

*ผู้หญิงน่ารักสามคน*



Serendipity2 said:


> ginocox,
> 
> Well, she IS cute! :


Which one do you mean? Three girls are pictured, two Filipinas and one Thai. 

The girl I mentioned earlier isn't among them, but here's a picture of her.


----------



## Serendipity2

ginocox said:


> Which one do you mean? Three girls are pictured, two Filipinas and one Thai.
> 
> The girl I mentioned earlier isn't among them, but here's a picture of her.



ginocox,

Sorry, bad eyesight. Obviously there is nothing wrong with YOUR eyesight! I think I prefer the one I think is Thai.


----------



## gino

*Reciprocity?*



Serendipity2 said:


> ginocox,
> 
> Sorry, bad eyesight. Obviously there is nothing wrong with YOUR eyesight! I think I prefer the one I think is Thai.


I’ve shown you the sources of a few of my headaches and heartaches. How about sharing some pictures of those girls whose postage and Internet bills you pay? 

Or are you the type of guy who gets thrown in an Emirati jail for kissing a fat chick who later denies there was ever anything intimate between you?


----------



## Serendipity2

ginocox said:


> I’ve shown you the sources of a few of my headaches and heartaches. How about sharing some pictures of those girls whose postage and Internet bills you pay?
> 
> Or are you the type of guy who gets thrown in an Emirati jail for kissing a fat chick who later denies there was ever anything intimate between you?



Hi ginocox,

My e-mail days are behind me. 

Several years behind me, once I finally got smart [regarding the scam aspect of writing letters] 

Wanting to know who I was talking to I bought a webcam and suddenly none of them [well almost none] suddenly had no access to a PC with a webcam. Virtually ALL Internet cafes I've visited on my travels in the Philippines DO have webcams so I finally woke up. Heck, even in Dumaguete, ****** Oriental they have webcams. Nice place by the way! 

I took a few thousand photos on my last trip but none were of girls I was interested in. Nope, no fat chick is going to get a kiss from me - unless there's gun to my head!


----------



## gino

*Not so easily off the hook*



Serendipity2 said:


> Hi ginocox,
> 
> My e-mail days are behind me.
> 
> Several years behind me, once I finally got smart [regarding the scam aspect of writing letters]
> 
> Wanting to know who I was talking to I bought a webcam and suddenly none of them [well almost none] suddenly had no access to a PC with a webcam. Virtually ALL Internet cafes I've visited on my travels in the Philippines DO have webcams so I finally woke up. Heck, even in Dumaguete, ****** Oriental they have webcams. Nice place by the way!
> 
> I took a few thousand photos on my last trip but none were of girls I was interested in. Nope, no fat chick is going to get a kiss from me - unless there's gun to my head!


At the risk of seeming my usual presumptuous, antagonistic, arrogant, contentious self, judging by your last few posts, it sounds more like you’ve reached a point of recognizing the need for enlightenment, not a point of actual enlightenment. 

I think it’s important to establish creds in any relationship, whether it’s personal, professional or virtual. Given the impersonal and anonymous nature of much of communications over the Internet, it’s quite reasonable to demand corroborating evidence that cannot easily be contrived. Naturally, the nature of the corroboration will depend on the nature of representations made by the other party that may be in doubt. 

I’m a bit of a cynic. I tend to assume the worse until I have compelling evidence to the contrary. I’m rarely disappointed and occasionally pleasantly surprised. 

While the situation with the Filipinas does sound a bit suspicious, I think you need to cut them a little slack. The computer equipment I saw at several Internet cafés in the Philippines was several years out of date. A café with a dozen stations might only have two with web cams and they could be occupied or out of service. The headphones don’t work much of the time. Some cafés don’t have Skype installed. Internet connections are often going down, as is electricity, especially during the rainy season. 

Beyond that, Filipinas are not like typical brash, aggressive, American alpha males. “What do you mean, they don’t have Skype? Ask them to install it. It’s a free program.” “If the pictures didn’t come through because they tried to send eighteen images averaging three megabytes each in a single e-mail, tell them they need to send them over again. Tell them you’re not paying for it (with my money) unless the e-mails go through.” “If you’re too shy to let the geek at the desk see your pictures, use the e-mail account I set up for you.” It’s my own fault for allowing myself to be attracted to shy, dainty girls. If I would just fall for a Tugboat Annie type, my life would be simpler. 

But you’re not off the hook so easily. I am intrigued by your penultimate sentence. “I took a few thousand photos on my last trip but none were of girls I was interested in.” This could mean you took a few thousand pictures of beautiful girls who interested you photographically but not sexually or emotionally. Or it could mean that you shot a lot of corpulent women. Or it could mean that you managed to take a few thousand pictures without including a pretty girl in any, which is diametrically opposed to my basic philosophy of photography which holds that any picture without a pretty girl in the frame probably doesn’t need to be taken. 

I think any picture says a lot about the photographer, whether the subject is beautiful girls, exotic butterflies or panoramic vistas. I am most curious to see some of these pictures. 

In the interests of maintaining a lively exchange, I am attaching two images. One is of the first Filipina who broke my heart. The second is of my first effort at body painting.


