Sign in with
Sign up | Sign in
Your question

PING: CATHY

Last response: in Digital Camera
Share
April 18, 2005 8:03:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:9qqdnWLxDuvLePzfRVn-hg@rogers.com...
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message news:9RD7e.610
> >I like www.multiply.com .
>
> Well, as I was saying I would have to check as to what my provider gives
> for web space. Last I saw on their home page, they said they had stopped
> using their own web site for customers web space but you could upload
> jpgs to geocities. I think geocities is free anyway, so no great favor.
> Is www.multiply.com free? Geocities was free last I heard. I only have
> a few photos that have been scanned that I took on my vaction. Any
> others would have to be scanned. so I am not in a hurry to do that. .

Yes, multiply is free. I think Geocities is the web site that pop-ups a lot
of annoying ads while you're viewing a page. Maybe they've changed since
I've last been on it.

> I checked multiply site but was only there briefly. I don't have time
> right now. Is there a separate site called photofan?
>
> Cathy
>

Hi Cathy,

Yes, it's my home page I created on the multiply site. It would give you an
idea how it could automatically lay out your own home page as you add
content to it.

I agree that it's a shame to think you'd have to invest another $80 for
red-eye removal software right after purchasing your new camera, on top of
purchasing your memory and accessories. If you have the time, why don't you
use your existing software on a red-eye photo to see how well it works. It
that doesn't do it, try some of the other FREE photo-editing software
mentioned in this NG. If you don't have the most current thread recently
posted about the free software in your OE folder, you can Google for it. Let
me know if you need a photo with red-eye to work on and I'll post it for you
to download. In spite of my best efforts, I get them, too, from time to
time.

I use ZoomBrowser software that came with my camera to remove red-eye. It's
got a one-button automatic feature that works very good. Manual mode is
almost as easy, you place a green dot over the red-eye and click to change
it. Simple stuff to use.

Renee

More about : ping cathy

Anonymous
April 18, 2005 8:03:03 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Renee wrote:
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:9qqdnWLxDuvLePzfRVn-hg@rogers.com...
>
>>"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message news:9RD7e.610
>>
>>>I like www.multiply.com .
>>
>>Well, as I was saying I would have to check as to what my provider gives
>>for web space. Last I saw on their home page, they said they had stopped
>>using their own web site for customers web space but you could upload
>>jpgs to geocities. I think geocities is free anyway, so no great favor.
>>Is www.multiply.com free? Geocities was free last I heard. I only have
>>a few photos that have been scanned that I took on my vaction. Any
>>others would have to be scanned. so I am not in a hurry to do that. .
>
>
> Yes, multiply is free. I think Geocities is the web site that pop-ups a lot
> of annoying ads while you're viewing a page. Maybe they've changed since
> I've last been on it.
>
>
>>I checked multiply site but was only there briefly. I don't have time
>>right now. Is there a separate site called photofan?
>>
>>Cathy
>>
>
>
> Hi Cathy,
>
> Yes, it's my home page I created on the multiply site. It would give you an
> idea how it could automatically lay out your own home page as you add
> content to it.
>
> I agree that it's a shame to think you'd have to invest another $80 for
> red-eye removal software right after purchasing your new camera, on top of
> purchasing your memory and accessories. If you have the time, why don't you
> use your existing software on a red-eye photo to see how well it works. It
> that doesn't do it, try some of the other FREE photo-editing software
> mentioned in this NG. If you don't have the most current thread recently
> posted about the free software in your OE folder, you can Google for it. Let
> me know if you need a photo with red-eye to work on and I'll post it for you
> to download. In spite of my best efforts, I get them, too, from time to
> time.
>
> I use ZoomBrowser software that came with my camera to remove red-eye. It's
> got a one-button automatic feature that works very good. Manual mode is
> almost as easy, you place a green dot over the red-eye and click to change
> it. Simple stuff to use.
>
> Renee
>
>
Some sites, such as Webshots allow some free space for posting photos.
They also have a 'premium' service for about $20 a year. I think I have
a few thousand pictures on it. As for red-eye elimination, you could
download the Kodak Easyshare software from the Kodak site. It isn't the
best software from several standpoints, but the red-eye elimination is
easy to use, and effective.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 18, 2005 11:37:09 PM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:WjG8e.7750$5f.6333@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:9qqdnWLxDuvLePzfRVn-hg@rogers.com...
> > "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message news:9RD7e.610
> > >I like www.multiply.com .
> >
> > Well, as I was saying I would have to check as to what my provider
gives
> > for web space. Last I saw on their home page, they said they had
stopped
> > using their own web site for customers web space but you could
upload
> > jpgs to geocities. I think geocities is free anyway, so no great
favor.
> > Is www.multiply.com free? Geocities was free last I heard. I only
have
> > a few photos that have been scanned that I took on my vaction. Any
> > others would have to be scanned. so I am not in a hurry to do that.
..
>
> Yes, multiply is free. I think Geocities is the web site that pop-ups
a lot
> of annoying ads while you're viewing a page. Maybe they've changed
since
> I've last been on it.

Hi Renee:

Yes, Geocities IS a very annoying website with popups. But last night I
checked my ISP'S home page and managed to get myself to my Member
Services area and saw the Photo part, which I hadn't looked for before.
My ISP is with Yahoo for processing mail and Yahoo provides other things
like the photo web space. So I managed to upload a few jpgs, but should
scan a few more. It seemed a fairly easy thing to do which surprised me,
because I've never uploaded jpgs to sites before, except to Ebay when I
used to sell some stuff now and then. I just have to figure out how
people would get to my photo space area. I will phone my ISP to ask. On
the photo area, they seem to have red eye removal, so thats another
option. I don't even have a camera yet, never mind worrying about red
eye or uploading photos - these pics I uploaded are all taken with my 35
mm. LOL. I didn't upload any of myself. I am almost as old as Ron, but
not yet :) 

> Hi Cathy

> Yes, it's my home page I created on the multiply site. It would give
you an
> idea how it could automatically lay out your own home page as you add
> content to it.

I think I am set up now on my ISP's web space with Yahoo to upload
photos. MY ISP offers various features of Yahoo to High speed Customers.

> I agree that it's a shame to think you'd have to invest another $80
for
> red-eye removal software right after purchasing your new camera, on
top of
> purchasing your memory and accessories.

Oh, don't worry Renee. I haven't the slightest intention of investing
any money at all for red eye removal software. I don't even have a
digital camera -haha. And when I do, I will try the Yahoo red eye
removel, or my new printer came with software which is for removing red
eye, so they say, or I can download the Kodak software which Ron
suggested.

If you have the time, why don't you
> use your existing software on a red-eye photo to see how well it
works.

I don't have any red eye photos Renee. I don't have a digital camera
yet. I am still looking. I've never had much red eye with my 35mm.

> I use ZoomBrowser software that came with my camera to remove red-eye.
It's
> got a one-button automatic feature that works very good. Manual mode
is
> almost as easy, you place a green dot over the red-eye and click to
change
> it. Simple stuff to use.

The camera I will buy when I decided which one I want and if the price
is right, will probably have red eye reduction software, so I have a few
options when the time comes.
By the way, did you see what I said in my last message about you
mentioning about my son not having very much web space? As I said, I
don't think I mentioned him regarding web space, as I haven't any idea
if he has web space or not. I've never asked him. I did say he has an
A80 Canon which he likes very much. Either that, or my memory is a lot
worse than I thought :) 

Thanks for your suggestions Renee. By the way, I was one a store website
here and your camera was on it refurbished for $350.00 Can. ($280.00
US). Next time I looked they had none left. When new, its $529.99 Can.
=$ 424.00 US.

Cathy
Related resources
Can't find your answer ? Ask !
April 19, 2005 3:46:27 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:8pqdnS9EM9762fnfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
> By the way, did you see what I said in my last message about you
> mentioning about my son not having very much web space? As I said, I
> don't think I mentioned him regarding web space, as I haven't any idea
> if he has web space or not. I've never asked him. I did say he has an
> A80 Canon which he likes very much. Either that, or my memory is a lot
> worse than I thought :) 
>
> Thanks for your suggestions Renee. By the way, I was one a store website
> here and your camera was on it refurbished for $350.00 Can. ($280.00
> US). Next time I looked they had none left. When new, its $529.99 Can.
> =$ 424.00 US.
>
> Cathy
>

LOL Yes, you're right. I read it too fast. For some reason "photos on" stuck
in my head as "photo son". What a dummy, eh? :-)

I'm not sure what my camera is going for at the retail stores these days.
The last time I looked at a web site, it was around $300. So $280 for a
refurbished one is too much to spend when you can get a new one for not much
more.

