Re: Getting photos from a friend with a Mac

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Rikishi42, Apr 16, 2013.

  1. Rikishi42

    Rikishi42 Guest

    On 2013-04-16, Jennifer Murphy <> wrote:
    > She lives a bit of a distance away, so it's not feasible for me to just
    > go over there every time she has some photos to share. Is there an easy
    > way for her to share her desktop with me on my PC so I could walk her
    > through the process -- assuming that I can figure out the Mac?


    You didn't specify what email client she uses. And if she's not technically
    minded, she probebly doesn't know eighter.

    But in several email programs (ie: Outlook, Thunderbird), dropping the image
    in the mail's body means inserting it into the text, as a reduced image.
    If, however, you drop the image file on the header part of the mail, it gets
    attached. That should get you the image as-is.

    If that doesn't work in her program, let her find out what program it is.
    Allways easier, when we know what we're talking about. But she might just
    go looking for an 'attach file' button, rather then an 'insert image' one.


    --
    When in doubt, use brute force.
    -- Ken Thompson
     
    Rikishi42, Apr 16, 2013
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Rikishi42

    Rikishi42 Guest

    On 2013-04-17, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    > On 2013-04-16 15:59:30 -0700, Rikishi42 <> said:
    >
    >> On 2013-04-16, Jennifer Murphy <> wrote:
    >>> She lives a bit of a distance away, so it's not feasible for me to just
    >>> go over there every time she has some photos to share. Is there an easy
    >>> way for her to share her desktop with me on my PC so I could walk her
    >>> through the process -- assuming that I can figure out the Mac?

    >>
    >> You didn't specify what email client she uses. And if she's not technically
    >> minded, she probebly doesn't know eighter.
    >>
    >> But in several email programs (ie: Outlook, Thunderbird), dropping the image
    >> in the mail's body means inserting it into the text, as a reduced image.
    >> If, however, you drop the image file on the header part of the mail, it gets
    >> attached. That should get you the image as-is.
    >>
    >> If that doesn't work in her program, let her find out what program it is.
    >> Allways easier, when we know what we're talking about. But she might just
    >> go looking for an 'attach file' button, rather then an 'insert image' one.

    >
    > Since the individual being discussed is using a Mac, and seems to be
    > computer tech averse, it is logical to assume that she is using Apple's
    > "Mail" which is included in the Mac OS.
    >
    > With "Mail" she can attach by either using the menu dialog or "drag &
    > drop". "Mail" will not adjust the file size or image dimensions. The
    > only limitation will be the level of tolerance of her service provider
    > before it chokes on the file or attachments. In the case of my provider
    > that threshold is around 9-10MB for email.
    >
    > So understanding that Jennifer's friend is using a P&S with file sizes
    > in the 4-5MB range, she might with any luck and the cooperation from
    > her service provider, be able to send the either moderately resized, or
    > original files, one at a time via email.


    OK. So if I understand you, using drag&drop on "Mail" will attach rather
    then embed the image, and therefore not resize it. The limits of email
    are obvious, but we where not there yet.

    You might have missed the original post.
    The images *where* embedded. And the image size was described as 640x400.

    So, maybe her friend is not using "mail" ?
    Or embedding is possible after all?



    The question as I understand it was: how can the friend attach, rather then
    embed, so the mail delivers the full picture.


    --
    When in doubt, use brute force.
    -- Ken Thompson
     
    Rikishi42, Apr 18, 2013
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Rikishi42

    nospam Guest

    In article <2013041800375454666-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > Using the menu option for "attachments" there is a check box in the
    > dialog "to use Windows friendly" attachments.


    the whole reason that's there is to deal with outlook bugs.
     
    nospam, Apr 18, 2013
    #3
  4. Rikishi42

    nospam Guest

    In article <isw-3CC42F.23571617042013@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
    <> wrote:

    > > Always has been. Attaching and/or "embedding" in the Mac world are one
    > > and the same.

