Dad, Modern Brides, and freebie

Went to the hospital yesterday afternoon, fighting traffic (the 15th is military payday). Was told Dad would be released by medical transport about 3:30. Snagged some food real quick on the way and nibbled as I drove. Don't worry - just waffle fries and chicken nuggets from Chick Filet, so safe to grab with one hand and pop in the mouth. I get there, find Dad asleep and when the aide comes in sometime later I'm told transport won't arrive until between 6 - 8 p.m. Went back down to the car to finish my lunch. Dad still sleeping when I got back up stairs. I read until my eyes were tired.

TV in his room was tuned to a channel on which "Say Yes to the Dress" was on. Not something I ever watch but nothing better to do. What an eye opener! All these brides looking for transparent gowns! Oh, they tried on a nice gowns that weren't transparent but . . . they all wanted to look sexy. Showing my age, I'm sure, but whatever happened to wanting to look like a princess, looking elegant? I totally get the days of innocence and purity are behind us, but these brides were trying on "dresses" that were, to borrow what my mother would have said, Trashy! I mean dresses that consisted of a low cut strapless corset top where the breasts were barely covered and down to the waist or below was just see through fabric with some lace and sparkle, the balance as form fitting as possible. One woman even talked to the consultant about having the see through part extended down to bikini line! Used to be you saved the see through lingerie for the honeymoon and just your husband's eyes. Now, it seems, brides who can afford these dresses (that cost between $5,000 - $10,000) are after showing off next to everything to all their guests. And why do big heavy brides nearly always choose strapless gowns their breasts threaten to pop out of? Just sayin'.

And now, at last today's freebie about something sort of related to above comments - falling in love.

Link: https://www.dropbox.com/s/hje7feq3xrwfeg2/ws_ChickThing_18.zip?dl=0

Question: Something summery? or shopping next?

Just Sayin'

I'm not a tagger. Oh, I've made some tagger kits - mostly downsizing my full size kits for tagging use - and I've made a few tags - most often for designer friends I CT'd for. On occasion I will purchase a tagger kit to use in making ATCs (artist trading cards) because the elements are usually about the right size for those. Sometimes the backgrounds can be adapted for ATCs too or bragbook pages. In general most tagger backgrounds are 800 x 800 pixels which is pretty small. But while full size scrap kits have established standards of size (12 inch square) and DPI (300 dpi), tagger kits have no established standards. Backgrounds are usually consistent in size but may be larger or a little smaller. The biggest problem is dpi. Some make kits at 72 dpi because tags are mostly used on-line but some create at 300 dpi. No one requires tagger designers to note what dpi their kits are created at or what size backgrounds and elements are. I recently purchased a tagger kit from a well known designer at a great price. The Victorian theme and colors would make for nice journal cards and ATCs and I might be able to use the elements on the small (approx 5 x 7 inch) journal pages I've been using. I started opening some of the backgrounds and found dpi of 300, 100, even 39 dpi. 39? Seriously? Why did she bother to include that? It's worthless! From the point of view of this consumer, I think scrapbook stores should require standards for tagger kits too or at least insist that the details be posted on the previews and/or in the descriptions. I'm not trying to be difficult. In the past, I've even run blog posts about ways one can stretch the use of tagger kits to help promote sales for friends who design and tag.