Renee
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 3:46:28 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:nFX8e.5910$_t3.4177@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:8pqdnS9EM9762fnfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
> > By the way, did you see what I said in my last message about you
> > mentioning about my son not having very much web space? As I said, I
> > don't think I mentioned him regarding web space, as I haven't any
idea
> > if he has web space or not. I've never asked him. I did say he has
an
> > A80 Canon which he likes very much. Either that, or my memory is a
lot
> > worse than I thought :) 
> >
> > Thanks for your suggestions Renee. By the way, I was one a store
website
> > here and your camera was on it refurbished for $350.00 Can. ($280.00
> > US). Next time I looked they had none left. When new, its $529.99
Can.
> > =$ 424.00 US.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> LOL Yes, you're right. I read it too fast. For some reason "photos on"
stuck
> in my head as "photo son". What a dummy, eh? :-)

Maybe I did say "photo son". I can't remember -LOL

> I'm not sure what my camera is going for at the retail stores these
days.
> The last time I looked at a web site, it was around $300. So $280 for
a
> refurbished one is too much to spend when you can get a new one for
not much
> more.

Well, the main thing is you like your camera. I looked at two Sony
cameras today which I liked. They are a bit more than I can afford, but
maybe they will be on sale in the not too distant future. The Sony S60
and DSCS 90, one has a 2" LCD and the other has 2.5" - SOO much easier
for me to see. I think thats what I will have to get. Both cameras are
pretty new, so doesn't seem to be any user reviews on them yet. I like
to see user reviews as well as expert reviews - to get the whole
picture -LOL.

Cathy
April 19, 2005 3:52:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:SmK8e.9922$c42.8245@fe07.lga...
> Some sites, such as Webshots allow some free space for posting photos.
> They also have a 'premium' service for about $20 a year. I think I have a
> few thousand pictures on it. As for red-eye elimination, you could
> download the Kodak Easyshare software from the Kodak site. It isn't the
> best software from several standpoints, but the red-eye elimination is
> easy to use, and effective.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Ron, Easyshare was already loaded onto my computer when I bought it. You're
right, it is easy to use. Though I really don't use it these days, I keep it
on my computer anyway in case I want it -- I like the feature where you can
print 6 wallet size on a page and plug in a specific number of copies for
each photo. That's a handy feature to have.

Renee
April 19, 2005 4:50:46 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:8pqdnS9EM9762fnfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
>
> I don't have any red eye photos Renee.>

Well, if you get some time and want to give it a go, here's one for you to
try:

http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/7/1.JPG?xurl...

Right click and choose Save Picture As. Then upload it to Yahoo photos and
try out the red-eye removal tool.

(Don't worry about it if you don't want to mess with it, though.) :-)

Renee
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 4:50:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Renee wrote:
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:8pqdnS9EM9762fnfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
>
>>I don't have any red eye photos Renee.>
>
>
> Well, if you get some time and want to give it a go, here's one for you to
> try:
>
> http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/7/1.JPG?xurl...
>
> Right click and choose Save Picture As. Then upload it to Yahoo photos and
> try out the red-eye removal tool.
>
> (Don't worry about it if you don't want to mess with it, though.) :-)
>
> Renee
>
>
That certainly does provide opportunities. You are suppose to fix
things like that before showing them to anyone.... sigh.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 4:50:47 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:GBY8e.6799$716.3833@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:8pqdnS9EM9762fnfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
> >
> > I don't have any red eye photos Renee.>
>
> Well, if you get some time and want to give it a go, here's one for
you to
> try:
>
>
http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/7/1.JPG?xurl...

Wow! those people look like the people in "Village of the Damned"
movie -LOL
I wonder what kind of camera took that shot so I can avoid it.

> Right click and choose Save Picture As. Then upload it to Yahoo photos
and
> try out the red-eye removal tool.

I've never seen a picture like that in my life with all that red eye.
From what I've seen digital cameras have far more of a red eye problem
than 35mm. I've had a few 35 mm cameras including a Canon and a Pentax
and a Minolta and all had red eye flash reduction and it worked, or
maybe I didn't take pictures of people so close as to have red eye.

> (Don't worry about it if you don't want to mess with it, though.) :-)

I'll give it a try when I get a chance (most things with me is "when I
have a chance" :)  When I am online I go to a lot of different places,
plus trying to play a couple of computer games (not online games).

Are you on that picture?

Cathy
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 6:02:40 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:GBY8e.6799$716.3833@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>>news:8pqdnS9EM9762fnfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
>>
>>>I don't have any red eye photos Renee.>
>>
>>Well, if you get some time and want to give it a go, here's one for
>
> you to
>
>>try:
>>
>>
>
> http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/7/1.JPG?xurl...
>
> Wow! those people look like the people in "Village of the Damned"
> movie -LOL
> I wonder what kind of camera took that shot so I can avoid it.
>
>
>>Right click and choose Save Picture As. Then upload it to Yahoo photos
>
> and
>
>>try out the red-eye removal tool.
>
>
> I've never seen a picture like that in my life with all that red eye.
> From what I've seen digital cameras have far more of a red eye problem
> than 35mm. I've had a few 35 mm cameras including a Canon and a Pentax
> and a Minolta and all had red eye flash reduction and it worked, or
> maybe I didn't take pictures of people so close as to have red eye.
>
>
>>(Don't worry about it if you don't want to mess with it, though.) :-)
>
>
> I'll give it a try when I get a chance (most things with me is "when I
> have a chance" :)  When I am online I go to a lot of different places,
> plus trying to play a couple of computer games (not online games).
>
> Are you on that picture?
>
> Cathy
>
I have seen quite a bit of red-eye in film photos, but there was nothing
that could easily be done about it. With digital, at least it can be
fairly easily fixed.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 19, 2005 7:09:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:f9_8e.3259$f6.2054@fe04.lga...
> Renee wrote:
>> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>> news:8pqdnS9EM9762fnfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
>>
>>>I don't have any red eye photos Renee.>
>>
>>
>> Well, if you get some time and want to give it a go, here's one for you
>> to try:
>>
>> http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/7/1.JPG?xurl...
>>
>> Right click and choose Save Picture As. Then upload it to Yahoo photos
>> and try out the red-eye removal tool.
>>
>> (Don't worry about it if you don't want to mess with it, though.) :-)
>>
>> Renee
> That certainly does provide opportunities. You are suppose to fix things
> like that before showing them to anyone.... sigh.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Right. And you really mean ugh! After viewing it full res, I realized how
horrid it was. So I took it off to practice some of my photo editing
techniques on it. Got rid of the noise and used the Unsharp Mask.

*Quite an improvement I think* Check it out now:

Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
Hi Res:
http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...

This was taken last year when the camera was brand new for me. Used Fast
Shutter to freeze dancing motion
Things I *think* I did wrong:
- Used Auto ISO when it should been 50 or 100 to reduce noise
- Used only FINE image quality
- Used AWB when Tungsten probably would have had less orange cast

With all the action and bustle going on at once here, I probably would have
been better off by just setting it for Auto everything. Little time to plan
these things during fast-paced moments like this when I'm so inexperienced
to begin with.
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 7:09:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Renee wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:f9_8e.3259$f6.2054@fe04.lga...
>
>>Renee wrote:
>>
>>>"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>>>news:8pqdnS9EM9762fnfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
>>>
>>>
>>>>I don't have any red eye photos Renee.>
>>>
>>>
>>>Well, if you get some time and want to give it a go, here's one for you
>>>to try:
>>>
>>>http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/7/1.JPG?xurl...
>>>
>>>Right click and choose Save Picture As. Then upload it to Yahoo photos
>>>and try out the red-eye removal tool.
>>>
>>>(Don't worry about it if you don't want to mess with it, though.) :-)
>>>
>>>Renee
>>
>>That certainly does provide opportunities. You are suppose to fix things
>>like that before showing them to anyone.... sigh.
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>
> Right. And you really mean ugh! After viewing it full res, I realized how
> horrid it was. So I took it off to practice some of my photo editing
> techniques on it. Got rid of the noise and used the Unsharp Mask.
>
> *Quite an improvement I think* Check it out now:
>
> Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
> Hi Res:
> http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
>
> This was taken last year when the camera was brand new for me. Used Fast
> Shutter to freeze dancing motion
> Things I *think* I did wrong:
> - Used Auto ISO when it should been 50 or 100 to reduce noise
> - Used only FINE image quality
> - Used AWB when Tungsten probably would have had less orange cast
>
> With all the action and bustle going on at once here, I probably would have
> been better off by just setting it for Auto everything. Little time to plan
> these things during fast-paced moments like this when I'm so inexperienced
> to begin with.
>
>
For a party, 'auto' everything is probably a good idea. Not much time
for twiddling with settings if you want to catch the action. Red-eye is
one reason I like to shoot without flash if possible.


