Laura, yes you might understand, and I'll be so bold as to attempt an explanation. Certain data is "embedded" in your photos where you can't see it and always stays with the original photo if a digital camera was used. It remains with photos you've manipulated in some way depending on how you save it and depending on the site hosting your photo. I always leave mine in, no particular reason when I post on the web. There is an easy add-on to Firefox to view image exif data, if it is present. Photobucket is being cranky right now, so I can't access it for all of them but some. It was working last night. If you have the add-on, all you do is right click on a photo and choose "view image exif data". Firefox retrieves it from the host server and tells me all sorts of things if it is there. There is also an add-on for IE8. To get it for Safari was more complicated, but there's one for that, too. The main reason I use it is not to snoop but either to try to help people or when I see a photo that I know requires experience and skill, if it is present, I like to know the camera make and model, shutter speed, aperture, focal length, program, metering mode, exposure compensation if used, because it gives me ideas of techniques to try. Even if you don't have the add-on, and even if it doesn't show on the web (most news photos never have it, it gets destroyed for web viewing if you save certain ways), when I open any original photos or photos using "save as" for .jpg of mine in Photoshop, no matter what camera I had at the time, the data is there for me to study and remember what settings I used. It even tells me which lens I used usually but won't tell me that if on the web, just the lens focal length. I bet I made that too complicated, but think it over, and it may start to make sense.

I made lined drapes with pleating tape a long time ago. It was murder because I bullheadedly didn't set up properly on a table, just used my sewing machine cabinet and let the fabric fall all around it. Since you obviously have more brains than I did then and will buy a table, I'm sure you can do it. They really are not hard to make if you support all the fabric on a table. Mine turned out well. If I were doing it today, I'd move the machine head to my dining room table for a few days. That's what I do nowadays when I make something huge like prom or wedding gowns. Sherry

Brent, I'm not offended at all. It's just everybody keeps stating this and it's become urban legend. It's true we have stricter regulations. CV is formulated differently for California, actually not all of California, in some counties you can still use the 550 VOC version instead of 275 VOC. I've asked the chemist at Valspar(one of the the biggest coatings manufacturers in the world) here in LA many times what the difference is. The 275 VOC has a little less solids and some different solvents but it is still CV and has all the same properties. There are more that twenty suppliers within miles of where I am that sell CV so they are probably hundreds of shops using it, big and small. With the green movement on the rise I'm sure it won't be long before the rest of the country is held to the same standards. I'm going to be trying out Valspar's water based CV which has been in use for several years by some of the larger O.E.M's and is just becoming available to smaller shops here. It suppose to be just as good as solvent based. If you've ever sprayed CV you know how nasty it can be. I think people are more aware of toxic off-gassing issues today and the safety hazards this presents to their families and would be open to this. Especially if it provides the same protective finish.

That's a fun comparison: Earth Angel vs. Alnwick Castle. I have both of them also, growing across the path from each other. The similarities: They both can have cupped flowers, they both have good fragrance, and they are both upright growers that don't get much disease. The differences, whether good or bad are up to you: Flowers first. Earth Angel has mostly white flowers with a pale pink center. They are extremely susceptible to thrips damage. They remain cupped in the heat. In my garden they grow in tight clusters. They require deadheading. Alnwick Castle has pastel pink flowers solid color all the way through that are non-fading. They don't show thrips damage. They open up in the heat, showing a frilly center. They grow in looser clusters. They drop their petals when the flowers fade. AC's flowers tend to nod slightly with first flush. EA's flowers are upright. Flower size is about the same in each, about 2-1/2" in my garden. EA's flowers last 4-5 days on the bush, AC's flowers last 2-3 days. They both grow and bloom in the heat. Taken today after a month or more of temps in the 90's and humidity ranging from the single digits to 30's. Earth Angel today: Thrips! I think my Earth Angel looks best like this (first flush): Alnwick Castle today: It can open up in the heat and become more coral: I think it looks best like this (first flush): Fragrance: Earth Angel's first blooms for me smelled like a wet dog, but now has very sweetly scented flowers. It's a clean fragrance now. Alnwick Castle smells like rasberry sorbet, and at times there is a woody element to it, like cedar. There are more mid-tones and low tones in comparison to Earth Angel's mostly high notes. Both are fragrant most of the day. AC's fragrance seems stronger to me and wafts. EA's fragrance doesn't waft for me. Plant habit: both are upright growers. Thorns on both are moderate. Thorns on EA are smaller. Vigor: EA required quite a bit of pampering in my garden to get it to grow, but most people say EA is extremely vigorous. AC is quite vigorous in my garden without pampering. Productivity: EA is too young for me to say, others have described it as prolific. AC is not what you would call a prolific bloomer, but also not particularly stingy. Personally, I would replace AC if I lost it. I'm not so sure about EA.