----------



## Serendipity2

ginocox said:


> At the risk of seeming my usual presumptuous, antagonistic, arrogant, contentious self, judging by your last few posts, it sounds more like you’ve reached a point of recognizing the need for enlightenment, not a point of actual enlightenment.
> 
> I think it’s important to establish creds in any relationship, whether it’s personal, professional or virtual. Given the impersonal and anonymous nature of much of communications over the Internet, it’s quite reasonable to demand corroborating evidence that cannot easily be contrived. Naturally, the nature of the corroboration will depend on the nature of representations made by the other party that may be in doubt.
> 
> I’m a bit of a cynic. I tend to assume the worse until I have compelling evidence to the contrary. I’m rarely disappointed and occasionally pleasantly surprised.
> 
> While the situation with the Filipinas does sound a bit suspicious, I think you need to cut them a little slack. The computer equipment I saw at several Internet cafés in the Philippines was several years out of date. A café with a dozen stations might only have two with web cams and they could be occupied or out of service. The headphones don’t work much of the time. Some cafés don’t have Skype installed. Internet connections are often going down, as is electricity, especially during the rainy season.
> 
> Beyond that, Filipinas are not like typical brash, aggressive, American alpha males. “What do you mean, they don’t have Skype? Ask them to install it. It’s a free program.” “If the pictures didn’t come through because they tried to send eighteen images averaging three megabytes each in a single e-mail, tell them they need to send them over again. Tell them you’re not paying for it (with my money) unless the e-mails go through.” “If you’re too shy to let the geek at the desk see your pictures, use the e-mail account I set up for you.” It’s my own fault for allowing myself to be attracted to shy, dainty girls. If I would just fall for a Tugboat Annie type, my life would be simpler.
> 
> But you’re not off the hook so easily. I am intrigued by your penultimate sentence. “I took a few thousand photos on my last trip but none were of girls I was interested in.” This could mean you took a few thousand pictures of beautiful girls who interested you photographically but not sexually or emotionally. Or it could mean that you shot a lot of corpulent women. Or it could mean that you managed to take a few thousand pictures without including a pretty girl in any, which is diametrically opposed to my basic philosophy of photography which holds that any picture without a pretty girl in the frame probably doesn’t need to be taken.
> 
> I think any picture says a lot about the photographer, whether the subject is beautiful girls, exotic butterflies or panoramic vistas. I am most curious to see some of these pictures.
> 
> In the interests of maintaining a lively exchange, I am attaching two images. One is of the first Filipina who broke my heart. The second is of my first effort at body painting.



ginocox,

The two young ladies in the photos are lovely. I can't judge the body art given it's a small photo but it must have been enjoyable for both of you!

Regarding your 

"But you’re not off the hook so easily. I am intrigued by your penultimate sentence. “I took a few thousand photos on my last trip but none were of girls I was interested in.” This could mean you took a few thousand pictures of beautiful girls who interested you photographically but not sexually or emotionally. Or it could mean that you shot a lot of corpulent women. Or it could mean that you managed to take a few thousand pictures without including a pretty girl in any, which is diametrically opposed to my basic philosophy of photography which holds that any picture without a pretty girl in the frame probably doesn’t need to be taken."

I took only a few photos of lovely young ladies but a LOT of photos of my trip. The purpose of my trip was to winnow down a place where I might retire and I really was not on a mission of finding my soul mate so I got lots of pictures and a few were lovely young ladies. I'll post a couple but I shoot in "fine/large format and it is slow to load. So, how do I post photos? They're on my HDD but I see now link here!? to facilitate posting. E-mail transmissions are easy but this I've never done.


----------



## gino

*Instructions*

Click on the Reply button at the very bottom, not on the button with two others adjacent.

Click on the Manage Attachments button beneath the text window. You may need to enable pop-ups. 

Under Upload File from your Computer, click the Browse button.

You can upload two at a time, but you can add several to your message. I don't know if there's a limit. It looks as if there is some aggregate limit on the cumulative size of all attachments, so you might choose with care and downsize.

Pictures are limited to two megabytes, so you might want to scale them down in Photoshop or whatever image processor you use. If you don't have such a program but you have Outlook, you can e-mail the pictures to yourself and let Outlook downsize them for you. 

There may be better instructions posted somewhere on the web site.


----------



## gino

*A thousand words*

If I am sad, it is only because FB doesn’t find my pictures intellectual, in-depth or insightful. 

Lest Andy or anybody else imagine my appreciation for feminine beauty does not extend beyond the Orient, here are a couple of blondes. I’ve tried to select two of my most intellectual images. 

Incidentally, the girl in the body paint image is Italian, which is also my cultural heritage.


----------



## Guest

No Gino, I only said that the discussion surrounding the recent photos hasn't been particularly inspiring on the intellectual level. On the contrary I found the photos themselves absolutely excellent, and for the most part, tasteful.

There are people who may criticise photography of the female form in photos such as yours as a type of exploitation in this modern era. I have just asked my wife what she thinks, and she finds them quite acceptable. Given your particular perception and expertise, where would you draw the line between acceptable portrayal of 'beauty', and thinly disguised soft porn?


----------



## gino

*Haven't the faintest*

Off-hand, I’m not sure the question is particularly relevant to me. 

Perhaps a better question would be: Does the image inspire some sort of æsthetic appreciation, elevate and illuminate, or does the image attempt to use beauty to appeal to some baser instinct that does not benefit society or the viewer? 

I find advertising images that present tobacco products and alcoholic beverages as sexy and sophisticated to be far more reprehensible than Playboy centerfolds, although in all honesty, I haven’t paid much attention to Playboy since they stopped featuring the girl next door in favor of the stripper downtown. 

But that’s another question. Should glamour photography celebrate beauty that is natural or artificially enhanced by surgery? 

And what of celebrity endorsements? Are they not using the masculine sex appeal of athletes to promote sales of energy drinks, sportswear, personal hygiene products, etc.? Are these endorsements credible when the athlete is paid huge sums of money? 

And what of advertisements that prey upon and promote insecurities, particularly among young people who don’t need more insecurity in their lives? Should they be taught that popularity, savoir faire and élan can only be purchased with daddy’s or mommy’s credit card? 

