Here I go again...

http://members.cox.net/hutchndi/Picture%20003.jpg

http://members.cox.net/hutchndi/Picture%20004.jpg

My latest 20% wheat berrie soaker sourdough. I am having some trouble with
proofing times, this was taking so long I let it go overnight, hence the no
slashes and wild rising towards the top. Really yummy though.

hutchndi

"hutchndi" > wrote in message
news:sb7Kf.86810$QW2.64435@dukeread08...
> Here I go again...
>
> http://members.cox.net/hutchndi/Picture%20003.jpg
>
> http://members.cox.net/hutchndi/Picture%20004.jpg
>
> My latest 20% wheat berrie soaker sourdough. I am having some trouble with
> proofing times, this was taking so long I let it go overnight, hence the
> no slashes and wild rising towards the top. Really yummy though.
>
> hutchndi

Beautiful bread!
Where'd the little dough-boy come from? Boy, I'd like to get my hands on
that.
Is it just me or are the two (your bread and the boy) a little incongruous?
Wish this great bread were in my repertoire.
Dee Dee

Time for rye Hutch <g>...

Will

"Dee Randall" > wrote

> Where'd the little dough-boy come from? Boy, I'd like to get my hands on
> that.
> Is it just me or are the two (your bread and the boy) a little ?


Doughboy is from ebay, bought it as a replacement for my wifes original,
which she had given to our neice. Doesnt go with sourdough really, just for
my own size comparison.

hutchndi

"TG" > wrote in message
oups.com...
>
> hutchndi wrote:
>> Here I go again...
>>
>> http://members.cox.net/hutchndi/Picture%20003.jpg
>>
>> http://members.cox.net/hutchndi/Picture%20004.jpg
>>
>> My latest 20% wheat berrie soaker sourdough. I am having some trouble
>> with
>> proofing times, this was taking so long I let it go overnight, hence the
>> no
>> slashes and wild rising towards the top. Really yummy though.
>>
>> hutchndi
> Could you not get a bigger picture Hutch? Only I couldn't quite get the
> atomic structure of the bread. : -) But what I could make out was very
> nice.
>
> TG
Click on the bottom right-hand-corner arrow to make the picture larger.
Dee

"Dee Randall" > wrote in message ...
>
> "TG" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

> >> http://members.cox.net/hutchndi/Picture%20004.jpg

> > Could you not get a bigger picture Hutch? Only I couldn't quite get the
> > atomic structure of the bread. : -) But what I could make out was very
> > nice.

> Click on the bottom right-hand-corner arrow to make the picture larger.

Perhaps the point to be made is that the picture is too big. Here is an
example of a better size (and other improvement), through picture editing:

http://home.att.net/~muffkat/Picture004a.jpg

(Well, it is a subtle difference, and probably will not be noticeable to
the current menage of one-line quippers, quibblers and kibitzers.)

--
Dicky

Looks great Hutch !!!!! :-) nancy

>Here I go again...
>
>http://members.cox.net/hutchndi/Picture%20003.jpg
>
>http://members.cox.net/hutchndi/Picture%20004.jpg
>

"Dick Adams" > wrote
Perhaps the point to be made is that the picture is too big. Here is an
example of a better size (and other improvement), through picture editing:

http://home.att.net/~muffkat/Picture004a.jpg



Dick, thats great. The resize is do-able with what I have, though I am
guilty of laziness, but the other editing is beyond my present software.
What program do you use?

hutchndi

"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
news:_8lKf.5891$lR2.4145@trndny01...

"Dee Randall" > wrote in message
...
>
> "TG" > wrote in message
> oups.com...

> >> http://members.cox.net/hutchndi/Picture%20004.jpg

> > Could you not get a bigger picture Hutch? Only I couldn't quite get the
> > atomic structure of the bread. : -) But what I could make out was very
> > nice.

> Click on the bottom right-hand-corner arrow to make the picture larger.

Perhaps the point to be made is that the picture is too big. Here is an
example of a better size (and other improvement), through picture editing:

http://home.att.net/~muffkat/Picture004a.jpg

(Well, it is a subtle difference, and probably will not be noticeable to
the current menage of one-line quippers, quibblers and kibitzers.)

--
Dicky


Not sure what is happening with others browsers. But when I clicked the
link, it originally came across as rather large photos. When it finished
dl'ing the link, the pictures returned to a smaller size.

Gordon

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Gordon Hayes wrote:

> Not sure what is happening with others browsers. But when I clicked the
> link, it originally came across as rather large photos. When it finished
> dl'ing the link, the pictures returned to a smaller size.
>
> Gordon

That behavior is typical of Internet Explorer. With Netscape and Mozilla,
the image stays at full size, and requires scrolling...

Dave

How did you get this amount of gluten, do you use a machine to knead the
dough?

Thanks / JB

On Mon, 20 Feb 2006 23:04:42 +0000, danube
> wrote:

>
>
>How did you get this amount of gluten, do you use a machine to knead the
>dough?
>
>Thanks / JB

Howdy,

I have no idea what was done, but...

You can grow the gluten strands with no kneading whatever.

If the flour is hydrated long enough, the gluten will form.
One method is to mix the ingredients until there are no dry
pockets, and then refrigerate the dough for 24 hours or so.

That simple technique will provide all the gluten you will
need.

All the best,
--
Kenneth

If you email... Please remove the "SPAMLESS."

Actually,with Internet Explorer, it's a setting in your internet options.
Under advanced/ multimedia, requires a check in box to enable automatic
resizing.



