|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 15:47:23 GMT -5
Watergal - How did you get the picture to be so large? I went to the web site and the pictures are tiny. I clicked on one and it came back larger, but still only 1.5 by 1.5 inches approximately (or translated approx. 3 cm x 3 cm). Large is much better. I want LARGE. Please help (feed my addiction).
Alexandra K.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 15:48:46 GMT -5
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 15:49:34 GMT -5
Sorry about that. Can't help you there. The hugeness (or lack therof)seems to be determined at the source. The pic I referenced is actually too large to fit on my screen.
Watergal =^..^=
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 15:50:09 GMT -5
Is that a cleft lip I see? (If so, someone has astonishing surgical skill)
Watergal =^..^=
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 15:51:49 GMT -5
If you are looking for a big pic, check out the third from last on the pic link. I wonder where he picked up that see through shirt? (Unfortunately it is a little fuzzy, but it takes up about 4 screen sizes and there is a better pic of him in that shirt on the site as well)
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 15:54:58 GMT -5
I don't think it is a cleft lip, says Alexandra, coming back from looking in the mirror and seeing the same type of indents and ridges above her lip. Sometimes it is just rough doing all the extensive anatomical research required for this Institute. Yours truly, The Chair of Nosferoanatomy and Biology
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 15:55:44 GMT -5
Whoa!! Yes, a lot of those pics are huge. A few are small like the ones with him swinging on a bar shirtless. And every time I try to click on the pic with him in blue pants and no shirt, my computer says "you've performed an illegal operation and will be shut down". Now how did my computer know that? (laughing)
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 15:57:00 GMT -5
I've sent Vlad a post telling him he can borrow my episode tape if he wants to. I'm geographically quite close, so I hope he'll take me up on it. I don't know if anyone else has offered or not, but I thought I should say the poor man shouldn't go tapeless.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 15:57:33 GMT -5
Thanks Nan, I would have lent him mine, but I fear it would not clear customs in time to be viewed before next week's episode. And we really need our TechnoPagan back in full fighting shape.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 15:58:14 GMT -5
Alexandra says: "And every time I try to click on the pic with him in blue pants and no shirt, my computer says "you've performed an illegal operation and will be shut down". Now how did my computer know that?" Thanks Alexandra, I got a good laugh out of that one. Also, thanks for the photo and let me add: I am extremely impressed by your research methods! BTW, I did open up the pic with the blue pants and no shirt and didn't like it that well, so don't feel badly about having to complete your illegal operations with other images.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 15:58:52 GMT -5
deborah - It was extremely impressive that Spike got as far as he got without a soul, but I wouldn't say he had already succeeded in becoming a moral being - right before he left for his soul he was still struggling on the question of whether or not he should have gone through with raping Buffy. And he did not understand that his previous un-Buffy related evil activities had been wrong. He only understood that Buffy thought so. Various times it seemed to me that he was trying very hard to figure out how others determined right and wrong, and why they made the decisions they did. Just the fact that he was trying is remarkable in itself - but he would just hit this wall. He was missing that internal moral compass, and he had to have it. There is no way to prove it, and your view is legit, but I personally don't think Spike could have gotten much farther without his soul. I admit this is a guess, which I am basing on how very limited, how shallow his understanding of morality seemed, and on the dramatic effect getting his soul had on him. He has had a marked transformation, but I agree it isn't "from one person to another" as it was with Angel. Even before the chip and Buffy-love, Spike was more "human" than Angelus.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 16:00:27 GMT -5
*having fits of uncontrollable laughter* Good gracious, I just attempted to set the huge picture Alexandra managed to post as my wallpaper. Well it turns out that if I post it normal size I get the blonde locks, the beatiful eyes and the nose. That's it. Kinda funny, so I tried to "stretch" the image on my desktop and so now I am having giggle fits. He ends up having a skewed face, not stretched out really, more like the type of face you see in a carnaval mirror. *L* Anywhooo, I have no point. I just had to share the giggle.
Watergal =^..^=
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 16:01:00 GMT -5
Thanks, Watergal, for the different URL. This time, I got to it and got to see the picture.
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 16:01:29 GMT -5
If you have Windows and bring the picture up in Picture Editor (file called photoed.exe--one of the accessories, comes with Windows, all recent versions) you can resize the picture to 50%, or 40%, or whatever size you want to fit it on your screen. Note: this is not the same as cropping, which we must NOT to do Spike!
|
|
|
Post by Dalton on Jul 12, 2003 16:02:22 GMT -5
I just copied the pic from the post, saved it to my hard drive, brought up photoed, and resized the pic to 60%, then saved it again. It's about wallpaper size now. The resizing command is on the Image menu in photoed. If you don't easily find photoed.exe, look for it with Search on the Windows START button. Note down the path (down what string of directories does the file live), then go to it from My Computer, down those same directories, until you have the file on the screen. Then right click on it: one of the offered options is to create a shortcut that you can then (if you half-size that screen) drag onto your desktop. Then you can open photoed whenever you want. There are other neat things you can do to pictures with it, though it's not a full-featured picture editor where you can change an image one pixel at a time (to corred red eye, for instance). It's good enough for cropping and resizing, anyway. For people as interested in wrangling pictures as we all seem to be, I'd think you'd want the Photo Editor on your desktop, the way I have it.
Nan Dibble
|
|