smoked ham

[ruffinit]

good evening all!any you fellas have a recipe for a whole semi boneless ham?want to try this weekend in the smoker.thanks in advance.

mike

[ruffinit]

well the ham turned out great!best one i ever smoked.did the s&s ginger ham.smoked four hours,cooked total six hours,took out when internal temp. was 158f.perfect.what a nice picture.got one of all my smoked [masterpieces]no way to post yet.in time i will tho.happy easter all!

mike

[Oldman]

Mike if you can E-mail your pictures to me I will upload them my site and send to you the links to use.
Olds

[email protected]

[ruffinit]

thanks olds.i don't have scanner ,just printer,so i can't send pics.yet.i'm a rookie with p.c. as with my smoker,lol.in time i'll go to next step,just enjoyin the lernin i'm getting now ,with the puter,and ideas i pick up from the good folks on the forum.

mike

[Oldman]

I take it you are connecting your camera directly to your printer. If that is the case then check the software that came with your printer. You should have the option to save the picture to your hard-drive.  

Another option I always seen with every digital camera is a direct upload from your camera to your computer. Or a direct upload to the computer using a card reader.

Tell me what camera you have and what storage device it uses to store your pictures when you take them.

Below is a common type card shown with a reader that plugs into your USB port. If you are running Win XP you don't have to do anything but plug in the reader and then the card into the reader. XP will see the card as another storage device. You just use Window Explore to go to that device. Then Copy / Paste it to your hard-drive. If you are running a earlier version of Windows then you will have to install some simple software that is always included with the reader.




Next this is the reader I use. Cost me a whole $20.00 retail! It has a nice long cord and a suppressor.


Believe me all digital cameras come with a means to allow you to upload your pictures to your computer. Without this option reproduction of your pictures at best would be limited to a scanner. This is not an acceptable solution; as you will never get the same quality as a stored picture.  If they did not do this then what would be their value?

On a final note: Most will store your pictures in a jpg format. Once you save it and then re-open it DON'T re-save it over the original copy. The reason is JPG format is a compression format. Everytime you open and save it to the original  it compresses the picture more. So you begin to lose quailty.


Olds

[ruffinit]

thanks for the good info olds!i apologize for not explaining better.i don't have digital camera,just 35mm,no way to scan or upload/download pics.yet[:I].i'm starting to get more interested in posting my smokin with bradley pics.after seeing all from forum[and i like showin off][;)] but money is goin in too many places right now so i got a watch where i throw it.[actually i'm too cheap and i'd rather have money for gas for my boat,bait ect..][:D]like i said i am getting an itch to start posting but for now i'll keep makin the photo album.

mike

[Oldman]

Well can't sleep so I think I will rag a little here [:D]

If you ever do go digital I can tell ya I have the Cannon EOS 300 Rebel($995.00 retail.) It is not a Pro model. Those start $600.00 more and up to thousands more.  I purchased with it a high speed 512 meg. memory stick (6 meg per second transfer. $229.00 retail) I got the faster stick as the buffer in the Rebel is only good for 4 large jpg shots before you have to wait for it to trans the shot to the card. It is 6.3 megapixel. I just love the camera. It will take both the newer lens type as well as the older Canon lens.

I only shoot in large JPG, never in medium or small. A few times I will shoot in RAW. I shoot in large JPG as I want a lot of information to work with.

For example there are two pictures below. The first one is my dog, Skyway. The next one is only his Right eye from this first picture, but at 2000% of normal viewing. As you will see there is no pixulation at 2000%---everything is smooth in its blending into the next area / color. For this to happen you need much-o input!



The Right eye @ 2000% of normal viewing.


Here is a link for the Rebel, and there is much infor there about this camera. Posting board about it and sample shots etc.. Just be warned that if you do check out the sample shots they have been re-sized for faster downloading. However, at the bottom of each picture you can link to the original pictice---here is where the warning comes into play: most are 6 megs size.

http://www.dpreview.com/reviews/specs/Canon/canon_eos300d.asp

As I said it will also shoot in raw format. Which in the digital world that is the same as having film you have to develop. Ya I have a digital dark room. All software that is needed is include with the camera. Plus Adobe Photoshop Elements--which by itself in Best Buys the last time I looked was $129.00.