    >
    > As a long-time Mac and "Mail" user with many Windows-using
    > correspondents, it has been my experience that they have trouble viewing
    > "embedded" images far more often than "attached" ones. Whether there is
    > actually any difference other than the location of the image file "in"
    > or "below" the message, or whether it is Windows version dependent, or
    > just that many Windows users don't know how to view images, I don't know.


    how it's handled depends on the recipient's email. in other words, it's
    a windows problem (no surprise there), likely older versions of
    outlook, which means it will never get fixed. microsoft intentionally
    deviates from standards (even their own). that's how they lock you in.

    apple mail has a lot of extra code specifically for outlook bugs, which
    really shouldn't need to be there if microsoft didn't ignore standards.

    this also means this problem can happen when *both* the sender and
    recipient are on windows, depending on which email clients they use.
    it's not a mac issue at all.

    tell them to right-click the image and save it. except, that too is
    broken in some versions of outlook (really), so you have to copy/paste
    instead.

    the best solution is for them to switch to an email client that works
    properly. problem solved.

    > So if I know the images are going to a Windows user, I always put the
    > cursor at the very bottom of the message window and use Menu/File/Attach
    > Files ... rather than just dragging the images into the window.


    that doesn't really do much. it's still mime encoded and outlook will
    probably do the wrong thing, especially if it's an older version.

    one fix is set plain text, which you should do anyway because html mail
    is annoying and often used by spammers, which means some people use
    that as an indication the mail is likely spam. html mail is also bigger
    than it needs to be if there's just text in it.

    another option is include a non-image attachment which apparently
    forces outlook to treat any images as attachments.

    or, you can zip the images. embedding zip files makes no sense so
    outlook will always show it as an attachment. then the recipient unzips
    it and everyone is happy.

    > With image-containing messages sent *to* a Mac, however, it doesn't seem
    > to matter where they are.


    that's because apple mail works properly with regards to attachments.

    apple mail has other problems, but how it handles attachments isn't one
    of them.
     
    nospam, Apr 18, 2013
    #4
  5. Rikishi42

    Mayayana Guest

    | As a long-time Mac and "Mail" user with many Windows-using
    | correspondents, it has been my experience that they have trouble viewing
    | "embedded" images far more often than "attached" ones. Whether there is
    | actually any difference other than the location of the image file "in"
    | or "below" the message, or whether it is Windows version dependent, or
    | just that many Windows users don't know how to view images, I don't know.
    |

    It will depend on software used, but for the most
    part Windows email programs default to disabling HTML
    email for security reasons. If you send an embedded
    image to me (which necessarily means HTML email)
    I won't see it, but I will see an available attachment
    in my particular email program. (OE6) Other people
    may not see it as an attachment. They may just see
    a blank email. So it is safer to just attach the image
    as a file.

    One can also send links to remote images in HTML
    email, but those are even more likely to be blocked
    for security and privacy reasons. (I think OE and
    Thunderbird both now default to blocking external
    images, if they show HTML email at all.)

    Assuming the image is not just a remote link, it's
    embedded the same way whether it's an attachment or
    an HTML element. It travels as a Base64 encoded text
    string appended to the email. But how it's presented
    to the recipient depends on whether it was coded to
    be an attachment or an HTML element. (Also of note:
    Base64 encoding converts every 3 bytes to 4 characters,
    each of which requires 1 byte, so an image in email is
    actually 33% more data than the actual image itself.
    A 3 MB image will travel as 4 MB.)

    It used to be that I would get images from people
    with Macs that didn't have the "resource fork" removed
    and were therefore unusable in Windows. Mac users
    had to be told to strip of the Mac-specific part before
    sending. Maybe that's changed by now? I don't know.
     
    Mayayana, Apr 18, 2013
    #5
  6. Rikishi42

    nospam Guest

    In article <kkp1oj$g31$>, Mayayana
    <> wrote:

    > It used to be that I would get images from people
    > with Macs that didn't have the "resource fork" removed
    > and were therefore unusable in Windows. Mac users
    > had to be told to strip of the Mac-specific part before
    > sending. Maybe that's changed by now? I don't know.


    it was split into two files, one of which was the data fork and the
    other was the resource fork. ignore one.
     
    nospam, Apr 18, 2013
    #6
  7. Rikishi42

    Rikishi42 Guest

    On 2013-04-18, Alan Browne <> wrote:
    > On 2013.04.17 19:26 , Rikishi42 wrote:
    >
    >> The question as I understand it was: how can the friend attach, rather then
    >> embed, so the mail delivers the full picture.