And what of misleading news images? Look at the devastation from the recent earthquake in Haïti! Wait a second. What did that street look like before the earthquake? 

Many pictures are presented with some sort of caption or accompanying text. It’s difficult to isolate the impact of the image without also evaluating the text. 

Maybe once a year somebody sends me a group of pictures of beauty contestants in evening gowns with a challenge to decide which of the subjects are transvestites or transsexuals. The messages end with the revelation that all the individuals were born men. Is an image that is acceptable for one subject unacceptable for a different subject? If the image is inappropriate for a model who is 6,574 days old, what makes it appropriate for a model who is 6,575 days old? 

And what of the audience? Would you show a Playboy centerfold to an Amish Mennonite elder? 

When you live on the beach, at least in California, your property line on the ocean side is defined by the mean tide level. The tides constantly shift, usually with two high and low tides a day. Sometimes your property extends to the water’s edge. Sometimes it’s underwater. Sometimes there’s a strip of public beach between your property and the water.


----------



## Guest

Interesting perspective on the vast array of manipulative images that bombard our senses on a daily basis, as various elements of society attempt, successfully in most cases, to manage our thought processes and, in particular, our purchasing habits.

(There is indeed no fixed line, as you suggest, save an arbitrary 'tide mark' that depends on the perspective of the observer, the cultural norms that predominate at the time, and numerous other influences).


----------



## Serendipity2

ginocox,

Who says you can't teach an old dog new tricks. I never knew how to resize my photos but JUST FOR YOU 

These are of a lovely Balinese dancer in Bali. She posed for several photos. These are two of the better ones. I had a 24" x 36" enlargement made of the one in profile. I will probably do this other as well - but perhaps 20" x 30" or so.

More photos later. I'm assuming when I hit the Submit Reply my two photos will be attached.


----------



## Serendipity2

ginocox,

Here is another lovely young Balinese girl. She gave me a wonderful hour long massage. Yep, JUST a massage, and it set me back about $10 for the hour. OK, I DID have hopes but it's ALWAYS the girl who gets to decide. No complaints and she was very proper. So was I. 

The other three photos were taken in Kamakura, Japan. Each encounter was most enjoyable and ALL are, in my humble opinion, very lovely young ladies. 

More to follow. This is fun! 

Serendipidy2


----------



## Serendipity2

ginocox said:


> If I am sad, it is only because FB doesn’t find my pictures intellectual, in-depth or insightful.
> 
> Lest Andy or anybody else imagine my appreciation for feminine beauty does not extend beyond the Orient, here are a couple of blondes. I’ve tried to select two of my most intellectual images.
> 
> Incidentally, the girl in the body paint image is Italian, which is also my cultural heritage.



ginocox,

Here are four more photos - all of young ladies [one young girl] are Thai. 

The young girls are Lisu hill tribe children near Sappong - fairly close to Mae Hong son and the Myanmar border. The two were taken at the Chiang Mai flower show and the last was of a lovely young girl named Pam who works at a guest house near the airport in Bangkok. 

No offense but the two blondes you posted - not even remotely attractive to me. I much prefer Asian women. they are far more feminine and attractive to me!


----------



## Serendipity2

*More Photos*

ginocox,

Here are the usual photos I take. One is of a fishing boat in Penang [Georgetown] harbor, another of the Great Buddha of Kamakura, another of orchids at the flower show in Chiang Mai and the last was taken in Georgetown. I thought it was interesting with the bright colors, the arch, the vegetation etc.[/QUOTE]


----------



## Serendipity2

ginocox,

Here are three more photos. The first two are Malaysian girls in Georgetown, Penang. Both are Lovely


----------



## gino

*Striking a happy medium*

Thanks for sharing your images. I hope some other participants will be encouraged to share some of their visual impressions of Thailand as well. 

Regarding feminine beauty, I’m about midway between you and Andy Capp, whose comments were deleted. Every race, ethnic group, nation and culture has its share of beautiful women. I happen to agree with you that Asians have a bit more than their fair share. But I also find that my tastes and preferences have evolved over time. At one time I thought Dutch girls were the cat’s meow. At another time, it was auburn hair and freckles. Which doesn’t mean I find Dutch girls any less attractive. I guess I’m just obsessive-compulsive with slight schizophrenic tendencies. 

And yet, as I think back on my more significant romances and a few desperate unrequited infatuations, I realize the women in my life have not always fit my pre-conceived physical ideal. Some of the girls with whom I’ve had the most fun have not been the trophy girlfriends and some of the trophies have been royal pains in the butt. 

There are a lot of other factors that contribute to attraction, affection and compatibility – intelligence, common interests, personality, sense of humor, an engaging smile, a pleasant voice, etc. And a number of negative characteristics can put a damper on an otherwise promising relationship. 

I’ve known some very beautiful Thai girls, but I don’t know that they are any more beautiful than Dutch or Scottish or Russian girls on any objective scale. Certainly they are no less attractive, but I think it’s the intangible qualities that have made them particularly intriguing.

I prefer a full-frame DSLR for serious photography, I never thought much of point-and-shoot cameras. But on my first trip to Asia, I found there were a lot of occasions when I would have liked to have a camera with me, but hadn’t wanted to lug the DSLR around. For my second trip, I bought a little pocket digital camera and it was a blast. It’s awfully slow. I can click off a dozen frames with the DSLR in the time it takes to shoot one picture with the little camera. But the best camera is the one you have with you, not the one you leave at home. And it has a different energy to it. It’s more informal and less intimidating. At a night club, the girls love to pass it around and take pictures themselves. (Unfortunately, they also have no compunction about deleting any pictures they don’t like from the memory card.) 