If you look at my pictures, you won't see many with red-eye. Not
because it doesn't happen, but because I correct it in most cases.
I used to do it by recoloring pixel by pixel, which is tedious, to say
the least.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 19, 2005 7:25:34 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:kZGdnfD-HuQD6PnfRVn-iQ@rogers.com...
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:GBY8e.6799$716.3833@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>> news:8pqdnS9EM9762fnfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
>> >
>> > I don't have any red eye photos Renee.>
>>
>> Well, if you get some time and want to give it a go, here's one for
> you to
>> try:
>
> Wow! those people look like the people in "Village of the Damned"
> movie -LOL
> I wonder what kind of camera took that shot so I can avoid it.
>
>> Right click and choose Save Picture As. Then upload it to Yahoo photos
> and
>> try out the red-eye removal tool.
>
> I've never seen a picture like that in my life with all that red eye.
> From what I've seen digital cameras have far more of a red eye problem
> than 35mm. I've had a few 35 mm cameras including a Canon and a Pentax
> and a Minolta and all had red eye flash reduction and it worked, or
> maybe I didn't take pictures of people so close as to have red eye.
>
> I'll give it a try when I get a chance (most things with me is "when I
> have a chance" :)  When I am online I go to a lot of different places,
> plus trying to play a couple of computer games (not online games).
>
> Are you on that picture?
>
> Cathy
>

The links to the picture have changed, I did a little tweaking. Except for
their possessed looks, it's quite an improvement.

Here they are now:

Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
Hi Res:
http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...

It'd be nice to tell you I'm that first little thing sliding on under, but
nah, it's just not true. My body stopped performing like that many years
ago. Now I'm stuck with the refurbished model.

:-)
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 7:25:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:o S_8e.8988$5f.7957@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:kZGdnfD-HuQD6PnfRVn-iQ@rogers.com...

> >> > I don't have any red eye photos Renee.>
> >>
> >> Well, if you get some time and want to give it a go, here's one for
> > you to
> >> try:
> >
> > Wow! those people look like the people in "Village of the Damned"
> > movie -LOL
> > I wonder what kind of camera took that shot so I can avoid it.
> >
> >> Right click and choose Save Picture As. Then upload it to Yahoo
photos
> > and
> >> try out the red-eye removal tool.
> >
> > I've never seen a picture like that in my life with all that red
eye.
> > From what I've seen digital cameras have far more of a red eye
problem
> > than 35mm. I've had a few 35 mm cameras including a Canon and a
Pentax
> > and a Minolta and all had red eye flash reduction and it worked, or
> > maybe I didn't take pictures of people so close as to have red eye.
> >
> > I'll give it a try when I get a chance (most things with me is "when
I
> > have a chance" :)  When I am online I go to a lot of different
places,
> > plus trying to play a couple of computer games (not online games).
> >
> > Are you on that picture?
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> The links to the picture have changed, I did a little tweaking. Except
for
> their possessed looks, it's quite an improvement.

> Here they are now:
>
> Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
> Hi Res:
>
http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...

That one you just gave me looks much the same as the first one you gave
me - has just as much red eye. Or did I miss something?

> It'd be nice to tell you I'm that first little thing sliding on under,
but
> nah, it's just not true. My body stopped performing like that many
years
> ago. Now I'm stuck with the refurbished model.

What little thing sliding on under? what are they doing in that jpeg?
Are you on that photo? Looks like a bunch of teenagers.
Hmm. I haven't thought of a "refurbished" model. I thought that was more
to do with
cameras - unless you mean plastic surgery. LOL

Cathy
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 7:25:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:o S_8e.8988$5f.7957@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> The links to the picture have changed, I did a little tweaking. Except
for
> their possessed looks, it's quite an improvement.
>
> Here they are now:
>
> Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
> Hi Res:
>
http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
>
> It'd be nice to tell you I'm that first little thing sliding on under,
but
> nah, it's just not true. My body stopped performing like that many
years
> ago. Now I'm stuck with the refurbished model.

The first jpg you posted was very close up and I couldn't see enough of
the "little thing sliding under" so wasn't sure what you meant. I think
it was the high res. one. But the second jpg (second one above), was
more further away so could see the young girl under the wooden pole
thing.
Then I realized what you meant.

Both are bad for red eye, but the first one was worse as it was so close
up. Do you want me to see if I can get the red eye out of the very
closeup one, or the further away one? which is the best for a non
experienced person at red eye removal such as myself?

Cathy
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 7:25:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Renee wrote:
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:kZGdnfD-HuQD6PnfRVn-iQ@rogers.com...
>
>>"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
>>news:GBY8e.6799$716.3833@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>>>"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>>>news:8pqdnS9EM9762fnfRVn-2g@rogers.com...
>>>
>>>>I don't have any red eye photos Renee.>
>>>
>>>Well, if you get some time and want to give it a go, here's one for
>>
>>you to
>>
>>>try:
>>
>>Wow! those people look like the people in "Village of the Damned"
>>movie -LOL
>>I wonder what kind of camera took that shot so I can avoid it.
>>
>>
>>>Right click and choose Save Picture As. Then upload it to Yahoo photos
>>
>>and
>>
>>>try out the red-eye removal tool.
>>
>>I've never seen a picture like that in my life with all that red eye.
>>From what I've seen digital cameras have far more of a red eye problem
>>than 35mm. I've had a few 35 mm cameras including a Canon and a Pentax
>>and a Minolta and all had red eye flash reduction and it worked, or
>>maybe I didn't take pictures of people so close as to have red eye.
>>
>>I'll give it a try when I get a chance (most things with me is "when I
>>have a chance" :)  When I am online I go to a lot of different places,
>>plus trying to play a couple of computer games (not online games).
>>
>>Are you on that picture?
>>
>>Cathy
>>
>
>
> The links to the picture have changed, I did a little tweaking. Except for
> their possessed looks, it's quite an improvement.
>
> Here they are now:
>
> Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
> Hi Res:
> http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
>
> It'd be nice to tell you I'm that first little thing sliding on under, but
> nah, it's just not true. My body stopped performing like that many years
> ago. Now I'm stuck with the refurbished model.
>
> :-)
>
>
Well, the overall picture is greatly improved, but the red-eye problem
hasn't been addressed. Would you like to see what can be done with
that? Of course I wouldn't have an easy way to get the picture back to
you, except via email....