>
> That behavior is typical of Internet Explorer. With Netscape and Mozilla,
> the image stays at full size, and requires scrolling...

"Dave Bell" > wrote in message rea.net...
> On Mon, 20 Feb 2006, Gordon Hayes wrote:

> > Not sure what is happening with others browsers. But when I clicked the
> > link, it originally came across as rather large photos. When it finished
> > dl'ing the link, the pictures returned to a smaller size.

> That behavior is typical of Internet Explorer. With Netscape and Mozilla,
> the image stays at full size, and requires scrolling...

The people making IE know today's i-surfers got big megapixel digicams
but no clue about sizing down huge picture files. IE attempts to give you a
hint by automatically showing you it can be done. Netscape and others,
on the other hand, respect your latency and don't try to budge you off your
dime or confuse you with throbulating graphics.

--
Dicky

Dick Adams wrote:
> "Dee Randall" <deedo
> Perhaps the point to be made is that the picture is too big. Here is an
> example of a better size (and other improvement), through picture editing:
>
> http://home.att.net/~muffkat/Picture004a.jpg
>
> (Well, it is a subtle difference, and probably will not be noticeable to
> the current menage of one-line quippers, quibblers and kibitzers.)
>
> --
> Dicky

Good one Dicky : -)

TG

>
> (Well, it is a subtle difference, and probably will not be noticeable to
> the current menage of one-line quippers, quibblers and kibitzers.)
>
> --

Hey, don't take it all so seriously. It's just a joke. When I opened
Hutch's picture the first time it was huge til it finished loading then
ping'd to a good size. It's no big deal to me. Just having a laugh and
Hutch knows me well enough to know that. I thought you could recognise
a little leg pulling in good humour or is your leg pulling not in good
humour. : -)

TG

"TG" > wrote in message ups.com...

> Hey, don't take it all so seriously. It's just a joke. When I opened
> Hutch's picture the first time it was huge til it finished loading then
> ping'd to a good size. It's no big deal to me. Just having a laugh and
> Hutch knows me well enough to know that.

Well, it should not be overlooked that the photos were in focus, which
is a rare occurrence. I thought it was funny to show one of the same
photos reduced in file size from 1.33MB to 76kB while retaining a
sample of the original resolution, but brightening it up beyond its
original twilight illumination. It was a small joke, and not intended
to be offensive to anyone.

> I thought you could recognize a little leg pulling in good humour or is
> your leg pulling not in good humour. : -)

I liked the part about the original graphic pinging itself down to a good
size. Hey, Sourdough Guy, no offence -- just pinging your leg.

--
Dicky

"Dick Adams" > wrote in message
news:YdFKf.917$gh4.756@trnddc06...

Well, it should not be overlooked that the photos were in focus, which
is a rare occurrence. I thought it was funny to show one of the same
photos reduced in file size from 1.33MB to 76kB while retaining a
sample of the original resolution, but brightening it up beyond its
original twilight illumination.

I wasnt bothered by this if anybody thinks I was, actually I liked seeing my
photo edited by someone who knows how. I am still curious as to what
software you used to create the little detail windows. Sorry this is off
topic.

sourdough, sourdough, sourdough

hutchndi

Dick Adams wrote:

> Well, it should not be overlooked that the photos were in focus, which
> is a rare occurrence. I thought it was funny to show one of the same
> photos reduced in file size from 1.33MB to 76kB while retaining a
> sample of the original resolution, but brightening it up beyond its
> original twilight illumination. It was a small joke, and not intended
> to be offensive to anyone.
>
> > I thought you could recognize a little leg pulling in good humour or is
> > your leg pulling not in good humour. : -)
>
> I liked the part about the original graphic pinging itself down to a good
> size. Hey, Sourdough Guy, no offence -- just pinging your leg.
>
> --
> Dicky

Lol, Looks like we've been getting our wires crossed. I liked your
resizing with the insert. When I viewed the photo the first time I was
at work on a screen with low res. Wow, talk about in your face. lol. I
think unless you've played with graphics you don't think how much time
can be saved by resizing. I was sent a couple of pics the other day at
9Mb each. I reduced them to 0.8Mb without loosing any noticeable
quality. But like you say Dicky at least they're in focus. : -)

Good photo's Hutch.

By the way, no offence taken Dicky. : -) I liked your little list of to
do's the other day. The funny thing is that if you did reverse the
meaning it was a good list to follow. A lot of the time you are a
grumpy old bugger, lol, but there's no nastyness. So don't mind me.

TG

"danube" > wrote in message
news
>
>
> How did you get this amount of gluten, do you use a machine to knead the
> dough?
>

Danube, I keep wondering about your question. What is it about my picture
that makes you ask this? How can you tell if there is allot of gluten? I am
not being sarcastic at all, I am curious, I look at the picture and I see
bread with holes and crust and little bits of wheat berries, maybe I dont
know what to look for yet. (by the way, I just hand kneaded)

hutchndi

A very nice looking loaf! Nice blistered crust, great open crumb. A
little overproofed but still it didn't collapse. I think it was a
successful baking day. I bet your family thought so!

Teresa
northwestsourdough.com

> (by the way, I just hand kneaded)
>
> hutchndi

Thanks for the reply. On the picture I see large glistening strands which
I suppose is gluten. I don't seem to get this on my bread. Mind you, I
often use about 20 - 40% of rye, but even pure wheat doesn't give this
texture. I also hand-knead, for about 10 minutes.
JB