Now I carry a camera with me wherever I go. I replaced my first pocket digital with a 12x optical zoom model, which allows you to get a lot closer and gives better control over framing and depth of field. In conformity with my obsessive-compulsive nature, I just bought a second point-and-shoot camera that is waterproof to ten meters. It’s not good for scuba diving, but great for shooting at the beach or a pool. Now I lug around two pocket cameras plus extra batteries and memory cards (which aren’t interchangeable.) I might as well carry the DSLR. 

Out of curiosity, what camera do you prefer? 

In the interests of keeping this exchange alive, I’m attaching pictures of two particularly cute Filipinas.


----------



## Guest

Whilst in Phnom Penh ...










(This and one or two others I have already posted previously to the Photos from Thailand thread, in the general discussion area)...

Sometimes of course there is beauty in a simple smile...



_(click on pic for larger image)_


----------



## Acid_Crow

YAY, Butterfly-girl!


----------



## Guest

Acid_Crow said:


> YAY, Butterfly-girl!


You remembered  Several of them, having a lot of cheeky fun!


----------



## Acid_Crow

frogblogger said:


> You remembered  Several of them, having a lot of cheeky fun!


How could I forget a face like that!?


----------



## Serendipity2

Hi ginocox,

Glad to share my photos! Sorry I could only post thumbnails. I'm not sure if I'm doing something wrong but it would be nice to post photos that could be enlarged by the viewer if they were interested in them!

I agree. Everyone seems to have their "ideal" partner in their mind but, like you, I've been pleasantly surprised by that one you don't expect. My biggest surprise was meeting and spending a few very pleasant days with in Moldova. I'm usually attracted to young, slender, petite women with dark hair. She was the antithesis but I was very attracted to her warmth and charm. We had a lovely few days - too few. I think you're dead on. 

Most trophies are high maintenance babes and I wonder if they're worth the bother. Not that I don't appreciate beauty as I do - very much - but I also appreciate warmth, common sense, values and someone I don't have to woo every minute of every day or worry that she has a 'wandering' gene to match her 'shopping' gene. 

As a general rule I've found that the prettier the girt the less the intelligence. Finding that stunner that also is a one-man woman is rare and you better have a LOT of money to attract them in the first place - the competition is fierce. Instead of a Ferrari or Lamborghini a nice Buick or Honda is much preferred. You don't have to win her heart on a daily basis and she does appreciate you for what you are - a constant companion and friend. 

Your comments on cameras is spot-on. DSLR's can be intimidating to those being photographed when trying to get candid shots and a bit to lug around. Point and shoot cameras are viewed as non-invasive by those I'm photographing. Strange, as I'm still taking their photo! I've a pretty good point and shoot canon I carry on some trips but far prefer my Nikon D700. I use a 50mm f/1.4 lens on it but I guess to some that is still intimidating to have a chunk of glass aimed at them. Probably the best lens for that would be an 85mm f/1.4 lens since you can maintain a distance from your subject. I would prefer the older, manual focus model - a better lens optically. Still, its a bit of a load to carry and you really do need to be more careful with it. 

I don't go to bars [former smoker, not much of a drinker and don't like loud music but in that environment the point and shoot IS by far the better choice. 

Thanks for sharing your photos. Sorry my Ukrainian beauty had to come down. I guess a woman's breasts will offend some. Funny, when 'they' are around them they aren't offended.


----------



## Serendipity2

frogblogger said:


> Whilst in Phnom Penh ...
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> 
> (This and one or two others I have already posted previously to the Photos from Thailand thread, in the general discussion area)...
> 
> Sometimes of course there is beauty in a simple smile...
> 
> 
> 
> _(click on pic for larger image)_


------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
frogblogger,

HOW CAN I POST LARGER PHOTOS? [I'm jealous!] And your photos are still very good!


----------



## Serendipity2

Serendipity2 said:


> ------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
> frogblogger,
> 
> HOW CAN I POST LARGER PHOTOS? [I'm jealous!] And your photos are still very good!



If she played her cards right I'm hers! How does she do that? Any way she want to!  Wasn't she the lovely lass from Phnom Penh?


----------



## gino

*Focal length and focus*

If you left-click on the thumbnails they enlarge in a pop-up window. 

I’ve known some very bright women who were also very beautiful and sexy as well. Physical characteristics can affect perceptions and self-perceptions and personality, but the traits are largely independent. 

I shot Nikon when I shot film. When I switched to digital, I switched to Canon (an APS 10D) and also switched to zoom lenses, as the digital format sacrificed so much clarity the convenience of zoom seemed to outweigh the advantages of prime lenses. But I recently upgraded to a full-frame 5-D and sold three old bodies and about seven lenses to buy a 85mm f/1.2, which I’m eager to use. But you’re right. It is a heavy lens. 

You want to maintain distance to avoid distortion, but it is also important to maintain an emotional connection with the subjects. Optically, a 1200mm lens can often produce a better image, with a soft, unobtrusive background, but you need an assistant with a walkie-talkie to communicate with the model. 

On my last trip I shot a lot of pictures, but overemphasized quantity to the detriment of quality.


