We're talking about a million years of natural selection in which genetic survival and mating traits have been preserved. while inferior traits have died with their owners. At one point there were no laws, governments, courts of law, police; and we can only assume obtaining consent from a female hadn't even been imagined. If anything it would been viewed as an unnecessary and irrelevant impediment to reproduction.

So, the trait im males of just putting a female down on all fours, pushing her cheek to ground, and inseminating her, resulted in superior reproductive ability, and the the trait was preserved through generations. Similarly, women with large, firm, well-formed, pointed-up breasts made desireable mates, because large, firm breasts are higher in mammary--milk producing-- tissue, which produce better nutrition for a.man's children. Well-formed breasts are symmetrical, indicating genetic diversity, communicating to the male that that his offspring will benefit from many immune factors passed to infants through breast milk.

Pointed-up breasts indicated they are unused, which up until the 1960s indicated virginity. Today, they imply virginity. Evolution doesn't react as quickly as rational thought. Implied is the first fruit of the womb is yet to be reaped. These are all superior mating traits. But in order to have his babies take advantage of such breasts, he needs a baby by the owner. Hence, the male mating response to large, firm, well-formed, pointed-up breasts.

Sensual beauty is and unspoken language understood only by masculinity. It is a line item blueprint of the female's relative reproductive and infant-feeding potential. The objective of nude female portraits is to depict genetically superior female mating stock. Men prefer the way God dresses women, because they're religious.

Evolution has not caught up to industrialized civilization. If it had, males would have a mating response to industrial food-processing plants that manufacture infant formula. Sensual beauty is an unspoken language between God and man, the 2 masculine things in the universe. The female is that part of nature created as a gift to the man. So, the male communes with God and nature when viewing sensual beauty.

It is an unspoken promise of new life in the image of married lovers and in the image of God. So, erotic nudes are understandably popular among men. Every truly erotic experience carries with the promise of a divine gift. This was first verbalized in 300B.C.

The wise find it convincing, while the merely clever remain unconvinced. Tattooed females deface their purity as given to them by God. Men who prefer inked females are attracted to rebellion against God, which makes the female an easy target for use as barren flesh to sate the male's primal urge.

Pure females have no ink. They are exactly the way God created them. Men who prefer pure females are attracted to the beauty of innocence; that the girl hasn't had some other guy's jism up her reproductive tract. Such a girl makes a fine obedient wife, who chastity is rewarded by her fertile bounty. She can teach her daughters chastity without indicting herself.

Because of the above, the most valuable depiction of the female is the display of her sensual beauty. Pick up chicks, hot babe, stone fox, etc. are timeless. Women want to be desired. They have no power over over masculine males, because any woman will trade everything she has for true love. Without that, no female will ever be happy. If she has no man to please, and to desire her for her beauty, to give her children, a name for her children, a house, to support her financially and emotionally, for her to submit to in cheerful obedience, and for whom to bear nurse offspring; preferably manchild; she will become bitter, calloused, vengeful, and ugly!

There is truly no greater curse upon a female than to be childless and supporting herself. That means she couldn't attract a male to give her children, nor support her. That is a sad commentary. Her genetic code, being objectionable to God Almighty, for she failed to use her body in a way pleasing to God: to reproduce God's image; will be forever purged from among the living. She will be utterly forgotten, as if she had never existed. In every generation the genetic code of the wicked is purged, while that of the righteous is preserved. This is why evil can never prevail for long. A hot babe is gentically superior female mating stock.

Canon is 25% cheaper than Nikon for comparable specs. This bears out in all applications of rugged use. Nikon is built for reliability under the harshest of conditions. Granted, it's probably not as flexible as its Canon counterparts. But I have never suffered a breakdown in critical situations. Although I do still carry 2 bodies. Nikon uses less and bigger pixels, for better performace at high ISOs, at the expense of lower cropping resolution. Canon equipment is lighter weight, and just how long does one need to keep using a certain body.

Canon are superior at studio and glamour work. Almost all nude female photography is done with Canon equipment. As well as any indoor work. But out in the wilderness where a breakdown could cost thousands, Nikon has always been the preferred choice, because it's more failsafe, whereas Canon much more frequently fails in extreme temps, high humidity, rain, snow, sand and salt water.

Whereas, the pro knows every Canon will eventually fail, Nikon will not. And there are super deals on Nikon glass. If you need a 600mm for a job, you can pic up an older one on eBay for $1,000. And if one even remotely knows what he's doing behind a 35mm camera, long manual focus lenses are many times preferable to the AF versions, because the AF needs a bit of manual adjustment anyway.

