• My uploaded images from Oxford University Museum of Natural History June 2006 (OUMNH)
• More images from Oxford University Museum of Natural History June 2006 (OUMNH2)
• My uploaded images from Charmouth Heritage Coast Centre June 2006
• Third trip to the Oxford University Museum of Natural History - July 2006

Comment:

Image #2 is incredibly dark. Image #1 needs a closer crop on the pelvis and some lightening.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:51, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Sorry that I've worked 'upwards', through your feedback - so this was my last to respond to. As with Allo-, #1 was taken second time thru', with hand-held and flash inactivated. #2 was first time thru', with autoflash and enforced distance to great for adequate lighting of the object. - Ballista 04:55, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You mean we're only supposed to go one way? Well, then, I've a small confession: I've done all these completely at random, adding comments wherever I felt like it. If going backwards is bad, imagine how bad going thru them randomly is! ;)

Comment:

Image #1 appears to be a bit out of focus: the cabling in front is in sharp focus, but the animal behind it looks fuzzy, especially around the ribs and futher to the left. Image #2 is incredibly dark.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:49, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

1. 1 was taken on my second run, using hand held and flash inactivated (see my comments somewhere further down the page - I think I let the jostling crowds on the suspended walkway hassle me, on this one, so I centred wrongly and probably moved. I'll have to go again, one day, armed with a list of points..... #2 was taken on the first run thru', with auto flash - distance too great. - Ballista 04:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

Comment:

• I like #1 for an "in-life" picture, and #3 for a skeleton photo. #2 is far too distracting. #3 would still need some lightening or balance.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:45, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Nice editing on No 3, thanks. - Ballista 03:35, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

These head models by Animatronics had the right side as exposed skull and the left side fleshed out - hence the white bits that show from the far side on this and other head models on this page. Comment:

• File:Brachiosaurus Animatronic model NHM.JPG
• 

• A closer crop, and remove the white stuff.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:40, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Is this something you can do, assuming the image is needed? - Ballista 04:49, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, of course I can. That's no problem. I just don't want to 'take over' any images you might feel are suitable as-is.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:07, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, give over! I'd like them to be as good as poss, if they 'go up', so, as usual, any help you can offer is GREAT! - Ballista 19:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Well... I just wanted to make sure, you know. --Firsfron of Ronchester 23:16, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice one! I appreciate your deference with these images but, I am sort of handing them over to the project, so you really are very welcome and your input is highly valued. - Ballista 05:07, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• 
• 
• File:Camarasaurus skull NHM.JPG
• 
• 

• All but the first show up really dark on my monitor. It's really hard to see anything on the last photo. However, the first image looks really pretty bright. --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:38, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• As mentioned below, with Trike (I'm working up the page, as you do!), these two were in a very dark room and dark bones. I thought the non-thumb images weren't impossibly dark but then I'm biassed......... As it is, the darker ones probably aren't needed, anyway. - Ballista 04:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:This exhibit was labelled 'Oviraptor', in the museum.

• As Dinoguy states, recently Citipati was separated from Oviraptor. Most depictions of "Oviraptor" are now Citipati. The first one looks a mite dark, the second a mite bright. Either could be used, with adjustments, but I don't reccommend both.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:11, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

No, putting up both would be bad news! Should I rename it? - Ballista 04:15, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid so. --Firsfron of Ronchester 04:36, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh well - it will have to await another day, now, as run out of time today - very hectic 'real-life' schedules for the coming weeks. I've never liked the name Citipati, seems as if it should have been some sort of Indian side dish! - Ballista 05:05, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I totally agree. Next time I'm in Europe, I'll look you up, and all the Citipati you can eat will be on me! ;)--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's a date, then. - Ballista 19:45, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Name-change done - Ballista 05:17, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