----------



## Serendipity2

ginocox said:


> If you left-click on the thumbnails they enlarge in a pop-up window.
> 
> I’ve known some very bright women who were also very beautiful and sexy as well. Physical characteristics can affect perceptions and self-perceptions and personality, but the traits are largely independent.
> 
> I shot Nikon when I shot film. When I switched to digital, I switched to Canon (an APS 10D) and also switched to zoom lenses, as the digital format sacrificed so much clarity the convenience of zoom seemed to outweigh the advantages of prime lenses. But I recently upgraded to a full-frame 5-D and sold three old bodies and about seven lenses to buy a 85mm f/1.2, which I’m eager to use. But you’re right. It is a heavy lens.
> 
> You want to maintain distance to avoid distortion, but it is also important to maintain an emotional connection with the subjects. Optically, a 1200mm lens can often produce a better image, with a soft, unobtrusive background, but you need an assistant with a walkie-talkie to communicate with the model.
> 
> On my last trip I shot a lot of pictures, but overemphasized quantity to the detriment of quality.


Hi ginocox,

They DO get a bit larger but compare with frogblogger's photos? Maybe they changed the functionality of the site? If so, too bad.

Generalizing, I've found the prettier girls are catered to so much they don't develop their own brain or their personality and when they have to do it on their own they don't do well. Again, a generalization but more often true than not. I am speaking of single women. When they marry they are usually married to money and that gives them security to where they can be more open. 

I took a fabulous Nikon F2AS to Thailand [with some very good lenses] and NO INTEREST in spite of it being like new. It has a 55 mm f/1.2 lens and I've gotten many great photographs over the years. My eyesight isn't as keen anymore plus the flexibility of digital finally prompted me to go that way but a good film based camera will still [barely] take a better picture than a digital but boy is the digital camera convenient. 

Sounds like the perfect lens for your Canon is an 85mm f/1.2 lens too. Nikon's fastest 85mm is f/1.4 but that's more than fast enough and the 85mm gives a bit of separation from your subject which puts them at ease. Or a bit more at ease.

One of the drawbacks of digital is the ability to shoot a LOT of photos but then we end up spending a lot of time sorting through them, discarding them, and keeping just the ones we like. That said, some of my best shots were taken when I thought it would be a 'just average' photo and some that I thought would be great weren't always that great. Still, better to take the photo than not but, as you've indicated, even on those days you're hauling the full frame digital it's always smart to have that point and shoot available.


----------



## gino

*Image Quality*

I didn’t check it before, but the pictures I uploaded were also scaled down. IMG_0830 was shrunk from 720x540 to 600x450, which is about a 30% reduction in pixels. The images are also drastically recompressed. My upload was 194 KB, but it’s compressed to 40.4 KB. There’s a lot of loss of detail, which is quite obvious if one zooms in on the eyelashes and loose hairs on her forehead or the texture of her skin. In the future, I shall have to upload very large images so they look halfway decent when recompressed by the message board. 

A larger aperture gives you not only speed, but a more narrow depth of field. The longer focal length brings your perspective closer to the subject without the distortion. On the downside, vibration is more of an issue and you need a larger shooting space or you may not be able to get far enough away from the subject to get everything in the frame.

The first DSLR I used was a borrowed 3 MP Canon with an APS sensor. The resolution wasn’t that impressive, perhaps because the guy who owned it had economized by buying some off-brand lens. But the full-frame 21 MP or 14 MP sensors provide resolution comparable to film. Grain can be simulated with Photoshop. Improvements in microlenses capture more of the light striking the sensor. Images can be recorded in RAW format to avoid losing detail through JPEG compression. 

And you don’t have some of the risks, such as an improperly loaded roll of film not advancing, fogging the film by accidentally opening the back, processing errors at the lab, exposing at the incorrect ASA, shooting with no film in the camera or (with Hasselblads) having a assistant load the film backwards – all of which, I’m embarrassed to say, have happened to me. And you see the image immediately, so you know if something obvious is wrong. 

Compared with the 50¢/frame cost of shooting 35mm, the incremental cost of shooting a couple of extra exposures on digital is negligible. One secret to good photography is simply to take a lot of pictures, which is practical with digital even if it would be cost-prohibitive with film.


----------



## Serendipity2

ginocox,

I don't know if we can upload large files. I agree that a large file is FAR better and compressing an already small file seems foolish since the purpose of this site is to encourage us to post messages and photographs and storage space isn't that expensive. I'll try to upload one of my photos - original file - but suspect the system will either crash or not allow it. I will be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong! 

I get very good results from my 50mm f/1.4 lens but having a longer focal length would be advantageous but I've no desire to lug a monster long lens around. It would be fine if you were going out on a shoot to photograph an item and you didn't need to haul it too far - or you had a Sherpa along [female, thanks] to be a 'bearer'. I can't see much beyond an 85mm f/1.4. That's still pretty heavy but does give one a nice distance from the subject so that it's not like I'm assaulting them with my camera. My favorite are photographs of children not posing for a picture and I've been able to take some great photos. It's rare that I get a good photo when they know I'm taking their picture. 

I shoot [usually] in large format/fine but not RAW. Perhaps I should but I don't know that I gain much and the offset is that I can get less shots if I shoot RAW and large/fine. I guess I could just shoot in RAW. I've never tried. The closest I ever got to a Hasselblad - I once owned a Rolliflex. Great camera but I didn't like shooting pics looking down at the screen. I much prefer my Nikon or, decades ago, my first SLR - a Minolta SR2. A very nice camera and I couldn't afford what I REALLY wanted - a Nikon. Shooting a large format camera like a Hasselblad does have some great advantages but the trade-off is the way one takes the photo. The world largely agrees as Nikon and Canon are THE preferred cameras by most photo journalists and amateur photographers. 