    >
    > You drop the image in the mail and select (upper right above the message
    > text) "Actual Size". That is how you "attach" an image.


    Nope. Not if you can select a size. That's "inserting" an image in a text or
    "embedding", it's not attaching a file. It means you edit (resize, in this
    case) the image for the purpose of fitting it into the text's layout.

    When you attach a file, that file can be any kind of file; it's allways send
    unmodified alongside the mail.


    > The Apple Mail client (which most Apple users use for mail) gives you a
    > choice: "Actual Size" or 3 smaller sizes (Large, Medium, Small).
    >
    > The Apple Mail client will resize the image automatically if you do not
    > select full size. It seems to remember the last selection (I might be
    > hallucinating on that one).
    >
    > Someone who is not all that proficient with computers or Apple Mail
    > might not realize that and send the image at a small size. I've done it
    > by accident several times myself.


    OK, that's a very usefull and helpfull feature. But that's not an attachment
    function. It can only be applied to an image. Attaching means joining a
    file, any kind of file.




    --
    When in doubt, use brute force.
    -- Ken Thompson
     
    Rikishi42, Apr 18, 2013
    #7
  8. Rikishi42

    Rikishi42 Guest

    On 2013-04-18, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >> OK. So if I understand you, using drag&drop on "Mail" will attach rather
    >> then embed the image, and therefore not resize it. The limits of email
    >> are obvious, but we where not there yet.
    >>
    >> You might have missed the original post.
    >> The images *where* embedded. And the image size was described as 640x400.

    >
    > I have been following the entire thread, and the previous one
    > discussing this issue.
    >
    > There might be a misuse of the term "imbedded". By "imbedded" if you
    > mean the recipient sees an image dragged to the text field of the out
    > going message composition window and if it is viewed as part of the
    > composed text you consider it "imbedded"?


    Yes.


    > That is still an attachment, and Apple "Mail" will treat it as such if
    > dragged & dropped, or attached via menu.
    > In the example below I dragged an image file to the text field. The
    > recipient will see the image in the text field and will also have an
    > attachment which can be saved or opened in an application of choice.
    >< https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_198.jpg >


    But the OP received a 640x480 image. Clearly NOT an unmodified attachment.
    If the reduction in size was only in the layout of the mail, and there was
    also a full, unmodified image filed attached, then this thread wouldn't
    exist. The OP knows her way 'round a computer, so she wouldn't have
    confused the one for the other.


    > Always has been. Attaching and/or "embedding" in the Mac world are one
    > and the same.


    Attaching and embedding are not notions defined in the Mac world. They are
    part of the platform-independant definition of what a mail is.


    >> The question as I understand it was: how can the friend attach, rather then
    >> embed, so the mail delivers the full picture.

    >
    > See above.


    Allright, let's put it in another way: how can she send a file in
    attachment. Not specifically an image, just any kind of file. Even one that
    a Mac wouldn't open. Just sending a file to someone.





    --
    When in doubt, use brute force.
    -- Ken Thompson
     
    Rikishi42, Apr 18, 2013
    #8
  9. Rikishi42

    Rikishi42 Guest

    On 2013-04-18, isw <> wrote:
    > In article <201304171833069530-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    > Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
    >
    > --snippage --
    >
    >> Always has been. Attaching and/or "embedding" in the Mac world are one
    >> and the same.

    >
    > As a long-time Mac and "Mail" user with many Windows-using
    > correspondents, it has been my experience that they have trouble viewing
    > "embedded" images far more often than "attached" ones. Whether there is
    > actually any difference other than the location of the image file "in"
    > or "below" the message, or whether it is Windows version dependent, or
    > just that many Windows users don't know how to view images, I don't know.


    This is not about platforms. I've used a Mac once in a while, work with
    Windows all day and come home to Linux. I've used DOS, OS/2, Lotus Notes
    and a few other systems for years. Please don't make this about platforms.

    The difference between embedding and attaching is quiet simple:

    "embedding" (or inserting): it stands for the idea of making an image part
    of a text's content and presentation. Wether in a Word processor,
    presentation soft or email editor doens't matter. You open the image file,
    copy the image's pixels inside, potentially change it (in this case
    resizing) and paste the result into your text. If you receive such an
    email, you can copy-paste the image to a file, of course. This file will be
    very different from the original. Even if you didn't resize or crop, it will
    not contain the original Exif data, for instance. In other words: the result
    will not be the file that came out of that camera.

    "attaching": the idea is more of adding a parcel to a letter. Nothing to do
    with the composition of the email's layout. The file will be a binairy
    identical file.


    > So if I know the images are going to a Windows user, I always put the
    > cursor at the very bottom of the message window and use Menu/File/Attach
    > Files ... rather than just dragging the images into the window.


    Aha, finally... There is the real attachment function.

    If the OP's correspondant is indeed using "mail", this is the answer she's
    been waiting for.
    If her correspondant uses that method, then Jeniffer will receive an exact
    copy of the file. Not modified internally. Not resized.


    > With image-containing messages sent *to* a Mac, however, it doesn't seem
    > to matter where they are.


    I don't know why, unless you specify 'orgininal size'. Maybe the the soft
    creates an simple attachment in that case, with a a link between text and
    image, in order to define the position.

    Just out of curiosity: have you verified if such a transfer keeps the Exif
    data intact ?



    Sorry about the long messages. As someone once wrote: "Sorry about this long
    letter, I didn't have time to make it shorter."



    Jeniffer!
    Jennifer!
    We have the answer here!


    Did she doze off, bored my the long wait and tired of the endless reading of
    messages?

    --
    When in doubt, use brute force.
    -- Ken Thompson
     
    Rikishi42, Apr 18, 2013
    #9
  10. Rikishi42

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Rikishi42
    <> wrote:

    > >> Always has been. Attaching and/or "embedding" in the Mac world are one
    > >> and the same.

    > >
    > > As a long-time Mac and "Mail" user with many Windows-using
    > > correspondents, it has been my experience that they have trouble viewing
    > > "embedded" images far more often than "attached" ones. Whether there is
    > > actually any difference other than the location of the image file "in"
    > > or "below" the message, or whether it is Windows version dependent, or
    > > just that many Windows users don't know how to view images, I don't know.

    >
    > This is not about platforms. I've used a Mac once in a while, work with
    > Windows all day and come home to Linux. I've used DOS, OS/2, Lotus Notes
    > and a few other systems for years. Please don't make this about platforms.


    correct. it's not about platforms. it's about buggy email apps that
    don't conform to email standards, which is usually windows but not
    always.

    > The difference between embedding and attaching is quiet simple:
    >
    > "embedding" (or inserting): it stands for the idea of making an image part
    > of a text's content and presentation. Wether in a Word processor,
    > presentation soft or email editor doens't matter. You open the image file,
    > copy the image's pixels inside, potentially change it (in this case
    > resizing) and paste the result into your text. If you receive such an
    > email, you can copy-paste the image to a file, of course. This file will be
    > very different from the original. Even if you didn't resize or crop, it will
    > not contain the original Exif data, for instance. In other words: the result
    > will not be the file that came out of that camera.


    this is incorrect. email is mime encoded with a tag that says what to
    do with the file, either inline or attachment. some apps respect the
    tag, while other apps ignore it or try to guess what to do. the problem
    is the recipient's email app. to save embedded images, just right-click
    (or drag) and save it to disk. it's identical either way.

    here's a summary with links to the rfcs:
    <http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/MIME#Content-Disposition>
    The content-disposition header field was added in RFC 2183 to specify
    the presentation style. A MIME part can have:
    € an inline content-disposition, which means that it should be
    automatically displayed when the message is displayed, or
    € an attachment content-disposition, in which case it is not
    displayed automatically and requires some form of action from the
    user to open it.
    In addition to the presentation style, the content-disposition header
    also provides fields for specifying the name of the file, the
    creation date and modification date, which can be used by the
    reader's mail user agent to store the attachment.

    > "attaching": the idea is more of adding a parcel to a letter. Nothing to do
    > with the composition of the email's layout. The file will be a binairy
    > identical file.


    see above. it's just a tag.

    > > So if I know the images are going to a Windows user, I always put the
    > > cursor at the very bottom of the message window and use Menu/File/Attach
    > > Files ... rather than just dragging the images into the window.