And, when you're on a freezing mountain top shooting the night sky, you really only need a piece of tape to mark infinity. I can shoot anything with the newest or oldest equipment. I prefer to move my body to using zooms. Nikon has some primes that are so lightweight and close focusing, it's like having a 300mm macro. I can shoot perfectly fine with the 300mm f/4 P and a a 2x teleconverter it's just like having a 600mm f/8. AF snaps into focus, even indoors, if you can imagine 600mm indoors.

The response of AF at f/8 on the D810 is superb. Nikon firmware is also superior to Canon's in every respect. Many fewer glitches and bugs. And Nikon appeals to hardcore pros, so it gets better feedback from users who have a greater understanding of the hardware. Whereas, Canon users are more artistic and less technically oriented. Nikon RAW is superior in it's postprocessing flexibility and power. It is nearly universal among postprocessing software, because it is trivial to reverse engineer.

While Canon RAW format is frequently poorly implemented in postprocessing programs, because it is difficult to adapt to existing algorithms. However, in the niche markets Canon dominates, glamour, boudois, studio work, bright lighting, lower ISOs (Nikon pro bodies shoot up to about ISO 3 million).Using fewer and larger pixels on the sensor adds flexibility and power to cover more situations, some of which may be impossible with Canon equipment.

Canon is #1 because of the lower price coupled to human ignorance. It's like a one-man band vs a symphony orchestra. If the user shoots Nikon hard, it just asks for more. Shoot Canon hard, and it fails. Expedition shoots--far from civilization, are Nikon territory. Not that Canon are toys. The equipment is quite capable. The user just needs a fall back in case of equipment failure. I carry 2 bodies, but mostly to have 2 lenses quickly at hand. I've never had a failure, even shooting thousands of frames over a week or 2.

I think I may have cleaned a front element once, when no filter was satisfactory, because of reflections between it and the front element. And, I got a smudge. However, amateur photographers like to spend money to have the latest and greatest, kind of like buying new clubs as a substitute for practicing their golf game.

I have never seem this strategy bear out in better results, because photography is largely in ones view of his surroundings. I can spot a great opportunity 100 feet away. By the time I get there, I've got all the technical details worked out. I've chosen my profile, and I only need to position myself to use up the frame.

I can entice animals to walk right up to me. Even certain birds, like the sandhill crane. The camera doesn't frighten animals. Only body motions. There are a few difficult animal subjects, such as the hummingbird moth, foxes, owls, but most insects can be captured if you turn a can of air duster upside down and blast them. It gets them cold, so they can't move. I've had a mother turkey and babes walk right in front of me.

I've had cranes come within 5' of me, and let me shoot 50 frames. Hummimgbirds are creatures of habit, usually feeding at 8-10 locations per day, each at roughly the same time. So, I set up my lighting, time it for the degree of wing speed I want, tripod the camera, and wait with a shutter release in my hand. The body is set on continuous, auto ISO up to 3200, vivid color scheme if jpg, or else RAW.

I take a dropper bottle with sugar solution, and fill the flower blossoms they feed on, so they'll stay in place for an extra second. Nikon also makes longer, wider and faster lenses, the 6mm Nikkor being an excellent example. As a cabinet maker is able to add and subtartct fudge factors to produce a hand made chest of drawers that operates as smoothly as a ball-bearing file cabinet, even 300 years later, whereas, the amateur can take the most precision meaurements, and end up with drawers that don't close completely. The photographer can get the shot he wants the same way: fudge factors; built in latitude so as to allow for slight errors while still producing professional grade shots.

With AI processing, neural networks can be generated from huge datasets, and resolution can be added to digital images, out of focus images can be made sharp without the undesireable effects of sharpen filters. It's called unstable diffusion. Predictable noise is added to an image, and them it is taken out. Since it is difficult to differentiate the added noise from the pre existing noise, and given the neural network connected to millions of sharp images, unstable diffusion makes pass after pass, removing noise in the form of a blurred image, and replacing it with less noise, until it reaches a sharp image according to it's neural network.

To build such a machine requires about $1,000 in equipment, and the AI software is free. Further, a prompt can be added to accept written descriptions of a piece of artwork, and the program will produce the described image, in photorealistic, animation, hentai, soft anime, hard anime, HDR, and several other outputs. The data sets with premade neural networks are available for free download.