Agreed, the cost of shooting film is not that much a reason to shoot film but I do find I take many, many more photos with digital. While it's easy [and cheap] to take lots of photos and dump those you don't like I find at some point I take way too many and lose the art aspect of photography in my quest to make SURE I got a good shot. Looking at an image on a tiny screen outside in the glare of light one misses a LOT. Probably a solution would be too carry some sort of PAD or similar to view the photos while out in the field. A never ending problem - getting great photos but not taking so many that all I'm doing is pointing an expensive camera and shooting. :/

OK, I'm going to try to upload ONE large format/fine photo. Let's see what happens. I know, if it loads at all, it will be SLOOOOOOW. It says it will take up t o 2 MG but so far...... nuthin'


----------



## Serendipity2

ginocox,

As I suspected, it didn't go. Talk about being cheap. 

COME ON EXPAT FORUM give us the ability to upload other than thumbnails.


----------



## Guest

The storage demands on our server would be too great were such large files to be added. There is a way around it - it requires the likes of an external Flickr, or a Buzznet account. By linking to these photos using the Flickr/Buzznet etc url you can then post larger photos on the forum, as I do.

It is best to compress the files nonetheless, and to restrict the maximum width to 1000 pixels, otherwise the forum page is stretched.


----------



## Serendipity2

frogblogger said:


> The storage demands on our server would be too great were such large files to be added. There is a way around it - it requires the likes of an external Flickr, or a Buzznet account. By linking to these photos using the Flickr/Buzznet etc url you can then post larger photos on the forum, as I do.
> 
> It is best to compress the files nonetheless, and to restrict the maximum width to 1000 pixels, otherwise the forum page is stretched.



Hi frogblogger,

Thanks for the reply. It seems if this forum needs added server capacity they should get it. Storage is CHEAP and I really don't see a lot of photos on our site. One reason is that we can only put up small 'thumbnail" shots. If you can do an end run around the system I would think the "powers that be" can upgrade and add a bit of storage. WE make this site better with GOOD photos - both in quality and size! OK, at least that's my story and I'm sticking to it!


----------



## gino

*My Back Yard*



Serendipity2 said:


> ginocox,
> 
> I don't know if we can upload large files. I agree that a large file is FAR better and compressing an already small file seems foolish since the purpose of this site is to encourage us to post messages and photographs and storage space isn't that expensive. I'll try to upload one of my photos - original file - but suspect the system will either crash or not allow it. I will be pleasantly surprised if I'm wrong!
> 
> I get very good results from my 50mm f/1.4 lens but having a longer focal length would be advantageous but I've no desire to lug a monster long lens around. It would be fine if you were going out on a shoot to photograph an item and you didn't need to haul it too far - or you had a Sherpa along [female, thanks] to be a 'bearer'. I can't see much beyond an 85mm f/1.4. That's still pretty heavy but does give one a nice distance from the subject so that it's not like I'm assaulting them with my camera. My favorite are photographs of children not posing for a picture and I've been able to take some great photos. It's rare that I get a good photo when they know I'm taking their picture.
> 
> I shoot [usually] in large format/fine but not RAW. Perhaps I should but I don't know that I gain much and the offset is that I can get less shots if I shoot RAW and large/fine. I guess I could just shoot in RAW. I've never tried. The closest I ever got to a Hasselblad - I once owned a Rolliflex. Great camera but I didn't like shooting pics looking down at the screen. I much prefer my Nikon or, decades ago, my first SLR - a Minolta SR2. A very nice camera and I couldn't afford what I REALLY wanted - a Nikon. Shooting a large format camera like a Hasselblad does have some great advantages but the trade-off is the way one takes the photo. The world largely agrees as Nikon and Canon are THE preferred cameras by most photo journalists and amateur photographers.
> 
> Agreed, the cost of shooting film is not that much a reason to shoot film but I do find I take many, many more photos with digital. While it's easy [and cheap] to take lots of photos and dump those you don't like I find at some point I take way too many and lose the art aspect of photography in my quest to make SURE I got a good shot. Looking at an image on a tiny screen outside in the glare of light one misses a LOT. Probably a solution would be too carry some sort of PAD or similar to view the photos while out in the field. A never ending problem - getting great photos but not taking so many that all I'm doing is pointing an expensive camera and shooting. :/
> 
> OK, I'm going to try to upload ONE large format/fine photo. Let's see what happens. I know, if it loads at all, it will be SLOOOOOOW. It says it will take up t o 2 MG but so far...... nuthin'


Having experimented a bit with a recent post, I think hot-linking is probably the way to go, as it gives you more control over image quality. 

The forum offers a facility for posting images, but I’m not sure that is their purpose. But I think many messages can be conveyed more clearly, concisely and emphatically if accompanied by images.

I haven’t shot RAW either. It would slow things down a mite, as the camera has to write much more to memory, but compact flashes are getting faster and more capacious and processors are improving. But I’m not sure RAW pictures display on the LCD screen and you may need software to display them on a PC. I think this is the reason for the RAW + JPEG option. 

Perhaps the solution is to carry an iPad about, although I think we may need to wait for the second generation before it achieves its full potential. I don’t see much appeal to watching movies that are compressed. I want DVD quality at least. The two things I’d most like an iPad for would be to have a library of reference materials at my fingertips and to use as an external video monitor. But the available titles are mostly current fiction and periodicals. The resolution is actually comparable to the top-of-the line Ikan 5600, but the camera port accessory isn’t yet available and nobody is quite sure how it will work. I’d love to have a field monitor where I could plug in half a dozen inputs and touch on any one of them to blow it up to full-screen with the others displayed as thumbnails. But the connections would need to be wireless like Bluetooth and it would have to cost a couple of grand or less. 

The guy in the picture isn’t me. It’s an actor playing a character based on me in a comedy I did some years ago. He’s holding my old Nikon F3. I shot the picture with my old F4. Both bodies and the lenses were sold to buy the 85mm Canon lens.