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 7:25:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:o S_8e.8988$5f.7957@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>>news:kZGdnfD-HuQD6PnfRVn-iQ@rogers.com...
>
>
>>>>>I don't have any red eye photos Renee.>
>>>>
>>>>Well, if you get some time and want to give it a go, here's one for
>>>
>>>you to
>>>
>>>>try:
>>>
>>>Wow! those people look like the people in "Village of the Damned"
>>>movie -LOL
>>>I wonder what kind of camera took that shot so I can avoid it.
>>>
>>>
>>>>Right click and choose Save Picture As. Then upload it to Yahoo
>
> photos
>
>>>and
>>>
>>>>try out the red-eye removal tool.
>>>
>>>I've never seen a picture like that in my life with all that red
>
> eye.
>
>>>From what I've seen digital cameras have far more of a red eye
>
> problem
>
>>>than 35mm. I've had a few 35 mm cameras including a Canon and a
>
> Pentax
>
>>>and a Minolta and all had red eye flash reduction and it worked, or
>>>maybe I didn't take pictures of people so close as to have red eye.
>>>
>>>I'll give it a try when I get a chance (most things with me is "when
>
> I
>
>>>have a chance" :)  When I am online I go to a lot of different
>
> places,
>
>>>plus trying to play a couple of computer games (not online games).
>>>
>>>Are you on that picture?
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>The links to the picture have changed, I did a little tweaking. Except
>
> for
>
>>their possessed looks, it's quite an improvement.
>
>
>>Here they are now:
>>
>>Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
>>Hi Res:
>>
>
> http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
>
> That one you just gave me looks much the same as the first one you gave
> me - has just as much red eye. Or did I miss something?
>
>
>>It'd be nice to tell you I'm that first little thing sliding on under,
>
> but
>
>>nah, it's just not true. My body stopped performing like that many
>
> years
>
>>ago. Now I'm stuck with the refurbished model.
>
>
> What little thing sliding on under? what are they doing in that jpeg?
> Are you on that photo? Looks like a bunch of teenagers.
> Hmm. I haven't thought of a "refurbished" model. I thought that was more
> to do with
> cameras - unless you mean plastic surgery. LOL
>
> Cathy
>
Cathy,
They appear to be doing a 'limbo dance'. And she means she isn't
able to do things like that any more. Some of us have limited
mobility/flexibility.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 7:25:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:o S_8e.8988$5f.7957@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>>The links to the picture have changed, I did a little tweaking. Except
>
> for
>
>>their possessed looks, it's quite an improvement.
>>
>>Here they are now:
>>
>>Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
>>Hi Res:
>>
>
> http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
>
>>It'd be nice to tell you I'm that first little thing sliding on under,
>
> but
>
>>nah, it's just not true. My body stopped performing like that many
>
> years
>
>>ago. Now I'm stuck with the refurbished model.
>
>
> The first jpg you posted was very close up and I couldn't see enough of
> the "little thing sliding under" so wasn't sure what you meant. I think
> it was the high res. one. But the second jpg (second one above), was
> more further away so could see the young girl under the wooden pole
> thing.
> Then I realized what you meant.
>
> Both are bad for red eye, but the first one was worse as it was so close
> up. Do you want me to see if I can get the red eye out of the very
> closeup one, or the further away one? which is the best for a non
> experienced person at red eye removal such as myself?
>
> Cathy
>
Go for the closeup one. One of the aspects of red-eye elimination is
getting the right magnification so that the program can work properly.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 19, 2005 8:59:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:p t-dnY207c87GvnfRVn-1w@rogers.com...
>
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:o S_8e.8988$5f.7957@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>>
>> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>> The links to the picture have changed, I did a little tweaking. Except
> for
>> their possessed looks, it's quite an improvement.
>>
>> Here they are now:
>>
>> Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
>> Hi Res:
>>
> http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
>>
>> It'd be nice to tell you I'm that first little thing sliding on under,
> but
>> nah, it's just not true. My body stopped performing like that many
> years
>> ago. Now I'm stuck with the refurbished model.
>
> The first jpg you posted was very close up and I couldn't see enough of
> the "little thing sliding under" so wasn't sure what you meant. I think
> it was the high res. one. But the second jpg (second one above), was
> more further away so could see the young girl under the wooden pole
> thing.
> Then I realized what you meant.
>
> Both are bad for red eye, but the first one was worse as it was so close
> up. Do you want me to see if I can get the red eye out of the very
> closeup one, or the further away one? which is the best for a non
> experienced person at red eye removal such as myself?
>
> Cathy
>

Yes, you had to scroll around the screen to see the entire 1st image. The
2nd image you could see on screen all at once.

Well, if you have a broadbrand connection, why not try them both? Start with
the smaller one since you'd be able to see it all on one screen without
scrolling. Then try the larger one to see if there's a difference. Remember,
my photos are only 3 mp and yours will be much larger if you go with a 4 or
5 mp camera. So that's why I say try them both.

This is the worst red-eye photo I have ever taken. It's unusual to find 6
people at once who have it. So if you can clean up this mess, you should be
able to tackle anything.

Out of curiosity, I'm particularly interested in seeing how other photo
editing programs work on this, and which one is easiest and works best.

Renee
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 8:59:23 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:Ke09e.6660$_t3.5059@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:p t-dnY207c87GvnfRVn-1w@rogers.com...
> >> Here they are now:
> >>
> >> Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
> >> Hi Res:
> >>
> >
http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
> >>
> >> It'd be nice to tell you I'm that first little thing sliding on
under,
> > but
> >> nah, it's just not true. My body stopped performing like that many
> > years
> >> ago. Now I'm stuck with the refurbished model.
> >
> > The first jpg you posted was very close up and I couldn't see enough
of
> > the "little thing sliding under" so wasn't sure what you meant. I
think
> > it was the high res. one. But the second jpg (second one above), was
> > more further away so could see the young girl under the wooden pole
> > thing.
> > Then I realized what you meant.
> >
> > Both are bad for red eye, but the first one was worse as it was so
close
> > up. Do you want me to see if I can get the red eye out of the very
> > closeup one, or the further away one? which is the best for a non
> > experienced person at red eye removal such as myself?
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> Yes, you had to scroll around the screen to see the entire 1st image.
The
> 2nd image you could see on screen all at once.

I see what you mean.

> Well, if you have a broadbrand connection, why not try them both?

I have a broadband connection, but its not "regular" high speed. Its 4
times the speed of dialup.
So won't take that long.

Start with
> the smaller one since you'd be able to see it all on one screen
without
> scrolling. Then try the larger one to see if there's a difference.
Remember,
> my photos are only 3 mp and yours will be much larger if you go with a
4 or
> 5 mp camera. So that's why I say try them both.

I am thinking more of a 4 mp camera. maybe even 3 mp. Hard to believe
your camera is only 3 mp. The camera looks so big. I bet its a good
camera though.

> This is the worst red-eye photo I have ever taken. It's unusual to
find 6
> people at once who have it. So if you can clean up this mess, you
should be
> able to tackle anything.

Yes, I can quite believe it :) 

> Out of curiosity, I'm particularly interested in seeing how other
photo
> editing programs work on this, and which one is easiest and works
best.

Well, I will try Yahoo that my ISP has on their site, and maybe my
printer software, and Irfanview has red eye removal as well, though I
have some problems with Irfanview with the size of my jpgs. When the
jpgs are huge and I resize them, it doesn't seem to be saved, even
though I click on Save as, so the next time I go to the same jpg, its
back to the same huge size. Other times I resize a jpg, there is a black
part at the right size of the jpg picture and I can't seem to get rid of
it.
But I will try it on Yahoo and the Canon printer software.

I think I will have to save your jpg to my hard drive first, then upload
it to my photos at Yahoo.
But for the printer software, I can do that from my hard drive.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 8:59:24 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:Ke09e.6660$_t3.5059@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
>>news:p t-dnY207c87GvnfRVn-1w@rogers.com...
>>
>>>>Here they are now:
>>>>
>>>>Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
>>>>Hi Res:
>>>>
>>>
> http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
>
>>>>It'd be nice to tell you I'm that first little thing sliding on
>
> under,
>
>>>but
>>>
>>>>nah, it's just not true. My body stopped performing like that many
>>>
>>>years
>>>
>>>>ago. Now I'm stuck with the refurbished model.
>>>
>>>The first jpg you posted was very close up and I couldn't see enough
>
> of
>
>>>the "little thing sliding under" so wasn't sure what you meant. I
>
> think
>
>>>it was the high res. one. But the second jpg (second one above), was
>>>more further away so could see the young girl under the wooden pole
>>>thing.
>>>Then I realized what you meant.
>>>
>>>Both are bad for red eye, but the first one was worse as it was so
>
> close
>
>>>up. Do you want me to see if I can get the red eye out of the very
>>>closeup one, or the further away one? which is the best for a non
>>>experienced person at red eye removal such as myself?
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>Yes, you had to scroll around the screen to see the entire 1st image.
>
> The
>
>>2nd image you could see on screen all at once.
>
>
> I see what you mean.
>
>
>>Well, if you have a broadbrand connection, why not try them both?
>
>
> I have a broadband connection, but its not "regular" high speed. Its 4
> times the speed of dialup.
> So won't take that long.
>
> Start with
>
>>the smaller one since you'd be able to see it all on one screen
>
> without
>
>>scrolling. Then try the larger one to see if there's a difference.
>
> Remember,
>
>>my photos are only 3 mp and yours will be much larger if you go with a
>
> 4 or
>
>>5 mp camera. So that's why I say try them both.
>
>
> I am thinking more of a 4 mp camera. maybe even 3 mp. Hard to believe
> your camera is only 3 mp. The camera looks so big. I bet its a good
> camera though.
>
>
>>This is the worst red-eye photo I have ever taken. It's unusual to
>
> find 6
>
>>people at once who have it. So if you can clean up this mess, you
>
> should be
>
>>able to tackle anything.
>
>
> Yes, I can quite believe it :) 
>
>
>>Out of curiosity, I'm particularly interested in seeing how other
>
> photo
>
>>editing programs work on this, and which one is easiest and works
>
> best.
>
> Well, I will try Yahoo that my ISP has on their site, and maybe my
> printer software, and Irfanview has red eye removal as well, though I
> have some problems with Irfanview with the size of my jpgs. When the
> jpgs are huge and I resize them, it doesn't seem to be saved, even
> though I click on Save as, so the next time I go to the same jpg, its
> back to the same huge size. Other times I resize a jpg, there is a black
> part at the right size of the jpg picture and I can't seem to get rid of
> it.
> But I will try it on Yahoo and the Canon printer software.
>
> I think I will have to save your jpg to my hard drive first, then upload
> it to my photos at Yahoo.
> But for the printer software, I can do that from my hard drive.
>
> Cathy
>
Cathy,
Forget the Irfanview red-eye elimination. It stinks, badly. I love
Irfanview, but in this area, it isn't usable.
Try Turbo Photo (you can try a trial version), Kodak Easyshare, and, if
you are really brave, the trial of Adobe's Photoshop Elements 3.0.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 19, 2005 9:12:32 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:1fWdnW7bVZXrH_nfRVn-og@rogers.com...
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
>> The links to the picture have changed, I did a little tweaking. Except
> for
>> their possessed looks, it's quite an improvement.
>
>> Here they are now:
>>
>> Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
>> Hi Res:
>> http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
>
> That one you just gave me looks much the same as the first one you gave
> me - has just as much red eye. Or did I miss something?
> Cathy
>