Such a system can produce photorealistic images exported to several image formats, that are indistingiishable from actual photographs of real objects,scenes, people--even specific living or dead people---in any manner of dress, or the way God dresses people. It can produce images of human females so beautiful it is difficult to takes your eyes off them.

That extreme of sensual beauty does not exist in reality. And the subjects of the artwork only exists as bytes on a storage drive. So, the user of such a system can feed it a picture of a real person, specify what changes to make, and an image corresponding to the the text description will be generated in seconds!

AI postprocessing is so far advanced from photo editors, it's like comparing a supercomputer to an abacus. Obviously there are objectionable uses to such technology, such are the key-phrase, 'remove clothing.' In the last few years, billions of such images have been created in the likeness of real, living females. So, it's up to the user to act responsibly, and install a block to prevent such use.

The barriers to creative expression in art have been eliminated. One can specify 'mean dragon', 'detailed', 'breathing fire', 'flying', 'mountains', 'warrior goddess riding on back', goddess wearing corset, choker, sfw, high heels, long thick blond hair in braid, perfect body, miss universe model, diamond jewelry, wielding sword, scandanavian, tall, long legs, perfect face, angry, pouty lips, athletic, muscular, age 30s, dark sky, castle, lightning, giant red ants, medieval, knights in armour on horseback, photorealistic, AI watermark

Within seconds the AI program will produce what is described in image prompt, sfw is a catchall, safe for workplace, which prevents nudity and/or obscene immodesty in the image, AI watermark marks the image with AI, in case a viewer might think the dragon is a real dragon.

And, every image is unique, theoretically, so the maker has a copyright to use the image, and prevent others from using it. As I mentioned, one may also use and existing image, such as from a camera, as a base, and specify alterations to it, such as 'resolution' 300dpi, size 2450x3270, noise reduction, passes 20, depth 5, interpolation, anime, vector, raster, HDR,

And the results are simply unbelievable. This is the next generation of postprocessing. The unstable diffusion system can be customized with plugins limited only by the imagination. With very powerful computing hardware--$3000-$10,000--the system will produce video in 1080p.

Since immoral losers set the ideal in human conduct at the minimum legal requirement, the mischievous have produced billions of images of females with clothing removed. If any females read this, do not keep digital images of your face on Internet-connected devices. Do not post them online, noot even privately. Do not send them to others. And if you date, choose well.

Revenge porn is now unstoppable. No legislation is possible to prevent nudifier sites. It is not possible to develop a comprehensive list of everything artists are not permitted to depict, and make the definitions sufficiently narrow to create a legitimate legal framework, while wide enough to prevent circumvention. Copyright laws apply, but offenders earn no income from their exploits, so there are,no tangible damages to be awarded in a lawsuit.

Even if there were, the amount recovered would be less than the expense involved in identifying the offender(s), serving them, legal fees, and one's own time. Generally, copyright claims must not exceed losses from imfringement. Since depicting mude females that don't exist, only the face, cannot be made illegal, no matter how disturbing, because there is no physical harm done, nor monetary loses that can be sustantiated.

The only protection is prevention. When a female sends a photo to her boyfriend, he promptly sends it to his male contact list group. Then, each of those contacts do the same. They all rate the female on a scale of 1-10, an send their ratings back to the originator. By the time the proliferation is complete, millions of males have rated the female, and have her photo on their phones. Eventually, it will be posted online, many times in nudified form.

There is simply no way to stop the process once it starts. So, females must not start it.

If children are fully clothed, and in a public place where privacy is not expected, i.e. outdoors, sporting event; there is nothing the law can do, because people are permitted to take photos of others in public. But a photos taken in a private residence, even if it's your own, or a hotel room, locker room, any place that requires membership dues, or any other place where common sense would dictate is not public. For photos of people not in public, you need a signed release from person(s) depicted to use the photos for any type of display. That's why posting revenge porn is illegal in the case of adults.

My rule is don't connect any device to the Internet that has photos on it you don't want to share with the whole world.

The fee-based tech-support is telephone support. For those who need an answer immediately, there is a fee. WHY?, because a company can handle 50-100 email support inquiries in the time it takes to solve one phone inquiry. There is no way to organize and track telephone support, or to include links to documentation that contains the answer.

Email support is free, because that is how every company performs tech-support. Support agents can read an email at 30x the speed of listening to a voice call. The entire tech-support system is set up for email. The agent reads the incoming email, looks in his support database, and with a mouse click, all the resources needed to solve the prolem are automatically inserted into a reply email.