----------



## Serendipity2

ginocox said:


> Having experimented a bit with a recent post, I think hot-linking is probably the way to go, as it gives you more control over image quality.
> 
> The forum offers a facility for posting images, but I’m not sure that is their purpose. But I think many messages can be conveyed more clearly, concisely and emphatically if accompanied by images.
> 
> I haven’t shot RAW either. It would slow things down a mite, as the camera has to write much more to memory, but compact flashes are getting faster and more capacious and processors are improving. But I’m not sure RAW pictures display on the LCD screen and you may need software to display them on a PC. I think this is the reason for the RAW + JPEG option.
> 
> Perhaps the solution is to carry an iPad about, although I think we may need to wait for the second generation before it achieves its full potential. I don’t see much appeal to watching movies that are compressed. I want DVD quality at least. The two things I’d most like an iPad for would be to have a library of reference materials at my fingertips and to use as an external video monitor. But the available titles are mostly current fiction and periodicals. The resolution is actually comparable to the top-of-the line Ikan 5600, but the camera port accessory isn’t yet available and nobody is quite sure how it will work. I’d love to have a field monitor where I could plug in half a dozen inputs and touch on any one of them to blow it up to full-screen with the others displayed as thumbnails. But the connections would need to be wireless like Bluetooth and it would have to cost a couple of grand or less.
> 
> The guy in the picture isn’t me. It’s an actor playing a character based on me in a comedy I did some years ago. He’s holding my old Nikon F3. I shot the picture with my old F4. Both bodies and the lenses were sold to buy the 85mm Canon lens.


ginocox,

That's a GREAT photo! 

So, for us retarded seniors - how did you get your photo up? [I finally figured out how to reduce my photos but really don't like to due to the reasons you mentioned] 

Never did much like the F3 or the F4 but I was spoiled with my F2AS. Built like a tank and takes fabulous pictures. The later models I think were cheapened down by Nikon as the F2 with the DP12 finder WAS expensive and hand built. I understand it was the last hand built camera they made. Mine still takes fabulous shots - when I'm "on" and is almost like new. This is my second F2AS. When I left Saudi Arabia I sold my first [color me stupid] but bought another about 10 years ago. I use my 55mm f/1.2 lens with it and though I also have a 50mm f/1.4 I've always gotten great results with the faster lens - although I doubt anyone could tell the difference. Now I'm spoiled with my D700. I have a 50mm f/1.4D that I use with it but could use my old 55mm lens or any of the others I've got. 

It took me some time to get to know the digital camera and it's got more menus that I can handle but slowly I'm getting there. The one thing I find a bit annoying is switching back and forth the White Balance. I try not to use flash but once in awhile.... 

So now if I can pick your brain on how to upload a larger file.... Most of mine are 2.0 MB files as I shoot large format/fine. Like you, I've yet to try RAW and I don't even use RAW + JPEG. When I get some time I may give it a try but it uses up the CF card at an even faster rate. I have two fast CF cards I carry - one a ScanDisk Extreme III 8GM and the other a ScanDisk Extreme IV 8GB. I've yet to have to change cards as I can get over 750 large format/fine photos on the card. That said I should NOT continuously "edit" my CF card daily - dumping the shots I don't want. So far no corruption but sooner or later. I'm now storing on my HDD, making a backup to a CD-R disk and reformatting. Hope I'm using the correct disk for backup!


----------



## gino

*Memory*

To show you how old that image is, it is designed to wrap around a VHS video case, with the two girls on the front, the guy on the back, a title above the reclining model’s knee and credits above the guy's head. 

To insert an image, you need to post the image somewhere on the Internet. You can’t post it from your computer. Some picture posting sites allow you to post images and provide the URL for the image to use on message boards. In this case, the URL for the image is http://www.ginocox.com/images/MyBackYard.jpg. If you copy and paste this URL into your browser’s address window, it should display the image. Once you have a URL for the image you want to post, click on the Insert Image button above the message editing box that looks like a couple of pyramids under a square moon. A pop-up window will display where you need to enter the URL for your image. It will insert the image in the message wherever your cursor is positioned when you click the button. Again, you need to enable pop-ups and do that before you attempt to insert an image or it will erase any typing. You should always compose your messages in a word processing program anyway to take advantage of spelling and grammar correction functions. 

I got three 8 GB UDMA cards when I bought the 5D Mark II and I have several old flash cards of lower speed and capacity. JPEGs run about 7 MB at fine resolution, so I have room for over 3,000 images, but I’m wondering if I should pick up a couple of more in case I want to shoot video. 8 GB equates to 24 minutes in 1080 P, less than half the capacity of a DV cassette. 

The CF cards are good for about a thousand write/erase cycles, but individual memory locations can go bad. The software will work around any unreadable spots, but I think it’s better to reformat the card periodically so they’re shunted off to no man’s land.


----------



## Guest

Back to SE Asia, there is a graceful femininity that one rarely sees in the West these days, even in formal dance.



_(click for bigger image)_


----------



## Guest

Something about this couple really intrigued me. The paper clip,the clothes peg, the battered child's soft toys, the bags full of... what? Early afternoon, Chiang Mai Night Bazaar...


----------



## Guest

Hmm, perhaps that should read "child's battered soft toys", on reflection...


----------



## Guest

More pesky red shirt terrorists at a rally...



_Click for bigger pic_


----------



## Serendipity2

frogblogger said:


> Back to SE Asia, there is a graceful femininity that one rarely sees in the West these days, even in formal dance.
> 
> 
> 
> _(click for bigger image)_



OK, frogblogger, ginocox tried [and failed] to educate me! 