The changes are a bit subtle, Cathy. Yes, the red eye is still there. But I
removed the noise (graininess) from the photo and sharpened it up a bit. It
was embarrassing to see that I had just posted my most truly horrid work so
I decided to fix it. I hate it when I hear a photographer like Ron sign like
that.

Of course, if I hadn't already burned the original, I'd show you difference.

;-)
Anonymous
April 19, 2005 9:12:33 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:4r09e.6823$716.6772@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:1fWdnW7bVZXrH_nfRVn-og@rogers.com...
> > "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> >> The links to the picture have changed, I did a little tweaking.
Except
> > for
> >> their possessed looks, it's quite an improvement.
> >
> >> Here they are now:
> >>
> >> Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
> >> Hi Res:
> >>
http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
> >
> > That one you just gave me looks much the same as the first one you
gave
> > me - has just as much red eye. Or did I miss something?
> > Cathy
> >
>
> The changes are a bit subtle, Cathy. Yes, the red eye is still there.
But I
> removed the noise (graininess) from the photo and sharpened it up a
bit. It
> was embarrassing to see that I had just posted my most truly horrid
work so
> I decided to fix it. I hate it when I hear a photographer like Ron
sign like
> that.

Well, everybody has to learn and I'm sure mine will have things wrong
with them. I wouldn't be embarrassed. I just take it as a learning
experience and you don't need to be perfect, unless you work as a
photographer, and even they wouldn't be perfect all the time.

> Of course, if I hadn't already burned the original, I'd show you
difference.
>
> ;-)

Well, the two you gave me are enough to work on. Don't know when I will
get to it, but I will get to it. Was the jpgs of the young people
someones birthday?

Cathy
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 1:51:12 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:l229e.10331$c42.9286@fe07.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
> > I'll give it a try when I get a chance (most things with me is "when
I
> > have a chance" :)  When I am online I go to a lot of different
places,
> > plus trying to play a couple of computer games (not online games).
> >
> > Are you on that picture?
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> I have seen quite a bit of red-eye in film photos, but there was
nothing
> that could easily be done about it. With digital, at least it can be
> fairly easily fixed.

Well, I can only say I've never had any problem to speak of with red eye
problems in any of the film photos I've taken, or maybe I just don't
take them too close up. My present camera and the one before, had red
eye reduction, where you press sthe button half way down for red eye
reduction, then press it all the way, but some people don't like that
when getting their pics taken.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 1:56:04 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:n629e.10335$c42.2604@fe07.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
> > "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> > news:o S_8e.8988$5f.7957@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> >
> >>"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> >>news:kZGdnfD-HuQD6PnfRVn-iQ@rogers.com...
> >
> >
> >>>>>I don't have any red eye photos Renee.>
> >>>>
> >>>>Well, if you get some time and want to give it a go, here's one
for
> >>>
> >>>you to
> >>>
> >>>>try:
> >>>
> >>>Wow! those people look like the people in "Village of the Damned"
> >>>movie -LOL
> >>>I wonder what kind of camera took that shot so I can avoid it.
> >>>
> >>>
> >>>>Right click and choose Save Picture As. Then upload it to Yahoo
> >
> > photos
> >
> >>>and
> >>>
> >>>>try out the red-eye removal tool.
> >>>
> >>>I've never seen a picture like that in my life with all that red
> >
> > eye.
> >
> >>>From what I've seen digital cameras have far more of a red eye
> >
> > problem
> >
> >>>than 35mm. I've had a few 35 mm cameras including a Canon and a
> >
> > Pentax
> >
> >>>and a Minolta and all had red eye flash reduction and it worked, or
> >>>maybe I didn't take pictures of people so close as to have red eye.
> >>>
> >>>I'll give it a try when I get a chance (most things with me is
"when
> >
> > I
> >
> >>>have a chance" :)  When I am online I go to a lot of different
> >
> > places,
> >
> >>>plus trying to play a couple of computer games (not online games).
> >>>
> >>>Are you on that picture?
> >>>
> >>>Cathy
> >>>
> >>
> >>The links to the picture have changed, I did a little tweaking.
Except
> >
> > for
> >
> >>their possessed looks, it's quite an improvement.
> >
> >
> >>Here they are now:
> >>
> >>Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
> >>Hi Res:
> >>
> >
> >
http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
> >
> > That one you just gave me looks much the same as the first one you
gave
> > me - has just as much red eye. Or did I miss something?
> >
> >
> >>It'd be nice to tell you I'm that first little thing sliding on
under,
> >
> > but
> >
> >>nah, it's just not true. My body stopped performing like that many
> >
> > years
> >
> >>ago. Now I'm stuck with the refurbished model.
> >
> >
> > What little thing sliding on under? what are they doing in that
jpeg?
> > Are you on that photo? Looks like a bunch of teenagers.
> > Hmm. I haven't thought of a "refurbished" model. I thought that was
more
> > to do with
> > cameras - unless you mean plastic surgery. LOL
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> Cathy,
> They appear to be doing a 'limbo dance'. And she means she isn't
> able to do things like that any more. Some of us have limited
> mobility/flexibility.

Yes, I saw that on the second jpg which Renee posted. The first one was
higher resolution and was a very big picture and it wasn't clear that it
was a wooden pole for the limbo. But with Renee's second jpg, it was the
entire picture so I could see that it was a limbo dance. I wouldn't be
able to do that any more either. Or if I got down a little, I wouldn't
be able to get back up again.

Cathy
April 20, 2005 5:02:05 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:n629e.10335$c42.2604@fe07.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
>> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
>>
>>>Here they are now:
>>>
>>>Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
>>>Hi Res:
>>>http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
>>
>> That one you just gave me looks much the same as the first one you gave
>> me - has just as much red eye. Or did I miss something?
>>
>>
>>>It'd be nice to tell you I'm that first little thing sliding on under,
>> but nah, it's just not true. My body stopped performing like that many
>> years ago. Now I'm stuck with the refurbished model.
>>
>>
>> What little thing sliding on under? what are they doing in that jpeg?
>> Are you on that photo? Looks like a bunch of teenagers.
>> Hmm. I haven't thought of a "refurbished" model. I thought that was more
>> to do with cameras - unless you mean plastic surgery. LOL
>>
>> Cathy
>>
> Cathy,
> They appear to be doing a 'limbo dance'. And she means she isn't able
> to do things like that any more. Some of us have limited
> mobility/flexibility.
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Yeah, you have to be pretty limber to limbo.