Below is a small copy of a picture I did for my Mother. It is of her late dog. I had it printed out on canvas 36" x 26". The center almost looks like it is out of focus. However, it is not. It is a reminder to us who knew David just how quick he was. That nothing ever got by him. Could I have done this with a 35mm? No I could not as it is made up of several shots, and without direct uploading into my system I would have had to scan and the lost of information would most likely have force me to have it printed off in a much small size. Not to mention the quality. Even if I had my film devoloped and place in a jpg format by kodak it would not have had the amount of information I needed to create this finished product.

Of course the quality of this sample is poor. When I finished creating this picture I saved it in a raw TIFF (non-compressed) format @ 300 dpi which came to 67 megs. The printers went WOW we can work with this!



Now that I got you fully bored let me show you one more item. I took this picture of one of my Hibiscus. And turned it into a stain glass picture. The stain glass picture is made up of many layers. By working with a Large JPG file I was able to cut out the layers needed at 500% for most layers to 1000% of normal viewing from the orginal picture. (Each layer required that I clone the original picture.) Thus when I layered them all back together to create this final image you cannot see where they were cut and pasted together. Look at the edges of everything. They are sharp and crisp. The detail is second to none! While I might have been able to create something close to this with film, I would have had to depixelate the edges by 2-6 pixels in order for it to flow. This depixelation would have caused me loss of sharpness.





This is an example of pixelation: It is a scanned picture shown @ 500% of normal viewing. Even using my vector program I'm not able to over coming this problem.


Well the morning paper should be here by now...LOL! [:D]
Olds

EDIT: There is an exception to all of this. I will look for a picture I created using Professionally made photos. 8X10

[Oldman]

Found it. This is a picture of my Mother on her wedding day with my sister a year before my sister's death. Both were professionally made 8x10 photos. As I look at it I can see I still had to de-pixel it some. if I remember correctly I scanned these in @ 600 dpi.

[Fuzzybear]

Hey Olds, how come you weren't fighting the troops instead of learning us about your digicam??  (tease!)

Seriously, for that kind of money you'd expect great quality and it shows in your prints...I've only got a 2.1meg Olympus - I shoot the small ones so I don't have to spend more time resizing (lazy?) and then sending and I can get only a few pics even with an 8meg card...oh well, it works!

"A mans got to know his limitations"
Glendora, CA - USA!

[ruffinit]

wow olds,you know your stuff on pics man!i read your post but most of it is really foreign to me.its a bit intimidating to me right now,but i'm glad your having fun with it.i'll stay with my horse an buggy for now,lol[:D]

mike

[Oldman]

Fuzzybear, ruffinit

I have had job offers do to graphic work....I tell them I do this for fun. If I did it for work I would hate it. Everything I know I taught myself by messing around.

Now ruffinit are you talking a fresh ham or ? If it is a ham that is already to eat then just take a layer of white cotton sheeting (bed sheet) or white T-shirt and smoke it 190-200 F until the meat is 160 max. temp.. Better is 150 F.  The last hour or so remove the cotton and allow it to brown a little more.

Once your "cooked" ham (store purchased--not a fresh ham) reaches 110 F turn it over while in the cotton. This will add color and flavor to the other side.

If you are talking about a fresh ham then you are going to have many hours of smoking until it is 180 F. At that point it will be a "pull" ham. More like pork and much less like a ham.

If you use a store purchased ham then get one with low salt.  If you can't find a low salt ham you might consider bring to boil enough water mixed with 1 qt vinager to cover the ham.  Once the water / vinager is boiling take it off of the stove. Place the "cold" ham in it  Allow the ham to sit in this mixtuxe one-three hours. This will help pull some of the salt from it without cooking the ham.  Rinse and then smoke it.  

EDIT one more thing. Do this on a Friday and allow it to sit in the frig until Sunday before eating it.  This will make a big difference! Eating it out of the smoker will not impress you. You got to give the smoke time to go through the meat.

Good luck
Olds

[ruffinit]

thanks olds.yes i did a semi cooked 12# ham,took straight from cooker to table.it turned out really good,all raved and nothin much left but the soup bone.that was my first,i'll take your advise and let next one set to let smoke filter through,sounds like i will like that much better as i like good ,abit heavy smoke flavor.

mike