This massive poster has recently appeared in the window of our local Hair Salon.
.
.

Hi Bozo,

Sorry to grumble, but you did say it was a 'massive poster' and that Fuji FinePix Z1 camera you're using can take pictures up to 2592×1944 pixels. Any chance of posting a bigger picture so that we can actually see the joke? Also, assuming you are using a Windows OS of some sort there's some freebie software bundled in with it that will allow you to rotate the picture to the correct orientation.

BTW, you say the poster has recently appeared. You may need to take a look at the clock/calendar in your camera, 'cos in that case it appears to be running about 2¼ years slow!

Don’t be too critical, Fuji FinePix Z1 no way, we know Bozo’s still using his Box Brownie, he just needs to be shown which way round to hold it

Yeah well you get the picture-it looks beautiful on Disc-best I can do under the circ.
Gosh how did you know the camera modelmake?
I grew up on 110 instamatics in the 1970s doing photo reportage.
you got the littleblue wire flashbulbs in Boots and they went poof!
you couldnt takepicsindoors though
though photographing David Bowie 150 metres from the back of Earls Court didnt quite cut it.
patience please Im hoping to figure out what duh went wrong here

BOZO

The only thing I can see wrong:-

She's not wearing any knickers.

Which always spoils the fun for me.


Steve M

Bozo: "Gosh how did you know the camera modelmake?" INRS - most digital camera JPEG output has embedded in it EXIF (EXchangeable Image File) information. This holds data about the camera used, the camera settings, the time and date the picture was taken, whether the subject was wearing any knickers etc. OK, I lied about the knickers but you get the idea!

Here's a very brief extract from the info embedded in your original picture:

Make: Fujifilm
Model: FinePix Z1
Date/Time: 2006:01:19 19:58:58
(hence my saying your camera was 2¼ years slow!)
F Number: 3·5
ISO Speed Rating: 200
Focal Length: 6·1
Exposure Time: 1/170 of a second

This EXIF data can be read by suitable software. Indeed, programs such as panorama stitchers sometimes use EXIF data regarding angles, positions etc. to enable them to do a better job. However, EXIF data doesn't always survive post-production processing - for instance the program used by Ketta to rotate/enlarge your image has removed it.

Steve M: Since you didn't get the information re. the young ladies underpinnings from the EXIF data, how on earth can you tell?

A_L

It could be my new Tesco specs.

Except they aren't the ones I use for computer work!

Looks to me like a remarkably tight, if not sprayed-on, pair of transparent cycle shorts, and tell-tale black areas in pussy area.

There is a possible thong line on her left leg, but not on the right at all. So no thongs means no knicks!

An equally truthful explanation could be that, at 56, all those years of studying females has sharpened my perceptions.

Or I'm sad & old!


Steve M

Hi Steve,

Well, it certainly isn't the 'sad & old' bit, so I reckon it has to be 'all those years of studying females' that accounts for your x-ray like visual acuity!

Now if only Bozo had posted the 2592×1944 pixel original instead of the 160×120 pixel thumbnail we might have been able to resolve the clothing (or lack of it) question beyond reasonable doubt!

Regards,

A_L

Woah things are getting a bit technical for poor old Bozo!
Just for the record here was my modus operandii.
1)Made pic.Put onto Jessops self burn disc
2)Made way to computer.
3)Opened up in Netscape Browser
4)Pic looks great nice and big in colour-very sharp
5)Proceed online to Network54
6)Open Photobucket and insert pic from disc into current window(framed)
in Photobucket.
7)Eventually got hang of copying URL of photo location (ie in PB frame)
8)pasted url thumb location line in Message text.
9)Sent.

Where did I go wrong?
Its not the camera is it?
Funny cos when I used the old Cannon with less MB it came out MASSIVE in post.

Yours confused

Bozo Bailey

Hi Bozo,

Very sorry, I had no intention of causing you any trouble or concern. I am absolutely sure that if you can see the picture full size on your PC and it looks good then there is nothing wrong with your camera.