    >
    > Aha, finally... There is the real attachment function.


    nope. that doesn't change how it's actually sent.
     
    nospam, Apr 19, 2013
    #10
  11. Rikishi42

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Rikishi42
    <> wrote:

    > > That is still an attachment, and Apple "Mail" will treat it as such if
    > > dragged & dropped, or attached via menu.
    > > In the example below I dragged an image file to the text field. The
    > > recipient will see the image in the text field and will also have an
    > > attachment which can be saved or opened in an application of choice.
    > >< https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/1295663/FileChute/screenshot_198.jpg >

    >
    > But the OP received a 640x480 image. Clearly NOT an unmodified attachment.
    > If the reduction in size was only in the layout of the mail, and there was
    > also a full, unmodified image filed attached, then this thread wouldn't
    > exist. The OP knows her way 'round a computer, so she wouldn't have
    > confused the one for the other.


    it was resized when sent. apple mail does this automatically because
    sending large photos is obnoxious and sending two copies is even more
    obnoxious.

    > > Always has been. Attaching and/or "embedding" in the Mac world are one
    > > and the same.

    >
    > Attaching and embedding are not notions defined in the Mac world. They are
    > part of the platform-independant definition of what a mail is.


    correct, yet some email apps get it wrong. apple mail encodes it
    properly, but has to have extra code to deal with broken email clients,
    namely older versions of windows outlook, which is what the windows
    compatibility option is for.

    > >> The question as I understand it was: how can the friend attach, rather then
    > >> embed, so the mail delivers the full picture.

    > >
    > > See above.

    >
    > Allright, let's put it in another way: how can she send a file in
    > attachment. Not specifically an image, just any kind of file. Even one that
    > a Mac wouldn't open. Just sending a file to someone.


    zipping it will guarantee it's treated as an attachment, but a better
    solution is use a better email app.
     
    nospam, Apr 19, 2013
    #11
  12. Rikishi42

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, Rikishi42
    <> wrote:

    > >> The question as I understand it was: how can the friend attach, rather then
    > >> embed, so the mail delivers the full picture.

    > >
    > > You drop the image in the mail and select (upper right above the message
    > > text) "Actual Size". That is how you "attach" an image.

    >
    > Nope. Not if you can select a size. That's "inserting" an image in a text or
    > "embedding", it's not attaching a file. It means you edit (resize, in this
    > case) the image for the purpose of fitting it into the text's layout.


    no, it means the image is made smaller prior to sending because sending
    large images is obnoxious.

    > When you attach a file, that file can be any kind of file; it's allways send
    > unmodified alongside the mail.


    the images are sent unmodified (other than resized on the fly).

    whether they are displayed inline or not depends on how the recipient's
    email app handles the content disposition tag. some get it wrong.
     
    nospam, Apr 19, 2013
    #12
  13. Rikishi42

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/18/2013 8:21 PM, nospam wrote:

    <snip>
    >
    > zipping it will guarantee it's treated as an attachment, but a better
    > solution is use a better email app.
    >


    Whether the size of an attachment is obnoxious, is an issue between me
    and the recipient. I recently had to send a large document. resizing
    would have destroyed its usefulness.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 19, 2013
    #13
  14. Rikishi42

    nospam Guest

    In article <isw-16CC27.21450318042013@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
    <> wrote:

    > > html mail is also bigger than it needs to be if there's just text in it.

    >
    > It's been quite a while since the size of a message mattered even
    > slightly to most folks.


    it matters on smartphones, where bigger emails cost more to download
    and read.
     
    nospam, Apr 19, 2013
    #14
  15. Rikishi42

    nospam Guest

    In article <isw-716A75.21454218042013@[216.168.3.50]>, isw
    <> wrote:

    > > Using the menu option for "attachments" there is a check box in the
    > > dialog "to use Windows friendly" attachments.

    >
    > Yup. I have it checked, but I don't know what it does.


    basically, to work around bugs in outlook.
     
    nospam, Apr 19, 2013
    #15
  16. Rikishi42

    nospam Guest

    In article <2013041905282711272-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >>> html mail is also bigger than it needs to be if there's just text in it.
    > >>
    > >> It's been quite a while since the size of a message mattered even
    > >> slightly to most folks.