HOW are you able to upload a large [considerably] photo that I can enlarge even further by clicking on them? Any suggestions and links? Thanks 

By the way, your young Cambodian is MY choice - she is lovely!


----------



## gino

*I hate to have people think I’m a poor instructor.*

If you want to learn how a web page works, you can display the source code. In Internet Explorer, the command is View>Source. 

First right click on the image and select Save Picture As. This will give you the name of the picture on the server where it is stored. Highlight the name and save it to your clipboard. 

Next, display the source code for page four of this thread and search for the name of the picture in the code. Command-F and past the name from your clipboard into the Find: field.

You should find the instruction for FB’s picture on line 1981:
<a onclick="pageTracker._trackPageview ('/outgoing/http_farm3_static_flickr_com_2538_3690078176_fdfb062316_o_jpg');" rel="nofollow" href="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2538/3690078176_fdfb062316_o.jpg" target="_blank"><img src="http://farm3.static.flickr.com/2538/3690078176_2c1cf5260f.jpg" border="0" alt="" /></a><br />

This is HTML code, what instructs your computer to display the web page. 

Look for code that begins with “http:”. There are two bits of code.

If you cut and paste the text within the quote marks into a browser address window, it will display the pictures. One is the smaller version, the other is the full-size image. 

Now you know you need to have two images on the Internet at some picture sharing site, such as Flickr. 

You can’t type this code directly. You need to use the little icons above the Reply to Thread input window. First you will insert a smaller image into the text of your message, using the Insert Image button. Second, highlight the command inserted by the computer and click the Insert Link button. In the pop-up window, type of paste the URL for the larger image. Then click the Preview Post button and verify that it is working correctly. 

I hope this helps. If you’re confused, ignore the top part of these instructions and focus on the paragraph immediately above this paragraph.


----------



## Guest

S2 - think of Flickr as a photo album, but a virtual variety. You need to stick your photos in there.

First you have to join Flickr (or equivalent); go to Welcome to Flickr - Photo Sharing and follow the online instructions to do this.

Once you have your account you can upload your pics to that site.

But to get in some practice first, try it out on one of the photos already in this thread, above. Right click on the image (any image), then scroll down to "copy image location" - then left click.

Now that data has been memorised you can use it to insert a photo in your post.

Above the reply box (where there is the *B*, _I_, U instruction etc.), you have an _insert image_ button, second from the right. Click on it. A new box opens asking you to insert the url of your image. Right click, then paste the image url you've just saved, then click on OK. Now go advanced to see what your post will look like with the inserted image.

The next step is to link a larger photo to the one you've just added, which is done as ginocox has described above. But one thing at a time, let's see if you can insert an image into a post as I've just described first...


----------



## gino

*Caveat*

The options displayed on the drop-down menu depend on which browser (Internet Explorer, Firefox, Chrome, etc.) is used and on whether the image is linked to anything. It may also depend on other factors, such as the version of the browser and the nature of the image (JPEG, GIF, TIFF, PNG, etc.). 

If you right click on the image I posted of the photographer and models in the surf using Firefox, you get the following options:
View Image
Copy Image
Copy Image Location
Save Image As
Send Image
Set As Desktop Background
Block Images from …

Right clicking on the same image using Internet Explorer yields a different menu:
Save Picture As
E-Male Picture
Print Picture
Go to My Pictures
… and a few others, plus some lightly shaded options that aren’t available for this image.

However, some of these options are available if you click on FB’s image, because it is hyperlinked to his larger image. Similar options are also available for FB’s image using Firefox. However, Copy Image Location is not a menu option for either image using my version of Internet Explorer, although it might be in earlier or later versions. I haven’t checked Google Chrome or any other browser. Often the same option is offered, but the wording is different.

I apologize if my instructions seemed overly complex. I generally use IE, so the option recommended by FB wasn’t available when I toyed with the image to draft my earlier message.


----------



## Serendipity2

frogblogger said:


> S2 - think of Flickr as a photo album, but a virtual variety. You need to stick your photos in there.
> 
> First you have to join Flickr (or equivalent); go to Welcome to Flickr - Photo Sharing and follow the online instructions to do this.
> 
> Once you have your account you can upload your pics to that site.
> 
> But to get in some practice first, try it out on one of the photos already in this thread, above. Right click on the image (any image), then scroll down to "copy image location" - then left click.
> 
> Now that data has been memorised you can use it to insert a photo in your post.
> 
> Above the reply box (where there is the *B*, _I_, U instruction etc.), you have an _insert image_ button, second from the right. Click on it. A new box opens asking you to insert the url of your image. Right click, then paste the image url you've just saved, then click on OK. Now go advanced to see what your post will look like with the inserted image.
> 
> The next step is to link a larger photo to the one you've just added, which is done as ginocox has described above. But one thing at a time, let's see if you can insert an image into a post as I've just described first...



frogblogger & ginocox,

Thanks for the directions. 

I'll give it a try when I've got more time, am more rested to see if I can master it. I'm sure it's easy after I've learned how but right now it's a bit more than I want to deal with SO I'm going to watch the Masters and, hopefully, Tiger Woods win his 5th green jacket - and make a large pot of pasta fagioli soup!


----------



## Guest

ginocox said:


> I apologize if my instructions seemed overly complex. I generally use IE, so the option recommended by FB wasn’t available when I toyed with the image to draft my earlier message.


Quite correct, the procedure is slightly different with IE. You right click with the cursor over the pic, scroll down to "_properties_", then in "_properties_" you have to copy the _"image address (url)"_ entry.


----------