Article Coelophysis has only one image; it needs images. The picture name has a typo. The hands on the first image look a bit pronated, but I'll let Dinoguy decide. The back half is also a bit dark, and the whole image can be cropped considerably. The second image also needs cropped, but otherwise good!--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:34, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Here we go again, with sloppy spelling .... I have been working with too much haste, in short bursts of available time - 'more haste less speed'. Can you work your usual magic with the images? - that way, the edited versions at least will have the correct spelling on their file titles. - Ballista 04:44, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I understand you're working under some time constraints. It's not hard to fix, and given the sheer number of images, a few mispellings are bound to happen! Yes, of course I can work on these lovely images. I just want to make sure that maybe you don't want to work on them yourself, if you think you could do it. You mentioned you have a graphics editing program, and if it can do the work, go for it! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 05:12, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I only have Corel Photohouse (that I've used at all) & I ain't too hot with it - I only crop, lighten, darken, etc. You're more than welcome to work your usual magic, as you see fit. - Ballista 19:43, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Thanks - they both work better, don't they? - Ballista 05:05, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Well, on the second set, all I did was remove some distracting elements: the border around it, and a bit of the spotlight effect in the middle... not enough to make the picture look artificial, just enough to bring the focus back to Coelo himself. At least, that was my intention.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:18, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Successfully, IMHO - Ballista 03:37, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Original image name changes done - Ballista 05:19, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Third name change done - Ballista 05:27, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Diplodocus is the feature exhibit, as you enter the main hall of the Natural History Museum. He is vast. A real photographic challenge with a 'point & shoot'-type camera. Diplodocus front-on image now brightened.

• Comment:

Obviously, it was a challenge to get such a large animal in the photo. Cas has put the first image up already, and I totally concur. Nice job, given the circumstances (photographing these huge animals...)--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:54, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

I lightened the 'front-end' shot (No 3), as per Cas's suggestion - stupidly, in my haste, I overwrote the original image file!!! He now suggests more contrast, which is absolutely correct - can it be salvaged? - Ballista 04:55, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I've edited in more contrast (No 3) now - is that any better? - Ballista 05:45, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• The cabling is so distracting, on the first and last images. Obviously not your fault, but I'd like to see this edited. The remaining ones are incredibly dark, at least on my monitor (and I turned up the brightness all the way: it won't go any further). Photoshop can pick out areas to lighten, using selection tools.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:28, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, this is a function of the set-up, there. They have this long gallery with a suspended walkway on cables and suspended displays on cables - obviously a ruse to utilise space, where there's plenty of room height but there is no upper floor. Again the distance/light problem. There were two moving models, way down on the right of this display but I was unable to light them sufficiently with the flash and 'available light' would have been blurred by their movement. I suspect they'll sadly be useless, unless you can work some magic. - Ballista 04:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I can certainly give it a go! --Firsfron of Ronchester 05:14, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Is this one just cropped or have you done more? - difficult to compare when switching from one to another. - Ballista 05:03, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Cropped, and most of the distracting cables are removed. I left in the two by the tail, simply because they weren't really blocking anything.--Firsfron of Ronchester 00:20, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Obvious as anything, now you point it all out - nice job! - Ballista 03:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Well done, indeed - true to your word - do you think it's useable now? They are now visible for what they are. For my money, the bright light would be better extinguished, it really shows up now, in your new version. I suppose these chaps might ought to have feathers, in modern thinking but they look pretty realistic, nonetheless. I don't know how 'old' the exhibit is, but the models move, rather like Animatronics jobbies. Strange they didn't put some feathers in. - Ballista 04:40, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'll see what I can do! But, forgive me, it will have to wait until tomorrow. I'm just about ready to head home. Have a great night...er...morning!--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:44, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Safe travel - have a good evening & THANKS - Ballista 04:57, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cutaway detail - possibly Utahraptor but I'll need to double check, one day. Comment:

• Awesome shot! Perfect as is. Just needs a name... --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:23, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yeah, typical sloppiness at the time - I'll have to research it but they had several models of this dino about, to show various features and I'd sort of dismissed it as 'generic'. - Ballista 04:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

