I would really recommend Flickr. It's a great community of people and a way to friend people, comment on their pictures and join groups of like-minded people. I'm on quite a few mosaic flickr groups and just love it. I've also made some friends and the uploading/downloading and space is all free. Plus you can always just post a link to your flickr account if you can't get the pictures here. I find it the easiest of all of them.

OK, I went out and inspected some more this evening. I found quite a few small new terminal flowerbuds, so I think I'm going to get a flush of blooms soon. These little buds are really getting sucked by aphids (and I saw a few brown beetles or weevils, too), so I sprayed all the shrubs with an Ortho systemic spray. I noticed that on the shrub that flowers well, the blooms come in groups of three to five. On the shrubs that aborted the buds, you can see where a bud used to be, and one or more of the three to five stems in that cluster just kept growing and sort of turned into branch growth rather than a flower stem. This may explain why the good bloomer is shorter -- it's stems turned into flowers instead of morphing into more vegetative growth. At first glance, it might look like just a bunch of blind shoots, but I think these shoots had flowerbuds on them, but the buds withered and then the shoots just kept on growing upward. I don't know if that's possible, but that's what it looks like to me. Anyway, I was going to cut their height back tonight, but when I saw quite a few flowerbuds that weren't falling off, I decided I'd better let this flush bloom and then cut them back. I think what happened is that my spring flush tried to happen, but some deficiency, either in water or nutrients, caused all the flowerbuds to abort, so they just kept producing more vegetative growth. Now they're getting ready for a summer flush and perhaps that mysterious deficiency is not so bad now, and they're going to bloom. They are definitely getting more water now than they did earlier in the spring. I didn't turn on the sprinkler system until late April, and it was a dry spring. But then again, I've had some wet springs in the past six years, and they've never bloomed well even then. I'm betting on some kind of mineral or nutrient deficiency. I think I'll need a more comprehensive soil test than the do-it-yourself one I tried this spring. I can send a sample to the local extension for testing. Anyway, if I can figure out what deficiency is causing weakness in a joint where the the flowerbud attaches to the stem, perhaps I can save the spring flush from fall off next year and I'll get to see these roses in all their intended glory. Well, a guy can think big, right? :-)

Tony, your gonna want to cut those green limbs off! Better now than later. I would use a small, very sharp tree saw as aposed to 3/4 snips.That way you could stay close to the main trunk.I would also cut some first from the bottom up,then from up cutting down to prevent tearing,while taking your time and let the saw cut without much force.A nice smooth cut will heal a lot better than a rushed hack job! AL