What I think may have happened is that your CD from Jessops possibly has at least two sets of pictures on it. I'm not familiar with the output format of the Jessops CDs, but a very common arrangement on this type of CD is to have a folder containing small 'thumbnail' pictures and another folder containing the full-size pictures. The CD incorporates software which enables the thumbnail pictures to be used as a visual index to the full-size pictures. Alternatively your camera software may produce small thumbnail pictures for the same purpose of indexing the full size pictures.

The picture you uploaded to Photobucket was called th_DSCF0781.jpg. The 'th_' bit at the beginning of the filename almost certainly indicates that it was one of the small thumbnail pictures (th being short for thumb). The full size picture is probably called DSCF0781.jpg.

I'm not currently running a Netscape browser, and I'm not familiar with Photobucket, so I can't presently postulate an explanation of how you came to upload the thumbnail rather than the full size picture. Big John MOI is the expert in the Photobucket area and he may well be able to help. For my own interest I'll have a play with Photobucket and if I find out anything that may throw light on the subject I'll post it if Big John MOI or another contributor hasn't already dealt with the issue.

Regards,

Another_Lurker

Once an image is uploaded onto photobucket there is an option of edit, under that tab the option to resize. Thumbnail 160x240 is one of the options allowed.

Not being well up in this field, at a guess I suspect it is like A N Lurker states the thumbnail has been uploaded to photobucket in error from the disc, rather than the thumbnail option selected within photobucket, trying to increase the size of a low resolution pic results in deterioration, loss of sharpness and blur as happened with the pic after I dabbled with it.

Steve:

I would say the model is wearing jodpurs with no VPL knickers. They may not show seams but they are the devils own job to stay up, not recommended when wearing a skirt.

The suspect dark area looks to be reflection shadow, evident through taking the pic through glass, but who am I to doubt a man who wears Tescos specs and has a life time expertise studying the female derrière and removal of such fine articles of ladies underwear.

Ketta

Despite the strenuous efforts made by our highly-trained resources technicians, they are unable to improve upon the image dabbled with by Jetta.

KETTA

And I'd better not doubt someone who's had a tad more experience wearing the things than me, even in my wilder moments!


I won't get into the subject of your knickers, as I suspect your husband, not to mention DS Bob, might get upset!


Steve M

Hi Steve

Christ, mate!

Please DON'T use the 2-K words in one post, sport!

The old boy's currently tryin' to teach himself rock guitar with the Ritchie Blackmore playing guide. Somethin' that don't belong in an electric socket could end up in one at this rate!

Bob did once try a similar sort of poster in the youth clubs to deter the juvos, I believe.

Trouble was, the old fool used Sgts Dora Nora & Cora as his models-Christ, any one of them had a face that could stop a clock. Puttin' the bloody threesome together was, I understand, responsible for stoppin' Big Ben for a flamin' fortnight!

Oh, and by the way, if you wanna hear Smoke On The Water played in staccato bluegrass style, Bob's your man, not your uncle!!


Warnie!

Hmmmm-thats all helpful,many thanks,Have had a look into Photobucket-ALL the previous assembled frame photos(not just Jessops disc) carry the prefix "th-(thumb)"it appears even previous ones simply copied from the Web and pasted,but they did come out in a big size....
the pic opens beautifully in the Photobucket editing screen-big and sharp.
(And yes I have found out how to rotate it.)
BUT but but....
there would appear to be a problem with the particular mode of digital storage being used.(XD mini card?)I have the disc so may try to reload the non thumb image direct sans Netscape.
If I get really anorakky I may make the photo again if its still there on a different digital card format on the old Cannon when it will come out massive as the horse fair did and may even throw in a pic or 2 of the legendary Spankers Hill Wood!-if its not raining as I do not have underwater mode capability.
Meanwhile:any other suggestions.???