Subsequent messages pertaining to the same problem can be added to the support ticket. The same agent handles the ticket from beginning to solution, so they're familiar with the case. You normally must get a free log in to the compqny website, so it can generate lots of personalized features where all your information is stored.

You register the products you own, supplying the information on the product registration form. Then the company knows the exact product, including serial number, because products can change slightly, and those changes are tracked by serial model and number.

If you just call on the phone, they have no information, and the agent has to ask specific questions to even start giving support. Email support with 24-48 hour service is free.

Jpg is a standard made in the 80s by Joint Photographic Experts Group, for which jpeg is an acronym. The primary purpose of the format is to reduce file size for storage and interchange purposes. The standard was released in the early 90s. Digital cameras use one or both of two jpeg formats, JFIF and ExIF, which are not compatible.

But it is possible to encode images that are both formats. Jpeg is a flexible standard of compression for digital images. If it weren't for jpeg, image files would consume 10x the storage space, and use 10x the network bandwidth to download or transfer on the Internet.

The drawbacks are: jpeg is not completely faithful to the actual scene photographed, and repeated editing degrades the image quality. Image editors like PS, GIMP, and others, convert the jpg to a lossless format that can be edited forever, with no degradation.

Then, it converta the lossless format back to jpg when you're finished. But it wasn't always that way. In the past there have been editors that used the jpg file itself. Every time the file was saved, it became a worse version of itself. Every time a jpg file is changed and saved to disk, there is loss in the compression. That's why it's called lossy. Even cropping a jpg directly causes loss.

A jpg file that is 500kB on disk, is uncompressed into ram memory, where it might consume 20MB of space. As long as nothing is changed, when the image is closed, the ram memory it used to be viewable is just discarded. So, the file is thunchanged no matter how many times it is viewed.

Since 2015, 15 billion jpg images are made per day. So, it is the most useful image format.

So, jpgs can degrade with time, but only if they're repeatedly edited. And, modern digital cameras can embellish jpg files as they are processed, because you can fit 100x the computing power into a camera in 2023 than in 2003. I have a profile in one of my cameras that sets the tone to vivid. Because many times I find the camera does a great job intensifying the image.

EXIF data is not standardized. Different cameras put it in different places in the image file, and include whatever information they want to be included. Third party EXIF viewers might not show all the EXIF data.

I connect my phone to PC with USB C to USB A cable. It pops up in file manager, and I can move files like it's a SSD in my PC.

Since 1996, Lexar was owned by 40-year-old American memory powerhouse, Micron, which makes the most cutting edge memory products in the world, including a 32 TB NVMe SSD. Micron products offer the highest performance and best reliability, period. Micron is the exclusive choice of NASA and the DoD.

In 2018, Micron sold Lexar to Chinese manufacturer,, Longsys. Lexar has never been the same. It lives on past reputation, but I avoid it, because it is not what it was.

When I need a frame, I go to the thrift store. It usually has about 50 of them. I find one I like that's about the correct size, and pay $3-$4 for it. I take it home, pull off the backing paper, bend up the u nails, pull everything out. I clean the glass, trim the print and/or mat with a razor and straight-edge, and self-healing cutting mat.

i line up the print with the mat, and tape it in place. Put everything back in the frame, bend the u nails back down, and hang it up. I only a 13x19 printer, so sometimes I have to pay for printing.

My personal experience is: the quality of the shot is a reflection of how much work went into it. I keep a 300mm f/4 on my main body, and if I want a different composition, I move the camera. You will never find a top quality zoom with a 10x range. But if you must, the 28-300 VR is a very good, reasonably priced, consumer-grade lens with excellent sharpness. It rivals the immensely popular 24-120 VR.

Invisible watermarks are not in the pixels. They are in a different part of the file called 'EXIF'.

You can get a PF for $1,000. You do get paid for photographing fire damage, right? Ii just can't get over the PF. It's light as a feather, it's like a macro, focusing down to about 5 feet. It's as sharp as sharp can get with a 300 f/4. I keep mine on a body all the time, because I use it so much. But if you've been using that wide zoom, you probably don't need the PF.

No one really knows what a star is supposed to look like. But for heavenly bodies you can use fast ISO, short exposure in a video. Then, you feed the video into a program that extracts all the really good frames. It blends those together, and you get an image that appears to be 10x the resolution of the video frame.

I strip the EXIF data before posting.

If your shooting for insurance purposes, eBay, text documents, etc, you don't need RAW! So you must be super amateur!