The short story? Upload your photos to photobucket using the "800 by 600" pixel upload option. Done. You'll get a small file size but a photo that will display well. To answer your questions, here's the long story. And I'm not kidding. It's long. Way too long: "What I'm also trying to understand is the whole process: I take a picture with my 6.1 Kodak camera. The picture size is therefore________" Your file size depends on the settings on your camera at which you are taking photos. Most cameras offer a couple of choices, like "Image Quality: FINE/NORMAL/BASIC" and/or "Image size: LARGE/MEDIUM/SMALL". Those choices will define the amount of jpeg compression that your photo undergoes and thus they will define the size of the file that comes out of your camera. Generically a 6MP camera is probably putting out jpeg photos in the 2-3MB range. "Jpeg" is a compression program. It's a program that reduces the MB file size of the program by discarding redundant pixel color information from the photo's file for similar-colored pixels in the photo. It does not get rid of or discard any pixels. It just "averages" out red/ green/blue information assigned to similar colored pixels. jpeg looks at the photo's individual pixel information and says "these reddish pixels that are next to each other in this photo are so close in color, I'm going to consider them the exact same color". So it keeps the R/G/B information for one of the pixels, discards the RGB info for the other two, and assigns that saved RGB info to all three pixels. That allows your file to be smaller without destroying the overall visual integrity of the photo when you view it. If a file were to be over-compressed...too much information thrown away...then it can get ugly looking, very blocky. "When I upload it to Photobucket it remains 6.1 or do they change it as they "store it"__________" Using the default settings on PB it'll be uploaded as a small file. A MUCH SMALLER file. You've discovered the "Customize Your Upload Options" and you can use that to get a larger and more usable file size uploaded to your PB account. More about that later. "Of course talking about a picture in terms of 800x600 vs MB is confusing. " Your photo is made up of little dots, or to simplify, "pixels". If you have a photo that is "800 by 600", that's 800 pixels or dots wide by 600 pixels/dots tall. That's how "big" your photo appears. 800 dots wide. 600 dots tall. Each of those dots or pixels is a color, all those little colored dots together make up the photo. If each of those pixels is a different color, then the file size (the "MB" or "KB") will be large because the file has to store red/green/blue information for each and every one of those tiny pixels. If you take a photo of a piece of red paper, then theoretically the photo's jpeg file size will be smaller because so many of the pixels will be the same red color. The file doesn't have to "remember" as much red/green/blue information even though the number of pixels in the photo is the same. So if you take your glorious 6MP photo that's 3000 by 2000 pixels and upload it to Photobucket at the 320 by 240 pixel option, PB is going to throw way a lot of pixels. You uploaded a detailed file with 3000 times 2000, or 6 million pixels, and Photobucket is going to throw away and discard over 5.9 million of them! Gone forever! It'll display that photo small, 320 pixels by 240 pixels, so to the eye it will still look okay at that small size. But if you try to blow up or magnify the photo, pixels will have to be created to fill in the "holes", and the color information for those created pixels will be guessed at based upon what the neighboring pixels look like. You'll end up with a blocky looking photo. So the picture can have a physical size defined in terms of how many dots or pixels make up the picture. 3000 x 2000, 800 x 600, 320 x 240, etc. The pixels define how big or small the picture will be represented on your computer monitor or on a piece of paper when printed out. The photo file size, in MB or KB, is how much information is assigned to remember the color information of the pixels that make up the photo. 6MP is a large photo and will take longer to upload than a 1MP file. It's how much space the photo will take up n your computer's hard drive. I'm going to run you through a few examples, I hope this helps to clarify: I have a 2MB photo on my computer. I just uploaded it to photobucket, during the upload photobucket automatically reduced the file size from 2MB down to 38kb. Ouch! It reduced the pixel size (or the number of "dots" that make up the photo) from 3341 x 2217 (3341 pixels wide by 2217 pixels tall) to 310 x 212. That was done using the default upload setting of 320 by 240. This file is tiny, only 38kb, so it'll upload fast. But the small file can limit the quality of the photo seen by the viewer. Here is the quality of the 320 by 240 photo: By adding a "Width=" designator to the HTML code, I can make your browser display the photo larger. Previously it showed at 320 pixels wide, because that's it's size of the photobucket file. I'll add "Width=800" to make it display 800 pixels wide. Again, it's a 38kb file size, 319 x 212 photo that's being forced to display 800 pixels wide. Where did the extra pixels come from? They were made up, their color information copied from neighboring pixels in the photo's file. Since they had to be guessed at, the photo looks blocky due to the groupings of exactly-colored pixels all clumped next to one another: The photo shows larger, but it's blockier. Now going into photobucket's upload settings I chose "Best possible quality (while staying 1mb or less)". A large file size...but not ridiculous. Photobucket uploaded my same original 2MB, 3342 x 2217 pixel photo as a 745kb file that is 2301 pixels wide by 1527 pixels tall. At 745kb it's a large file size so it'll upload slower, but with all those pixels the resolution will be quite good. When I now have gardenweb show this new photo file at its native resolution, it looks like this: Since most people have their computer's screen displays set at 800-1200 pixels wide, this 2301 pixel wide photo causes you to have to scroll left/right to take it all in. It's not viewer friendly. So now I'll limit the photo by adding a "Width=800" to the html code and it'll show better. A better size, and with nice resolution: There actually is a point to this post, and it's this: Photobucket has an 800 by 600 upload selection. If you want a "bang for your buck" upload selection, use the 800 x 600 choice. Uploading my 2MB file using the 800 by 600 option gave me a 134kb file with pixel dimensions of 800 wide by 530 tall. A very manageable file size that will upload quickly, and a pixel size that will display nicely: Still awake? Not me. Zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz