>>I may be wrong about this (and I'm sure I'll be corrected if I am), but I >believe you can store the .JPG's in a GENERAL field of a table.
>
>I want to avoid making the table so large, taking up megs in hard drive. So, this option is not good for this, but thanks for the reply.
>
>Chuck

The same megs will be taken by independent .jpg files, and, moreover, the directory structure to keep them in will be even worse, even if we don't take slack into account. Why would you want to use a slower retrieval system (Windows directory search) when you already have a better one (VFP database engine)?