That's alright. They might not have had any real name for it. If that's the case, it can surely go on the Dromaeosaurid page.--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:02, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• A bit lighter, a closer crop. Otherwise, great shot!--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:22, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• I've been working upwards, through your feedback, so this comment is as per Euoplocephalus, although closer in this case. Is there anything you can do about the right side showing, with exposed skull? - Ballista 04:25, 5 July 2006 (UTC) P.S.: I've added another image, to illustrate the point ref. cutawy to show skull, that applies equally to RHS of Tyranno, Brachio and Edmonto Animatronics head models and made catching the perfect shot difficult at times, with a moving target and moving people. - Ballista 04:35, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I imagine getting some of these would have been a huge nightmare! Trying to capture moving beasts in a darkened room using a camera and a toothpick...! Yes, of course I can fix the white areas. That's no problem at all!--Firsfron of Ronchester 05:00, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, you remembered the toothpick? I didn't pull that excuse this time or mention the ruckus when I dropped the d**** thing in the dark! - Ballista 05:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, that IS neat! - Ballista 05:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

It's the clone stamp tool. It does almost all the work. A bit tricky in some places, but impossible to do with another tool.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Most impressive! - Ballista 04:14, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

The head shot looks great, although still a bit dark on my monitor. Either of the remaining two images could go up, too, but only one of them (no need for two tail shots, I think). The 'flames' in the third picture are a little distracting, but I think I like that one better overall.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:21, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

This Dino Jaws exhibition was a really good display, with these lovely Animatronics things but, from the photography point of view, very difficult with a very basic camera. Distances great, available lighting VERY low, objects large and constantly on the move (static, though). Oh those excuses .... - Ballista 04:22, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No, I completely understand what you're talking about. There are so many that can be easily lightened, cropped, or slightly altered, that it doesn't matter anyway. Don't worry about it! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:57, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Very slight alteration on this one... I just slightly dimmed the one horn that looks so very bright.--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:26, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

That works! Any chance of a tiny bit more? - Ballista 04:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Absolutely. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 04:57, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

Both images show up a bit dark on my monitor. Green light could be removed, too. Otherwise, great shot! I think I prefer image #2, because it appears to show more of him. --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:16, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

• I agree that No2 is a better portrayal. Can you 'fix' it? - Ballista 04:19, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
  • Yes, absolutely. Right after "work" tomorrow. It really doesn't need a lot. :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:24, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Thanks - Ballista 05:06, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Now it may be a bit bright. What do you think?--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think it's great BUT, could the skull only be turned down a tad? If not, I'd run with this latest version. - Ballista 04:53, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes of course it can. I'll work on it tomorrow.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:56, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, you're just too quick for me - no sooner than I have responded to two fo your messages but you're responding to mine!!! Great stuff - Ballista 04:58, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

I think communication is key. ;) --Firsfron of Ronchester 05:00, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

You're absolutely right and you have an exemplary skill in that direction. BTW - I was late 'on' this morning - terrible thunderstorms (after fearsome drought, so no complaints) but I feared to switch on the machine until now. Result will be a shorter working slot than usual. - Ballista 05:11, 6 July 2006 (UTC)

No problem. I had the exact the same thing here today: heavy rains all last night, so I didn't get to respond to your messages until now. BTW, is this last Galli better? I applied a filter to brighten up the body, and a filter to darken up the head a tad. What do you think?--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Another success to your credit - looks great now. - Ballista 03:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Cool. :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:43, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• 
  Iguanodon Animatronics]] model at NHM (Dino Jaws exhibition)
• 
  Iguanodon skeleton at NHM
• 
  Iguanodon manus 1 NHM
• 
  Iguanodon manus 2 at NHM
• 
  Iguanodon manus 3 at NHM
• 
  Iguanodon manus at NHM
• 
  Iguanodon thumb-spike at NHM

Comment:

• The second image is much brighter, and, without the purple box and a little lightening, is a definite must. The article itself may need expanding, though, so the images don't make it look unbalanced.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:13, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• What you see, here, is my mental progress in dealing with the challenge. For the second one, I took the circuit again, with the flash inactivated, so it was hand-held/available light. I tried this with a few. - Ballista 04:17, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Removing the purple box altogether made the image look artificial. I toned it down, removed the text, sharpened the image a bit, and cropped it. What do you think?--Firsfron of Ronchester 01:41, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Certainly works for me - turned it into a real professional shot! These museums certainly don't plan photography into their exhibits and, anyway, IMO, this one was too far away from the walkway/too small for easy observation/scrutiny by visitors. Your result with the photo beats the actual exhibit, for me! - Ballista 03:45, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Great. I know exactly what you mean about the lighting/distance conditions. --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:51, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Indeed, very tricky for most of their exhibits - however, in this case, this one was 'hand-held/available light. No, what I meant was that this particular fellow was way too far away from visitors, for his size, so that the photo (in its edited form) actually enhances the experience several times over. - Ballista 04:04, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• Personally, I'd prefer a cut-out on this one, because the brown of the cabinet is so close to the brown of the skull. I'm not opposed to it going up 'as is', though. --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:08, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• One of your cut-outs would be nice - Ballista 04:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