Cathy, I imagine things were quite different in Scotland but years ago in
the States, The Limbo was a frequently played game at both children's and
adult parties. When I was a kid, we did The Hokey Pokey (heh heh), The
Polka, The Alley Cat, dosie-doed at a Square Dance, and played Musical
Chairs. Any of that sound familiar? You don't find that kind of hokeyness
these days, except maybe on a cruise, which is where the photo happened to
be taken.

The Limbo is always played to Caribbean-type music. A favorite is Chubby
Checker's Limbo Rock.
Music clip at http://www.chubbychecker.com/mp3clip/Limbo%20Rock.mp3
Full song lyrics at
http://www.songlyrics4u.com/chubby-checker/limbo-rock.h...
Background at http://www.streetswing.com/histmain/z3limbo.htm

Renee
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 5:02:06 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:hSh9e.9093$5f.6027@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:n629e.10335$c42.2604@fe07.lga...
> > Cathy wrote:
> >> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> >>
> >>>Here they are now:
> >>>
> >>>Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
> >>>Hi Res:
>
>>>http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
hoto%2F8%2F1.JPG
> >>
> >> That one you just gave me looks much the same as the first one you
gave
> >> me - has just as much red eye. Or did I miss something?
> >>
> >>
> >>>It'd be nice to tell you I'm that first little thing sliding on
under,
> >> but nah, it's just not true. My body stopped performing like that
many
> >> years ago. Now I'm stuck with the refurbished model.
> >>
> >>
> >> What little thing sliding on under? what are they doing in that
jpeg?
> >> Are you on that photo? Looks like a bunch of teenagers.
> >> Hmm. I haven't thought of a "refurbished" model. I thought that was
more
> >> to do with cameras - unless you mean plastic surgery. LOL
> >>
> >> Cathy
> >>
> > Cathy,
> > They appear to be doing a 'limbo dance'. And she means she isn't
able
> > to do things like that any more. Some of us have limited
> > mobility/flexibility.
> >
> >
> > --
> > Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
> Yeah, you have to be pretty limber to limbo.
>
> Cathy, I imagine things were quite different in Scotland but years ago
in
> the States, The Limbo was a frequently played game at both children's
and
> adult parties.

I should have mentioned that I came to Canada when I was 15, which was a
very long time ago.I don't want to even think how long ago :)  The limbo
was popular here in Canada too. Probably at the same time it was popular
in the States. Wasn't it Chucky Checkers who made it famous "Limbo
Rock", or was that someone else?

When I was a kid, we did The Hokey Pokey (heh heh), The
> Polka, The Alley Cat, dosie-doed at a Square Dance, and played Musical
> Chairs. Any of that sound familiar? You don't find that kind of
hokeyness
> these days, except maybe on a cruise, which is where the photo
happened to
> be taken.

I remember the Hokey Pokey at high school dances and sometimes weddings.
Don't remember Alley Cat though, but Musical Chairs has been around for
a very long time. I played it in Scotland as a kid, and later on in
Canada at various get togethers. I don't go to social functions like I
used to. It was all a lot of fun.

> The Limbo is always played to Caribbean-type music. A favorite is
Chubby
> Checker's Limbo Rock.
> Music clip at http://www.chubbychecker.com/mp3clip/Limbo%20Rock.mp3
> Full song lyrics at
> http://www.songlyrics4u.com/chubby-checker/limbo-rock.h...
> Background at http://www.streetswing.com/histmain/z3limbo.htm

Yes, the audio was very good. Takes me back in time. Wouldn't that have
been the late 50's and 60's when the limbo was popular? I'm surprised
they are still doing it at some gatherings as in your jpg.

Cathy
April 20, 2005 5:02:44 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:M429e.10332$c42.4554@fe07.lga...
> Renee wrote:

>> The links to the picture have changed, I did a little tweaking. Except
>> for their possessed looks, it's quite an improvement.
>>
>> Here they are now:
>>
>> Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
>> Hi Res:
>> http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
>>
>>
>>
> Well, the overall picture is greatly improved, but the red-eye problem
> hasn't been addressed. Would you like to see what can be done with that?
> Of course I wouldn't have an easy way to get the picture back to you,
> except via email....
>
>
> --
> Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net

Well you know I left that in for Cathy, don't you? :-)

Yes, if you have time I'd be curious to see what you can do with it and how
much you had to fuss with it to get it natural looking. My one-button
software solution left some of the eyes with unnaturally large shiny white
spots (there's probably a technical term for those shiny spots). So I would
have had to bring it into a photo editing program anyway for further
clean-up.

I'll send an e-mail to your address above. You can reply to that e-mail and
attach the fixed photo. If you've munged your address, let me know and we'll
think of another way.

Make note of the software you used, and whether you needed to use additional
editing tools besides the red-eye removal tool. If anyone else wants to give
it go, let me know. I could post any noteworthy comparisons on my web site
for those who might be interested.

Renee
Anonymous
April 20, 2005 5:02:45 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Renee wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:M429e.10332$c42.4554@fe07.lga...
>
>>Renee wrote:
>
>
>>>The links to the picture have changed, I did a little tweaking. Except
>>>for their possessed looks, it's quite an improvement.
>>>
>>>Here they are now:
>>>
>>>Mid-size: http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/photo/8/1.JPG
>>>Hi Res:
>>>http://photofan.multiply.com/photos/hi-res/8/1.JPG?xurl...
>>>
>>>
>>>
>>
>>Well, the overall picture is greatly improved, but the red-eye problem
>>hasn't been addressed. Would you like to see what can be done with that?
>>Of course I wouldn't have an easy way to get the picture back to you,
>>except via email....
>>
>>
>>--
>>Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
>
>
> Well you know I left that in for Cathy, don't you? :-)
>
> Yes, if you have time I'd be curious to see what you can do with it and how
> much you had to fuss with it to get it natural looking. My one-button
> software solution left some of the eyes with unnaturally large shiny white
> spots (there's probably a technical term for those shiny spots). So I would
> have had to bring it into a photo editing program anyway for further
> clean-up.
>
> I'll send an e-mail to your address above. You can reply to that e-mail and
> attach the fixed photo. If you've munged your address, let me know and we'll
> think of another way.
>
> Make note of the software you used, and whether you needed to use additional
> editing tools besides the red-eye removal tool. If anyone else wants to give
> it go, let me know. I could post any noteworthy comparisons on my web site
> for those who might be interested.
>
> Renee
>
>
Renee,
I will work on it tomorrow. Too tired and sleepy to do it today. I
went shopping at CompUSA, Office Depot, and Circuit City today. That is
the first time I have been able to walk long enough to make such a tour
in about 6 months. I think I may have overdone it a bit. At least I
got to visit new stores in the last two cases that have been open since
around Christmas time.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 23, 2005 1:44:00 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Hi Cathy,

Your link to your Scotland Yahoo photos didn't work for me. It looks like
you sent the link to the page when you were logged in under your name, so
anyone else trying to get to that particular link wouldn't be able to access
it unless they were logged under your name, too.

When I want to share a Yahoo photo album link, I use the 'Share Album'
option and mail the invitation to *myself*. Then I open e-mail, and copy the
link address listed in the e-mail invitation. I can then paste the link into
a newsgroup message. Maybe this will work for you, too.

Renee
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 1:44:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:Aeeae.9621$716.3371@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
> Hi Cathy,
>
> Your link to your Scotland Yahoo photos didn't work for me.

Sorry about that.
Renee, where have you been? you disappeared for a few days. I had a
problem with those Yahoo photos yesterday with other people seeing them
and just got it fixed today. I spent about an hour yesterday on the
phone with two different techs at my ISP talking about the Yahoo photos,
but nothing to do with other people accessing the site. I only found out
about that today and had to phone them and again was on the phone for 35
minutes or so. I seem to have spent all afternoon yesterday and today on
the phone trying to fix up my problems on the photo site. Finally I got
a tech today who was able to fix the problem I was having by going into
my photo area, but he had to dig deep.

It looks like
> you sent the link to the page when you were logged in under your name,
so
> anyone else trying to get to that particular link wouldn't be able to
access
> it unless they were logged under your name, too.

Yes, I think thats what I did. The two techs I talked to yesterday
didn't mention that it had to be a different URL and I even asked them
if the URL which I gave you was ok and they said yes, so I wasn't sure
what I was doing :) 

> When I want to share a Yahoo photo album link, I use the 'Share Album'
> option and mail the invitation to *myself*. Then I open e-mail, and
copy the
> link address listed in the e-mail invitation. I can then paste the
link into
> a newsgroup message. Maybe this will work for you, too.

