I Must have an overall plan, and did have a design drawn for the back, which has been a constant source of satisfaction. For the rest, the overall plan is still to be revealed because of the necessity of the vignette method. -- which is not all bad because the challenge of relating the pieces has been rewarding too. Still, some mistakes have to be accepted because of time, money and energy. Speaking of museums (this is a stretch but it must be told), I was in London the other day . . . Actually, I took an unlikely trip a few weeks ago and it included London. I visited the Tate Museum of modern art specifically to see Mark Rothko and Mondrian, not to mention Monet and a few others. I donÂt pretend to be schooled in art, but I was suitably impressed  rather, affected  by what I saw. I bought a little book which explained a few things, and absent a full education in modern art I learned a little bit about some of these people and their quests, and fancied I could see a mote of resemblance between what Mondrian struggled for and what I seem to find appealing in design. All this interest came from your references to Mondrian in another thread. I had a tragedy the other day. I discovered all emails in my program are deleted after 30 days. What! Why didnÂt I know this?! I had to call more than a few people to get information I lost. Your ÂSend me an email is not on your page, Ink, and IÂm wondering if you would send me your email address again. Maro

I found the info and will paste at the end of this post but the picture can be pretty big. salbwil just tell us what program you are using to resize and right click on the picture and click properties on the drop down menu and tell us what size it is. Here are the posting instructions from the webmaster at hearth.com: OK, so hereÂs the deal - your member photos (in your member profile) is limited to a small size - about 150 pixels (dots) square. The little Avatar next to your posts is limited to the same or maybe 100 each way..... Regular pictures, like in this forum, can be fairly large - almost full screen (1000 wide by 1000 high) and up to 200KB (200,000 bytes). But, many folks donÂt know the basics of email and web pics - IÂll try to explain. Pictures sent to the web and by email are best at what is called "screen resolution" meaning that they somewhat match the size od the dots on our monitors. For our purposes, this is aout 72 DPI (or dots per inch)..... What the average person needs is an "Image Management Program" and NOT the one that comes with Windows! If you are a PC user, download the free program called Picasa - This will organize and store all the photos on your disk and also allow you to export smaller copies (for web, etc.) and to even fix the photos up a bit! Apple users already have an image management program, iPhoto, which comes with every mac. To prepare web photos in iPhoto, simply select the photo or photos, go to Export (or it might say Share in newer versions) and when the dialog box comes up use the part that says "scale no bigger than" to select what you want the size of the exported photo to be. For purposes of this board, a photo with a width of 400-700 is ideal. Now, with Picasa, it is pretty much the same thing. Select the photo or photos and go to Export to Folder- the box shown in the picture below will come up and then you can select the picture size - say 480 wide as in this example. The other slider will compress the file size so the picture loads faster. In most cases, anything over 50% is good. If you want to learn more about this stuff, dig around on the links at: http://www.hearth.com/hcc/ - these are links from a course I teach at night school. If you are a user of Photoshop or Photoshop Elements, use the "Image Size" dialog bx to convert your photo to 72 DPI and approx. 400-600 pixels wide (the height will work out automatically) - then use "Save for Web" and tryjpg "medium", file size should be really small. Of course, donÂt save changes to the original picture since you still want that big on your computer and for yourarhiving and storage.

I hadn't seen the DWR kitchens. Remodelista and Apartment therapy have the same press release. The cabinets shown look heavy to me, probably because of the edges that stick out. The Viola Park and Henrybuilt above are much cleaner looking. Both of those photos look really dated to me, in a way that other Modern cabinets, especially the Euro ones, don't. Perhaps it's just a matter of what I've seen. The above look like kitchens that I've seen in houses they were original and new styles in. ... Come to think of it, though, for all that Modern is enduring, Poggenpohl and Pedini are showing different looks within that now than the ones I was seeing fifteen years ago. Maybe Henrybuilt just needs to update their advert photos? I absolutely agree that their forms could work in just about any house if detailed right. Modern endures unless it's '80's red or blue lacquer. :) In a neutral material/color, inc. the Henrybuilt woods and the Viola white, it is very little black dress. I think the most "insistent" thing about the Henrybuilt, however, is the hardware. That absolutely plugs it as Modern, whereas the flat slabs of the Viola could be any flat slab Euro, across many decades. It's all pull doors, but otherwise doesn't look much different from my own bamboo, which is much quainter looking. Of course, the other thing that makes the Viola Park is the lack of clutter with the flush cooktop, hidden hood, and, presumably, integrated everything else. I've always agreed, in general, about the age of house/period of kitchen thing, though sometimes the locale and/or style of the house have more to say about it. Even when I was thinking white kitchen, it was never going to be Peacock Scullery-ish, and certainly not inset with cup pulls. That would look really off in my 25 year old house. So would a lot of Art Nouveau. The house is rectilinear, and too new. OTOH, the little A.N. details, work, and help make my kitchen look grown in place rather than slapped on top. I think it's a case of what a colleague called "instant ancestors". That was about using clipart photos in a collage. The portraits give a sense, in the collage, of a community, with history. It doesn't matter that they're not the actual people from an actual community. They convey the message just by their presence. Using some details from days gone by in a kitchen (whether salvage or repro), like using old family pieces and/or antiques in another room, will give some temporal depth to the room and make the date much less obvious.

Here's the original post from kwoods on the movie forum as to how to post pictures : ***** You can search google images for an image you want to post, then go to "see full size image", copy the image location then write this little piece of code including the copied image location (take the spaces out before and after the . Oh and images should probably be smallish, say smaller than 300 x 300. It tells you how big they are in the google images search results. Maybe this is too tech-ie? We could always just do quotes. Let me know if you need any help or if my directions are unclear. **** Basically, copy the code above (the ) into your post and remove the spaces before and after the things. Copy and paste the picture address in between the quotation marks. Hit the "preview message" button and if it shows up ...... VOILA! Now, how do you get the image URL? Find a picture on the Internet you like. Right click on said picture. Go down to "copy image location" in the options presented. You've now copied the URL that the code needs. To paste it, just hit CTRL-V. And Mr. Spock was NEVER devoured by a Slime-maiden. That was Capt. Kirk. (And it was translated into Ferengi and NOT Klingon.) ;-)