You got it! :)--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:37, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

No name on the cabinet - is this Psittacosaurus (or who)? Comment:

• Yes, this is he. Lambert's book has the same model, just a different color. Some Psittacosaurs had the quill-like projections, but maybe some species did not. I'll check around. If it turns out some did not, this could go up as is. --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:43, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Await research with interest. - Ballista 04:13, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Sheep's re-write of Psittaco says "at least one species had" the quills, indicating it's not known whether the other ones did. Your image is a go! --Firsfron of Ronchester 04:40, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• Really dark, but some lightening could probably salvage it. It's really nice you got a lot of dinosaurs for which we have few or no images! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:44, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Is that something for PhotoShop or is it something I could do with my simpler software? - Ballista 04:11, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Hey, if you can get a good image editing it, go for it! I'm not sure what you're using, but I guess nothing really fancy is needed here?--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:41, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Brightened this one up a tad, now - better? - Ballista 05:50, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Oh, yes! It looks really great now! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 09:29, 8 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• 
  Triceratops skull
• 
  Triceratops pelvis

• Incredibly dark. But we already have many good Tricera skulls, so it's not a huge loss if these can't be salvaged (although I think it's still possible).--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:46, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, Trike & Camara were in a darkened, windowless room, from memory, with very dark bones, too. My amateur photography was challenged beyond capability. - Ballista 04:10, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• Really striking image, in close-up view. I think recent evidence suggests Troodon had feathers. Will check on this. --Firsfron of Ronchester 21:47, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Many Maniraptorids had feathers. I don't think Troodon has been found with feathers, but it's looking more and more likely these last families before proper birds had feathers.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:48, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• Both of these images should be used, IMO. The first picture should be lightened just a tad so that the armo(u)r shows more clearly. I don't suggest the whole image be lightened, just the top right-hand corner. The bottom centimeter (or so) could also be cropped out. Otherwise, a great pic.
• The thagomizer image should also go up.
• I thought I saw a third image, when you were uploading: wasn't it the back half?--Firsfron of Ronchester 21:53, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Heck, does nothing get past you? I did miss the rear half image, when assembling them all. Well spotted, with your 'surveillance' hat on. Ref. the 'lightening', is that something you would do with PhotoShop? - Ballista 04:08, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Yes, that's right. Also, thanks for the back half of Tuo.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:50, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I applied a lighting filter to the back half, and slightly adjusted the color. OK, It looks like I did absolutely nothing on this one, but I really did! :) --Firsfron of Ronchester 01:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Far from it. Despite being loathe to disagree with you, I think this one's subtle changes amount to a transformation, making the object of the photo much more comprehensible. The shadows are still a mite distracting but it stands out fine. - Ballista 03:49, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm afraid there's nothing I can do about the shadows. There isn't enough plain background to "morph" them out of the shot. :( --Firsfron of Ronchester 03:54, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

No, that's fine - it's a function of their lighting set-up. I reckon it works well as is, now. - Ballista 04:00, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• 
  Tyrannosaurus Animatronics model at NHM 'Dino Jaws' exhibition
• 
  Tyrannosaurus at NHM 3
• 
  Tyrannosaurus edited
• 
  Tyrannosaurus at NHM 2
• 
  Tyrannosaurus at NHM 1

These are so dark. The third image appears to crop off the front of T-rex's face, but it's so hard to tell. I don't like that one so much. The second one is nice: they even stained his face with what looks like blood. Nice touch. If the image can be lightened a bit, and the distracting elements (lights and the 'cone thing' below his chin, and maybe the girl) are removed, I think it might make a good addition, provided there's still room on the T-rex (or popular culture) pages.