I was too slow to think of that, and even if I had, there was another
problem on my photos page that the tech fixed it today. It was a glitch
from me deleting an album but it was still showing up as not being
deleted. The tech took a while to find out the problem. The correct URL
is http://photos.yahoo.com/skxbx61@rogers.com - you will see two albums.
One is the few Scottish photos I took, and the album calleld Red eye is
the one I experimented with your red eye jpgs. I made a few jpgs of the
same jpg you gave me, and tried fixing the red eye but the one I called
Redfix is the best I could do, though not great.
Some of the red eye came out with a couple of people but with the two
kids at the back, its not much improved, though better than what it was.
I tried about 4 different red eye programs and the Yahoo worked the
best, though not great. I'm sure other people could do better than me. I
have no experience in red eye.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 1:44:01 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Renee wrote:
> Hi Cathy,
>
> Your link to your Scotland Yahoo photos didn't work for me. It looks like
> you sent the link to the page when you were logged in under your name, so
> anyone else trying to get to that particular link wouldn't be able to access
> it unless they were logged under your name, too.
>
> When I want to share a Yahoo photo album link, I use the 'Share Album'
> option and mail the invitation to *myself*. Then I open e-mail, and copy the
> link address listed in the e-mail invitation. I can then paste the link into
> a newsgroup message. Maybe this will work for you, too.
>
> Renee
>
>
I have the same problem when I try to send people links to my Webshots
albums. I have to log out, then search for my id, then find the
picture, then copy the link. Messy.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 1:44:02 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
> news:Aeeae.9621$716.3371@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
>>Hi Cathy,
>>
>>Your link to your Scotland Yahoo photos didn't work for me.
>
>
> Sorry about that.
> Renee, where have you been? you disappeared for a few days. I had a
> problem with those Yahoo photos yesterday with other people seeing them
> and just got it fixed today. I spent about an hour yesterday on the
> phone with two different techs at my ISP talking about the Yahoo photos,
> but nothing to do with other people accessing the site. I only found out
> about that today and had to phone them and again was on the phone for 35
> minutes or so. I seem to have spent all afternoon yesterday and today on
> the phone trying to fix up my problems on the photo site. Finally I got
> a tech today who was able to fix the problem I was having by going into
> my photo area, but he had to dig deep.
>
> It looks like
>
>>you sent the link to the page when you were logged in under your name,
>
> so
>
>>anyone else trying to get to that particular link wouldn't be able to
>
> access
>
>>it unless they were logged under your name, too.
>
>
> Yes, I think thats what I did. The two techs I talked to yesterday
> didn't mention that it had to be a different URL and I even asked them
> if the URL which I gave you was ok and they said yes, so I wasn't sure
> what I was doing :) 
>
>
>>When I want to share a Yahoo photo album link, I use the 'Share Album'
>>option and mail the invitation to *myself*. Then I open e-mail, and
>
> copy the
>
>>link address listed in the e-mail invitation. I can then paste the
>
> link into
>
>>a newsgroup message. Maybe this will work for you, too.
>
>
> I was too slow to think of that, and even if I had, there was another
> problem on my photos page that the tech fixed it today. It was a glitch
> from me deleting an album but it was still showing up as not being
> deleted. The tech took a while to find out the problem. The correct URL
> is http://photos.yahoo.com/skxbx61@rogers.com - you will see two albums.
> One is the few Scottish photos I took, and the album calleld Red eye is
> the one I experimented with your red eye jpgs. I made a few jpgs of the
> same jpg you gave me, and tried fixing the red eye but the one I called
> Redfix is the best I could do, though not great.
> Some of the red eye came out with a couple of people but with the two
> kids at the back, its not much improved, though better than what it was.
> I tried about 4 different red eye programs and the Yahoo worked the
> best, though not great. I'm sure other people could do better than me. I
> have no experience in red eye.
>
> Cathy
>
I have tried about 6 different programs (maybe more), with no really
satisfactory outcome. I may point some of th experts on the Adobe
Photoshop Elements site at it. It certainly is a good test case.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 1:48:35 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:2bgae.18496$Ow2.16878@fe06.lga...
> Renee wrote:
> > Hi Cathy,
> >
> > Your link to your Scotland Yahoo photos didn't work for me. It looks
like
> > you sent the link to the page when you were logged in under your
name, so
> > anyone else trying to get to that particular link wouldn't be able
to access
> > it unless they were logged under your name, too.
> >
> > When I want to share a Yahoo photo album link, I use the 'Share
Album'
> > option and mail the invitation to *myself*. Then I open e-mail, and
copy the
> > link address listed in the e-mail invitation. I can then paste the
link into
> > a newsgroup message. Maybe this will work for you, too.
> >
> > Renee
> >
> >
> I have the same problem when I try to send people links to my Webshots
> albums. I have to log out, then search for my id, then find the
> picture, then copy the link. Messy.

I didn't have to do that once I spoke to the tech this afternoon. On the
Yahoo photo site, there is a section at the bottom saying "Advanced" and
beside that, it tells you what URL to give others to access your photos
if you set your settings for "Public", but what puzzles me is you
mentioned that you were able to access my photo site this afternoon with
the URL'S I gave you and they were the same URL'S I posted on the NG and
Renee wasn't able to access my photos. But not long after the tech. told
me the URL to give people, and it was different from the ones I gave
you.
Kind of puzzling. I gave Renee the correct URL but never heard back
from her to see if she was able to access my photos.

Cathy
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 1:48:36 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:2bgae.18496$Ow2.16878@fe06.lga...
>
>>Renee wrote:
>>
>>>Hi Cathy,
>>>
>>>Your link to your Scotland Yahoo photos didn't work for me. It looks
>
> like
>
>>>you sent the link to the page when you were logged in under your
>
> name, so
>
>>>anyone else trying to get to that particular link wouldn't be able
>
> to access
>
>>>it unless they were logged under your name, too.
>>>
>>>When I want to share a Yahoo photo album link, I use the 'Share
>
> Album'
>
>>>option and mail the invitation to *myself*. Then I open e-mail, and
>
> copy the
>
>>>link address listed in the e-mail invitation. I can then paste the
>
> link into
>
>>>a newsgroup message. Maybe this will work for you, too.
>>>
>>>Renee
>>>
>>>
>>
>>I have the same problem when I try to send people links to my Webshots
>>albums. I have to log out, then search for my id, then find the
>>picture, then copy the link. Messy.
>
>
> I didn't have to do that once I spoke to the tech this afternoon. On the
> Yahoo photo site, there is a section at the bottom saying "Advanced" and
> beside that, it tells you what URL to give others to access your photos
> if you set your settings for "Public", but what puzzles me is you
> mentioned that you were able to access my photo site this afternoon with
> the URL'S I gave you and they were the same URL'S I posted on the NG and
> Renee wasn't able to access my photos. But not long after the tech. told
> me the URL to give people, and it was different from the ones I gave
> you.
> Kind of puzzling. I gave Renee the correct URL but never heard back
> from her to see if she was able to access my photos.
>
> Cathy
>
Probably because I was signed onto Yahoo as it is my homepage.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 5:00:51 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
news:63iae.6059$Gq6.3093@fe02.lga...
> Cathy wrote:
> > "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> > news:2bgae.18496$Ow2.16878@fe06.lga...
> >
> >>Renee wrote:
> >>
> >>>Hi Cathy,
> >>>
> >>>Your link to your Scotland Yahoo photos didn't work for me. It
looks
> >
> > like
> >
> >>>you sent the link to the page when you were logged in under your
> >
> > name, so
> >
> >>>anyone else trying to get to that particular link wouldn't be able
> >
> > to access
> >
> >>>it unless they were logged under your name, too.
> >>>
> >>>When I want to share a Yahoo photo album link, I use the 'Share
> >
> > Album'
> >
> >>>option and mail the invitation to *myself*. Then I open e-mail, and
> >
> > copy the
> >
> >>>link address listed in the e-mail invitation. I can then paste the
> >
> > link into
> >
> >>>a newsgroup message. Maybe this will work for you, too.
> >>>
> >>>Renee
> >>>
> >>>
> >>
> >>I have the same problem when I try to send people links to my
Webshots
> >>albums. I have to log out, then search for my id, then find the
> >>picture, then copy the link. Messy.
> >
> >
> > I didn't have to do that once I spoke to the tech this afternoon. On
the
> > Yahoo photo site, there is a section at the bottom saying "Advanced"
and
> > beside that, it tells you what URL to give others to access your
photos
> > if you set your settings for "Public", but what puzzles me is you
> > mentioned that you were able to access my photo site this afternoon
with
> > the URL'S I gave you and they were the same URL'S I posted on the NG
and
> > Renee wasn't able to access my photos. But not long after the tech.
told
> > me the URL to give people, and it was different from the ones I gave
> > you.
> > Kind of puzzling. I gave Renee the correct URL but never heard back
> > from her to see if she was able to access my photos.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
> Probably because I was signed onto Yahoo as it is my homepage.

