Absolutely gorgeous Neil!! Bravo !

She has an astounding resemblance to someone I think, but just can't remember where.
(It wasn't in Rumania though, think it was somewhere east of the Mississippi. But then,
they say everyone has a double somewhere).

And of course if you can't accept any other view than your own, whichever side of the
fence you shout from, you can just keep at it.....woof woof, meow, arf arf, zzzt
Sort of looks as if Tommy might have nailed it at this point ?

* * * * *
Good for you IBM ! The burning desire to know and to search the sources to find out pays off. You start asking as I did,
"How do they do that?", when you saw a picture, and you just have to know, and it will get you there.

** * * *
Agree with you 100% on that, but we have to remind ourselves now and then there are both new younguns and
late bloomers, asking what we asked once.
Some of the views expressed on a firm and settled either/or opinion don't even touch on some photographic situations
that should be considered in making a choice for any individual subj/scene we want to capture. Here then, is an example
often used as an example:
High contrast. An inexperienced photographer meets a challenge in exposure and will go about it one way
or another, even decide , even if it isn't really extreme contrast, to use HDR where it isn't really necessary.
An experienced photographer will realize his/her camera has a specified dynamic range and make the best decision possible,
which could result in a great JPEG shot without tinkering.

* * * * *
Then consider yourself warned BebuL....I'm sure Burkphoto's experience and mine were not exceptional in
having our Ektachromes fade even in dark storage. There are some things one would want to keep for years
in the slide file and not have prints made from them.
Reintroducing Ektachrome we must probably view as an expedient for the recovering co. as it could be processed
by the consumer, but Kodachrome couldn't be. But of course if Kodak does bring back Ektachrome, and its
longevity not concern you, you might be satisfied with it. "Decisions,decisions", alas

* * * * *
No one cares about Ektachrome, least of I after some eventually turned monochrome light-tone
magenta. And Kodachrome 25, we would be dreamers to expect it , but Kodachrome 64 if possible, we could be happy.

* * * * *
Wow, that's a different choice in the "fork in the road". And maybe, was it a rumor or
true, that Kodak may/will soon start offering Ektachrome again ?

* * * *
Or, as the kids will tell you probably, by then you need a smartPhone

* * * * *

* * * * *
Good to see this balanced view, and recognizing that being behind a camera has ALWAYS been the place to be for photography.
It helps to realize also, that the best decisions are made between one's ears before touching the shutter button.

Billy, appreciate your efforts trying to send the rescue boat in any direction at all but we all have to be responsible for what
is said or done and there is no need for you ever to abandon your policy of being totally honest....me too, so I don't mind
how anyone objects to total honesty, too bad, I settle for nothing less. It's utterly ridiculous to dance around trying to say
what NEEDS to be said and hoping the message gets through any better than the necessary reality of what it IS !!
And so this is my total reality:

Late last Nov., the sun very low in northern states, I found an interesting scene too far to capture in what reminded me of
pictures of ruins of ancient civilizations, unless a tele lens was used to bring up the fascinating detail. So I took the picture
to show my daughter what could be done with a "real" camera, made a couple copies to work on, and saved one.

FYC members' pics are heavily loaded with landscapes, although often unplanned, and relying therefore heavily on post process.
But as landscape is what they like it seemed time to feed them something if for no other reason than to maintain contact as a
member. So when weeding out files recently, there was this picture resting in the files. Off it went to FYC, showing rather darker
than it should, (had I saved the wrong one maybe), and rather smaller than expected.

The request was to view as if shown in an exhibit, i.e.,not critiqued, viewed as to what it might suggest to anyone. Unfortunately,
FYC has turned into a critique panel and any notice to refrain from remaking someone's picture goes unheeded as they plow ahead
anyway. Additionally, some are bound to complain they "can't see", evidently anything smaller than the kitchen sink.