As you say, we may be 'up to here' with T. rex images anyway. If there's mileage in No2, do you feel like doing the necessaries? This may have been an animatronics model, although in the museum proper (it was certainly constantly moving & difficult to catch in the relative darkness & with the jostling crowd that were using the ramp that bordered the display). He was really quite impressive, 'in the flesh' so to speak. He roared nicely too, although I had a funny fantasy: what if T. rex were to have twittered or warbled, like his bird relatives? - Ballista 04:04, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I'm certainly willing to edit the picture! I'm not sure there's even room, but maybe one of the T-rex sub-pages (there's at least one) has some room? Also: blasphemer! ;) --Firsfron of Ronchester 04:52, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

Image #2 lightened, 'cone' (it turned out to be a column on close inspection) removed, photo cropped. What do you think?--Firsfron of Ronchester 02:39, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Amazing! - All we need now is the twittering sound effect! Strange how lightening it has brought out two people whom I hadn't really noticed in the original (although they're clearly there when you look). I don't think having people looking on matters, does it? It's a museum after all. - Ballista 03:53, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Twittering? Ha! ;) The original image was so dark that I could barely see the first girl in the picture. She's now been cropped out: she was bright and distracting. I didn't even see the other three (there are three) children until I lightened the photo: I'm in agreement with you, there's no real reason, I think, to edit them out of the photo: they're pretty dim, and I don't think they take away much from the photo. I did fix their eyes, as they had severe red-eye.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:01, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Just looked at the full-size version of my original and see what you mean about the eyes - very devilish. No, I'm for leaving these onlookers 'in', as they appear now. - Ballista 04:09, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

These are from the Dino Jaws exhibition (Animatronics models) - individual captions not necessary for this gallery. Sadly no museum display, in the museum proper. Comment:

• Dinoguy might have a problem with some of these. The hands may be off. Although the first image doesn't show it very much. The first image should be evened up (part is a bit too bright, the rest is a bit too dark), but I think this image is definitely worthwhile. Dunno what anyone else thinks.--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:02, 4 July 2006 (UTC)
• Yes, I noticed the 'hands' tending to face outwards rather than inwards, for a start. - Ballista 03:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)
• Now it's down to Dinoguy's verdict on suitability - the image is now great. What do you reckon to toning down the white area of his bum a tiny bit, tho'? - Ballista 03:56, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Got it. A less white butt: he'll have a nice tan on his rear end by this weekend. ;)--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:05, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

Ah yes, those transatlantic language differences ......... - Ballista 04:12, 7 July 2006 (UTC)

The image is hereby adjusted! The bright areas were dimmed out by 15-20%.--Firsfron of Ronchester 23:12, 11 July 2006 (UTC)

Great stuff, as ever - Ballista 04:20, 12 July 2006 (UTC)

Comment:

• 
  Coelacanth
• 
  Megatherium
• 
  Plesiosaur
• 
  Plesiosaurus hawkinsi

The Megalotherium would make a perfect date for our lovely Bradysaurus, don't you think? ;)--Firsfron of Ronchester 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Nice touch about the date between two fruits of the ugli tree! - Ballista 12:22, 30 July 2006 (UTC)

• Mary Anning plaque
  Mary Anning plaque
• 
  Mary Anning detail from painting

The photo of Mary Anning cannot be used, I think. It is a painting from after 1932 (the bottom says 1935). I'll check on this. The plesiosaur with the plaque could easily be photoshopped to remove the plaque. --Firsfron of Ronchester 22:06, 4 July 2006 (UTC)

Ref. Mary Anning, just checking a technicality, here: is there anything wrong (if we wanted to use it at all, that is) in using the image as a 'photo of the display', rather than as an image in its own right? - Ballista 03:58, 5 July 2006 (UTC)

I've officially asked about Mary's portrait on an image help page. Hopefully they will get back to us soon. I'd love to see this on a page, but I do worry about the copyright status.--Firsfron of Ronchester 04:54, 5 July 2006 (UTC)