OK, then tell me what your name is on Deviant Art's website. Tell us your number on Model Mayhem. Because I can tell you my opinion right now, given all our experience with Laylafan, I am suspicious.

A prophet is without honor in his own land.

This photo was posted on the Deviant Art site last week. The OP is plagiarising.

Second image is from the Deviant Art site.

Nicely done. We had fog in Victoria this morning.

Google is your friend. From the Epson wedsite.

Works With :
Epson Expression Home XP-400 Small-in-One All-in-One Printer
Epson Expression Home XP-300 Small-in-One All-in-One Printer
Epson WorkForce WF-2520 All-in-One Printer
Epson Expression Home XP-310 Small-in-One All-in-One Printer
Epson WorkForce WF-2530 All-in-One Printer
Epson Expression Home XP-410 Small-in-One All-in-One Printer
Epson Expression Home XP-200 Small-in-One All-in-One Printer
Epson WorkForce WF-2540 All-in-One Printer

OK, so we now have two threads going on this issue. Let me see if I understand something from LaylaFan. LaylaFan, chime in, please. I want to understand this and you can tell me if I have this right.

So, you made original photographs of Layla and other models and posted them here. Other Hoggers are finding your photos on various websites and thus concluding that you’re posting dishonestly in claiming the pictures are yours. You, on the other hand, assert that the reason UHH members are finding your work on other sites is because someone has stolen them.

Now, that creates several scenarios, two of which are obvious to me. First, you have shared your work with others privately and they, in turn, have posted your work to other places on the Web. All this occurring prior to your posting on UHH. As a result, when Hoggers do an image search, they find your work, thus leading to the accusations at hand. Second, you have done these photos and posted them elsewhere on the Web before sharing them with us. Hence, people are finding them elsewhere are well, again leading to these accusations. Finally, the assertions against you are true: That these are not your photos and you’re posting them with us while claiming the work.

A point I’d like to make that are important to me. This is a place to share many aspects of photography and I believe in only the rarest of instances should we post photos of others’ work. And if we do, it should be with credit. Otherwise, we’re just another little corner of the internet and our efforts are diluted and, to me, therefore, useless.

I pause with this: I don’t know how you can “prove” these are yours in this format — through a Web interface. But I think these scenarios above make sense and I’d like to see you address them.

I have it as a one-time purchase, but I've never really liked it. I don't like or use LR; generally stick with Photoshop. I like the subscription and all it's features.

I got to do one shoot with Tim and Kat and learned a lot from it. Circumstances prevented me from continuing to explore nude photography, something Tim understood when my plans for continuing ran aground. Tim works with several models and there are I couple of them, in addition to Kat, with whom I would have liked to work.

I also wanted to learn more about lighting from Tim. And, I had visions of continuing making photographs in that and other genres applying the knowledge and using Tim’s well-equipped studio.

Tim has taken a lot of unjustified guff and on this section of the Hog. I’m not talking about legitimate questions or comments about his posts; I mean the prudes who tsk-tsk — and do so selectively, I might add.

As for how I react to nude women — I find them exciting in all senses of the word. I also find them beautiful in all senses of the word. In my younger days, I lived in Colorado and spent a lot of time skiing. It was a hard-to-describe feeling, but the best I can come up with is that I was in a bubble and there was nothing else around. I was fully present, in the moment. I don’t remember any other time I felt so in the moment and present as when I did the shoot with Tim and Kat.

This looks like a directional indicator arrow used in the early days of aviation. I saw them on the ground in parts of New Mexico when I lived there some 20 years ago.

Nikon's P1000 is pretty amazing. My wife has it for her birding photos and a friend has some remarkable photos of aircraft -- some shot with the plane at more than 30,000 feet.

The workflow involved putting the slide or negative in the carrier, pushing it through, taking the photo and pulling it out. It's kind of repetitive no matter what device you're using. I found it most tolerable to undertake these projects with something else to simultaneously entertain me, i.e., watching TV or talking with my wife while we both sit at the table working.

Adjustments were/are driven by the film image itself. Some needed none to little; others needed a lot of work. While the Wolverine has a screen so you can see the output and allows for some basic tweaks. I found those tweaks insufficient and slows the workflow, so I move the files to my computer where I work on them in Photoshop. I don’t use Lightroom.

Well, here we go again. Just like with Timmers. So, as Valen just posted and I have said in the past, if you don’t like the photos on this forum, don’t look at them. After all, the postings and photos themselves are a fiat accompli in this section of the Hog. If you have something to say, make it substantive.

Frankly, this is my favorite section of UHH; not that I don’t like other sections but I enjoy it the most. And thanks to Timmers, I had one chance to shoot this kind of art, learning some of the techniques from Timmers for which I’ll always be grateful. For those who can shoot this art and wish to post it, know that I and others fully support you. I, frankly, don’t give a damn that some find it unseemly.

I have used my Wolverine scanner for years and have been satisfied with the results for slides and negatives. I wish the workflow were easier but I found it no worse than the Plustek that I had and with which I was unhappy. I know others on the Hog like the Plustek, but it just didn’t work for me. I have nothing to say about the Epson scanners because I’ve no experience with them.

You mileage on any of these may vary. Good luck

Your other points aside, I think you missed my point. While as a working journalist who both wrote and shot, I did the photography with my own gear. It wouild have been nice to have company gear, but, as I said, most shooters buy and use their own. Were I working now, I'd shoot with my D5300 and that's that. Shutter noise is a small price to pay for a free press. Hey, somebody want to give me the money to own the equivilent gear ini the Nikon Z line, I'll take it. But that ain't reality.

As Mr. Shapiro said, essentially, be glad we have a free press. A lot of reporters and photogs bust their asses and put themselves in harm's way to make sure we know what's going on.

Few things rile me up more than disrespecting the press.