The Power of Women In Spandex - Forums

Also here:

http://rapidshare.com/files/137779790/h ... y.mpg.html
Heather Thomas - The Fall Guy - black leotard & tights

http://www.tpowis.net/forum/viewtopic.php?f=18&t=889

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dnrxn74Uur8

(

Hey Bub, an old pic but I've not seen it at that quality. Please tell me you have the whole set at that size of Heather in that leotard and leggings. I had the complete set here but I'm pretty sure I lost a few during one of the many server moves.

Killatron they did not have HD digital cameras back when this photo was made...I wonder if this photo was 'digitally enhaced'?...or simply that since this was from a photo shoot this pic might have been taken directly from the negative hence its larger better quality but its NOT HD quality...at least not the HD we are used to seeing this past few years.

Davis, the term "HD" is associated with 1080p, a resolution that is FAR lower than the size this photo is. As for digital enhancement, the simple act of scanning the negative or print digitally enhances it, though it can be tweaked further by either the scanning software or something like photoshop.

Anyway, case in point, this is the highest quality version of that particular image I've seen. It's likely a recent scan of the print. But there is a whole photoshoot associated with this photo with some really great shots that would benefit from similar treatment.

That's it. Only one from that set.

My definition of HD is the 'new' digital photography with these advanced cameras with the 12+ mega pixels and sharp detailing that is now widely used in cameras that was not available 8+ years ago in 35 millimeter analog cameras @negatives...pre digital era you needed large negatives and high end cameras to TRY to come close to HD nowadays but that sharpness that we see now commonly is lacking in the pre digital age [you can save a photo in .png, .jpg ect more data can be saved than with a negative]...dont get me wrong that photo is large but if you look at it closely the sharpness [pixels] is not there as compared to pics posted to flickr, lets say, with any decent $50+ camera today.
thats what i mean by HD quality

bub3 wrote:That's it. Only one from that set.

You my have just one but killatron thinks that other negatives exist...Find them!

--note i said negatives. you need the original negatives to aproximate large HD quality photos. with the digital 6mega pix+ cameras of today you get better quality@larger photos without negatives

seems that this is not online already

Those red footed TIGHTS looks SO SILKY and SMOOTH!

www.instagram.com/p/C7_ecQkoDRz/
www.instagram.com/p/C7_ejPoonvh/
www.instagram.com/p/C7Y0DrRInRn/
www.instagram.com/p/C7PTSuTojB8/
www.instagram.com/p/C7Yz78Eoanp/
www.instagram.com/p/C7PJzV4oh3M/
www.instagram.com/p/C7Yz_OLIGRq/
www.instagram.com/p/C7PJvZEIWdO/
www.instagram.com/p/DB_F0gXomq_/
www.instagram.com/p/DCBpyRyo3l5/
www.instagram.com/p/DCEQCZroA0k/
www.instagram.com/p/C7Mjzz6oi-S/
www.instagram.com/p/C7Mj3-Uoh9c/

arnold schwarzenegger and heather thomas

www.instagram.com/p/Cl7alMaps7W/
www.instagram.com/p/CmES9--uzsB/

www.facebook.com/photo/?fbid=1522426372 ... 4179757406