There has never in my experience been a need to "store original" since if a snapshot size is shown, (BTW much bigger than a postage
stamp size usually called a thumbnail elsewhere), one can simply click on it and hit save/save. This does not bring up EXIF data but
enlarges the file which may be too large anyway. No one really NEEDS the EXIF data if merely looking at a picture. Don't they know how
to enlarge it?
I decided to abandon this exercise in futility when suddenly realizing I had totally violated all my philosophy of photography for the sole
reason of demonstrating to my daughter when she finally visited, what could be done with a tele lens. To allow this image to remain, even
had it been a larger file, would NOT be possible for me because in order to demonstrate to her what could be done with a lens, it would
be impossible for me to show anywhere a picture that had been, cropped!!!. I plan, compose, in fact work in still life where this is
essential, I do NOT crop.
And if I did so for a demonstration, there is no excuse to show it anywhere for it will ruin my reputation and no one will ever trust me again.
THAT BILLY, IS TOTAL HONESTY. Actually, as for size, the picture comes up 8x10 on the monitor and reveals what sometimes is in a file that
is not appreciated in a snapshot size, and only TODAY when dragging it out to be brightened a wee bit did I then hit properties to discover
it is only 0.97 MB. I had cropped twice to bring up that detail to show my daughter what resolution lies in hiding with a tele lens!

As for anyone else, here or anywhere else, as stated previously, we ALL have to take responsibility for what we do. But i shall not
comment on what an adversary did or did not do, nor do I want to hear any more comments from him as I have said it all regarding that.

*****
I'm NOT a drinker, (and you're not a thinker a all). Goodnight.

* * * * *
Nonsense!!! There is NO rule that I should have to send a downloaded large file with EXIF data and you darned well know that!
That is an option clearly given in the instructions for sending a picture, or any other attachment, and EVERYBODY knows that but YOU???

I'm not afraid to speak the truth here or anywhere else Steve, your incredible string of deletions and discouragement from participating
in what the Administration has provided because of your own petty personal reasons runs roughshod over all sensible thought and
reason to have done your best to send me away isn't going to serve you well when admin looks at your suppression of anyone's
participation in open discussion of photography in all its considerations. You forget with all the regularlty of someone with an inch worm's
ability to remember anything that photography is about the picture, not about the personality? It never occurs to you that being given the
privilege of a user/manager you owe your loyalty to him in treating the members with as much decent respect as you keep demanding for
yourself?
Get this, I sent a picture, which turns out to have been compressed maybe, and certainly turned out darker than it ever appeared on my monitor.
Immediately a couple people complain they can't see it very well because they have "old eyes". If they are going blind and can't see it very well,
there isn't much sense in sending it at any size anyway. While all this baloney was hitting the fan I was engaged in another topic elsewhere, and
had no intention of leaving it to go edit the file to make it lighter, nor did I at first even know what you were about. Am I supposed to sit there
staring at the monitor instead of having lunch?
Not the first time you've pulled the hothead conclusions out from under your paranoid little collection of suspicions that I am somehow
doing/saying something your overworked imagination leads you either to actually believe I had said or meant, something else entirely that you
might interpret as sufficient to find an excuse to delete it if you ry hard enough. I would call this either sick or looking for trouble!
You can admit to either, it doesn't matter.
The matter rests in the hands of your boss and he can sort it out for you but you've made a record for yourself that spans nearly a year, with all
the privilege denied anyone else to wield a little delete button and spend all night tryingto lead me on by pm messages. That too, will not work
tonight, say what you will! I think your behavior has been disloyal and negative, as well as irresponsible and arrogant, not in the best interests
of the forum section admin.has trusted you to guide.. Odd, but we don't hear of anything such as this elsewhere. Maybe it is time to own up
to it. I simply trust Administration to handle this without your further attempts to contact me, and will of course abidepeacefully with whatever
HIS ultimate decision may be and thankful it at least is not in your hands.

* * * * *
Thank you for your consideration and tips BHC. Unfortunately when looking into the matter I uncovered
what the user/mgr definitely wouldn't want me to see, i.e.,he had been squabbling with admin.
That section has been on the skids with all the best input fleeing elsewhere. It's their headache, not mine,
or as one might say, you wouldn't mind being shut out of a place that wasn't serving the best pizza in town anyway.
Sort of odd though,there was no specific reason for it,..... except the timing ? I'm not one to take sides either let alone
get into a brawl. It's supposed to be about Photography, not personalities isn't it.