That could be. Did you sign into Yahoo first, then use the URL's I gave
you and then got to my photo page?

Cathy
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 5:43:38 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

Cathy wrote:
> "Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
> news:63iae.6059$Gq6.3093@fe02.lga...
>
>>Cathy wrote:
>>
>>>"Ron Hunter" <rphunter@charter.net> wrote in message
>>>news:2bgae.18496$Ow2.16878@fe06.lga...
>>>
>>>
>>>>Renee wrote:
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>>Hi Cathy,
>>>>>
>>>>>Your link to your Scotland Yahoo photos didn't work for me. It
>
> looks
>
>>>like
>>>
>>>
>>>>>you sent the link to the page when you were logged in under your
>>>
>>>name, so
>>>
>>>
>>>>>anyone else trying to get to that particular link wouldn't be able
>>>
>>>to access
>>>
>>>
>>>>>it unless they were logged under your name, too.
>>>>>
>>>>>When I want to share a Yahoo photo album link, I use the 'Share
>>>
>>>Album'
>>>
>>>
>>>>>option and mail the invitation to *myself*. Then I open e-mail, and
>>>
>>>copy the
>>>
>>>
>>>>>link address listed in the e-mail invitation. I can then paste the
>>>
>>>link into
>>>
>>>
>>>>>a newsgroup message. Maybe this will work for you, too.
>>>>>
>>>>>Renee
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>
>>>>I have the same problem when I try to send people links to my
>
> Webshots
>
>>>>albums. I have to log out, then search for my id, then find the
>>>>picture, then copy the link. Messy.
>>>
>>>
>>>I didn't have to do that once I spoke to the tech this afternoon. On
>
> the
>
>>>Yahoo photo site, there is a section at the bottom saying "Advanced"
>
> and
>
>>>beside that, it tells you what URL to give others to access your
>
> photos
>
>>>if you set your settings for "Public", but what puzzles me is you
>>>mentioned that you were able to access my photo site this afternoon
>
> with
>
>>>the URL'S I gave you and they were the same URL'S I posted on the NG
>
> and
>
>>>Renee wasn't able to access my photos. But not long after the tech.
>
> told
>
>>>me the URL to give people, and it was different from the ones I gave
>>>you.
>>>Kind of puzzling. I gave Renee the correct URL but never heard back
>>>from her to see if she was able to access my photos.
>>>
>>>Cathy
>>>
>>
>>Probably because I was signed onto Yahoo as it is my homepage.
>
>
> That could be. Did you sign into Yahoo first, then use the URL's I gave
> you and then got to my photo page?
>
> Cathy
>
Since Yahoo is my homepage, when my browser opens, it signs me onto
Yahoo automatically.


--
Ron Hunter rphunter@charter.net
April 23, 2005 7:38:21 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
news:xd2dnd-xxfMPNPTfRVn-jQ@rogers.com...
> Kind of puzzling. I gave Renee the correct URL but never heard back
> from her to see if she was able to access my photos.
>
> Cathy
>

Hi Cathy,

I got through to your site this time and your Scotland photos are lovely.
Do you have any more taken inside the Abbey? Any castles in your bunch?
Scotland looks like an interesting place to visit and very rich in history.
(Some of my favorite (romantic) novels are those that take place in the
ancient Highlands. They always make for some fun, easy reading.) Keep 'em
coming if get the chance.

(With all due respect,) Cathy, your red-eye removal attempts are indeed a
mess. ;-) Something easy is bound to come up. Maybe Ron will find out
something through the other NG.

Renee
Anonymous
April 23, 2005 7:38:22 AM

Archived from groups: rec.photo.digital (More info?)

"Renee" <rr@invalid.org> wrote in message
news:Nqjae.14904$5f.6183@tornado.tampabay.rr.com...
>
> "Cathy" <not@there.com> wrote in message
> news:xd2dnd-xxfMPNPTfRVn-jQ@rogers.com...
> > Kind of puzzling. I gave Renee the correct URL but never heard back
> > from her to see if she was able to access my photos.
> >
> > Cathy
> >
>
> Hi Cathy,
>
> I got through to your site this time and your Scotland photos are
lovely.
> Do you have any more taken inside the Abbey?

I didn't go inside the Abbey. I was there through the week and I think
its only open on Sundays for church services. I think they have tours
inside, but I had too many other things to do and only two weeks to do
them. I've seen inside before but a very long time ago. I took some of
the photos I posted, the day before I left to come home when I had about
an hour and a half free time. Most of the time I was there, I was with
someone. Either I was visiting relatives or someone drove me where I
wanted to go. I took a few other photos in that same area when an old
school friend and me had tea in a nearby tea room. I said I wanted to
take some photos and she waited for me in the tea room. The statue you
see in two of the jpgs is Andrew Carnegie. He was born in my home town
and after he made his money in steel in Pittsburg, he gave the people of
Dunfermline "The Glen" as they call it, which is a huge park with a tea
pavillion, museum, a hot house conservatory with exotic orchids, and
various flowers, and peacocks wander around and its beautiful there.

Any castles in your bunch?
> Scotland looks like an interesting place to visit and very rich in
history.

Yes, it has a very rich history. In school I had to learn British
history, so was Scottish and English history and all the wars they
fought against each other long ago. Braveheart and all that :) 
Unfortunately I have no castles in any of my photos, as all my photos
were mainly taken in my home town which has ancient ruins of a 12th
century palace (its the jpg that has nobody in it). Amazing since it was
the middle of the day. I quickly took that photo. Its my favorite photo.
The palace ruins are on the right side of that photo and King Malcolm
Canmore of Scotland and Margaret of Norway lived in that castle in the
12th century. That was when Scotland had its own Kings and Queens. Its
interesting to go in the ruins and imagine how they might have lived
long ago. There are many castles in Scotland which are very old and are
in ruins. They are very spread out and most are in the country.
Many have been preserved through the years such as Balmoral castle
where the present Royal family go when in Scotland and Glamis Castle,
home of the Queen mother, and others.
Loch Leven castle, where Mary Queen of Scots was held captive by Queen
Elizabeth of England is not too far from my home town. You get to the
castle on a ferry. I have been to it on a tour before, so didn't go
there again. If I had had more time, I would have gone to the Highlands
where the scenery is very spectacular. I guess I had my own agenda of
places I have wanted to go since I visited there last 35 years ago, so I
did everything that was most important to me, though there were other
places I wanted to go but not enough time.So I had to choose.

> (Some of my favorite (romantic) novels are those that take place in
the
> ancient Highlands. They always make for some fun, easy reading.) Keep
'em
> coming if get the chance.

I will try to scan some more photos on the weekend,but there won't be
any castles among them.
But there might be some you are interested in.

> (With all due respect,) Cathy, your red-eye removal attempts are
indeed a
> mess. ;-)

Well, I wouldn't exactly say its a mess. Or at least thats not how I see
it. The jpg on the left is your original, and not all of the one in the
middle has been fixed.The one on the right is as fixed as I could get it
and I thought, was a little better than your original, ut I didn't say
it was very good. Yahoo can only fix the original as best it can with
its software which may not be that good. I only followed instructions
and a pointer comes up for you to put on the red eye which I guess you
knkow, and turns the red into black. With the girl and boy in the back
of the picture, when I put the pointer on their eyes, which were
supposed to turn their eyes dark, the red just stayed and couldn't be
covered up, so there was nothing I could do about that. I tried 4
different red eye reduction programs, and none of them could take the
red eye from all the people in the photo. Ron says he tried 6 red eye
programs and wasn't successful either, so I don't know what his attempts
looked like.

Something easy is bound to come up. Maybe Ron will find out
> something through the other NG.

Maybe, but even with my limited experience with red eye, it doesn't look
like it will be easy to fix in a real satisfactory way, unless there is
a great red eye remover around.

Cathy
!