    > >
    > > it matters on smartphones, where bigger emails cost more to download
    > > and read.

    >
    > However, this thread deals strictly with a computer to computer issue
    > with the OP's computer-averse, Mac user friend. Throw in a smartphone
    > and I think you will have lost her completely.


    i'm not suggesting she use a smartphone.

    what i'm saying is email that is unnecessarily large *is* an issue for
    many people.

    plain text works well.

    > Personally, I only use Verizon (3G for my iPhone), if I am going to be
    > away from my Wi-Fi home or any other hotspot/hotel Wi-Fi for any
    > extended time or I am expecting an urgent communication. So I don't
    > experience the burden on my data plan that others might.


    that works well if you're near wifi. if you're not, then it falls on
    3g/4g.
     
    nospam, Apr 19, 2013
    #16
  17. Rikishi42

    nospam Guest

    In article <2013041906301327544-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > > plain text works well.

    >
    > However, there are times folks may need to exchange files.
    > ...and one picture can replace a 1,000 words.


    exchanging files, sure.

    what i'm talking about is mail with multiple fonts, sometimes in colour
    and different sizes (that is bad enough), but may also have embedded
    links to pull in photos (even worse).

    that almost always does nothing to get the message across any better.

    or, it has a web bug, an invisible image that shows up in the sender's
    logs, so they sender knows the email was opened. spammers use that to
    confirm the email is valid. blocking that is easy but not everyone does
    it.
     
    nospam, Apr 19, 2013
    #17
  18. Rikishi42

    nospam Guest

    In article <2013041907190277923-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
    Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

    > >>> plain text works well.
    > >>
    > >> However, there are times folks may need to exchange files.
    > >> ...and one picture can replace a 1,000 words.

    > >
    > > exchanging files, sure.
    > >
    > > what i'm talking about is mail with multiple fonts, sometimes in colour
    > > and different sizes (that is bad enough), but may also have embedded
    > > links to pull in photos (even worse).
    > >
    > > that almost always does nothing to get the message across any better.
    > >
    > > or, it has a web bug, an invisible image that shows up in the sender's
    > > logs, so they sender knows the email was opened. spammers use that to
    > > confirm the email is valid. blocking that is easy but not everyone does
    > > it.

    >
    > I am not in favor of the "pretty", or HTML email.


    agreed.
     
    nospam, Apr 19, 2013
    #18
  19. Rikishi42

    PeterN Guest

    On 4/18/2013 8:59 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    > On 2013.04.18 20:44 , PeterN wrote:
    >> On 4/18/2013 8:21 PM, nospam wrote:
    >>
    >> <snip>
    >>>
    >>> zipping it will guarantee it's treated as an attachment, but a better
    >>> solution is use a better email app.
    >>>

    >>
    >> Whether the size of an attachment is obnoxious, is an issue between me
    >> and the recipient. I recently had to send a large document. resizing
    >> would have destroyed its usefulness.

    >
    > The subject was photos. What Apple Mail does is resize the JPG to
    > reduce how many bytes it takes. Up to the sender to select "as is" or
    > smaller sizes.
    >
    > As to documents, when they're over a few MB, it is better to use
    > something like Dropbox and send a link.
    >


    Usually, but there are times when an attachment is easier than
    explaining how to download a linked file.

    --
    PeterN
     
    PeterN, Apr 20, 2013
    #19
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. * * * Y o u r . S h e p h e r d . A q u i l a . D

    mac!! mac!!!

    * * * Y o u r . S h e p h e r d . A q u i l a . D, Jun 2, 2005, in forum: Computer Support
    Replies:
    7
    Views:
    753
    Aquila Deus
    Jun 3, 2005
  2. Ben Markson
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    534
    nos1eep
    Nov 11, 2005
  3. Image quality on .mac (dot mac)

    , May 15, 2006, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    4
    Views:
    411
    Steffen Kluge
    May 16, 2006
  4. nospam

    Re: Getting photos from a friend with a Mac

    nospam, Apr 16, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    1
    Views:
    215
    nospam
    Apr 16, 2013
  5. M-M

    Re: Getting photos from a friend with a Mac

    M-M, Apr 16, 2013, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    216
Loading...

Share This Page