I can't help but agree with your theme, but I am less sure that it is relevant to a nudity flag.

I reckon there will always be problems around the boundary. Do you think a skimpy swimsuit is "nudity"? Is John Wayne holding a Winchester "violence"? (Bother, now I just have to do an image of John Wayne holding an HDD and a bikini, and looking puzzled.) We use the tags as a courtesy to others. If you want us to look after your kids, you can't afford my hourly rate.

And this is the thumbnail...

General rule: the Wild West is part of the Victorian World, though maybe not the high fashion end. There are differences between different parts of the world, such as fewer bowler hats, the Spanish-American influence in the south-west, and just the different climate. In England, servants might still be wearing clothes that wouldn't look out of place in the 18th century, but leaving out the cap and a different texture could put a housmaid, cook, or housekeeper into a Western town as a respectable lady of limited means. But watch the dates. People did follow fashion.

Thanks, folks. I think it's going to only be very approximate to attempt to show the limits of the depth of field, because it depends on final image size. Possibly the only way for computer art would be to base it on how much an out-of-focus point would bleed into an adjacent pixel. Phtotgraphy textbooks do give tables of depth-of-field for various combinations of focal length and aperture. Maybe we're looking at the problem from the wrong direction? Move the indicator plane to where you want the limits to be, note the figures, and set aperture and focal distance to suit that. This is, pretty well, what I'd do with a camera.

There's a lot of references out there, and they all look slightly wrinkly in reality, which either uses a lot of polygons, or some sort of bump-map... Unless you're talking the walk to the capsule at launch, you're also not likely to see the astronaut's head because of the sun visor, so anyone making a suit could get away with not fitting any specific character. I think there's been at least one suit done that way.

Yes, it's good stuff. I don't know if the new 3D World has the same, but it does use a MICS promo image, and seem suspiciously similar, so if you missed the stuff in Computer Arts... One glitch in the Computer Arts set: Some of the zipfiles contain files which have the same names as the subdirectories. So the zipfile shows a subdirectory and a file both called "Runtime". This rather confused the Windows software I was using: I couldn't just extract the whole lot in one swell foop. I can't say I'm entirely happy about the horror/torture element to some items, but that's partly a reaction to current news. Some fantasies have become a little too close to ugly realities.

Lyrra, I though that was my line.

One morph to think about: squeezing the breasts together like some clothes do. I can't off-hand think of any Poser figure that gets that difference.

Just to revive things... The camera is a Russian Fed-2, one of the earlier variants, manufactured about 1957, the the 50/f3.5 collapsible lens, while the meter is a Weston Master III of broadly similar age. The Fed-2 is sometimes described as a Leica copy, but is arguably a better design than the screw-mount Leica cameras of the same period. The Russians did copy the Leica, and the Kiev was a post-war copy of the Contax. In the fifties, they started improving things. The screw thread Leica design is a bastard to load film. You need to cut a longer leader, and it's a slow job, since only the baseplate of the camera opens and you have to thread the film in. It also has the rangefinder and the viewfinder with seperate eyepieces. The Fed-2 has a Contax-style combined rangefinder/viewfinder, and the base/back of the camera remove to load film; still a bit slow, but much easier than the Leica design. Anyhow, this morning a parcel arrived from Russia, and I have a different lens I can use, coming from the Contax/Zeiss line of development which the Russians cheerfully moveed over to the Fed and Zorki Leica-style cameras. A Jupiter-3, which is a 50mm/f1.5, and I am itching to get some prints shot and processed. OK, so the extra aperture isn't going to make any difference to the viewfinder image. This isn't an SLR. And the coupling between lens and rangefinder is rather important at f1.5 -- will things be in focus or not? But the extra aperture makes a big difference to the usable range of light levels, for shooting hand-held indoors without flash. Now, should I get a wide-angle or a telephoto next?

As a film-biased photographer, I just wonder what tolerance there is for such things as the differences between frame proportions on film and printing paper. I reckon the key is whether or not you controlled the process. 35mm negative to standard print from an automatic system such as the typical D&P line isn't postwork. Hand enlargement, with that room to adjust the exact framing, is postwork. Safest to stick to the 6x4 printe, which will scan to plenty of pixels, and matches the negative proportions.

Attached Link: http://www.lincolnshire.gov.uk/venuedetails.asp?venueCode=406

There is a website for Lincoln Castle, and the link is for the events list. The Wars of the Roses were early Renaissance, centred on about 1460. The Civil War is ours, in the 1640s, not the American one.

Looking back at the start of the thread... Ektachrome is the Kodak reversal film, E6 process that any pro lab can handle (and other companies use E6 process for their slide films, just as C41 is the chemistry for colour negatives).

Further fiddling suggests you needed to shoot differently. There maybe isn't enough brightness difference.

The basic yellow filter for monochrome work cuts out blue light. What you could do is split the image into an RGB set, darken the blue image, and recombine. Then convert to greyscale. For an unfiltered B+W image I reckon you should brighten the blue image, since B+W films are more sensitive to blue light. The other filters used will chop out more and more. One of the problems with digital is that you throw away a lot of spectral information. You keep the detail our eyes can see, but throw away some of what filters work on. Oh, and you know that green plants reflect a lot of red light?

[picture of a kid-safe P4 figure/texturemap] I'd be inclined to recommend Poser Artist, the old Poser 4, as some of the additions to Poser 5 get complicated. You can find some safer figures. Anthony Appleyard did a Poser 4 Blankwoman -- think of somebody in a wet-suit -- which is compatible with a lot of clothes. I did a texture for that figure which, alas, I deleted from the freestuff a few days ago. The low resolution versions of Vicki 1 and Mike 1 are kid-safe too, and I think they're still free. Little_Dragon has also done a Poser 4 catwoman which could be fun, and not too explicit. Maybe. Seperate clothes were introduced with Poser 4, and there are still Poser 3 figures out there with other sorts of clothes that the boring businessman stuff. Texture maps for figures can be a lot of fun -- virtual face-painting. If you do want a copy of my texturemap for the blankwoamn figure, let me know. The thumbnail is up there...