post processing

Discussion in 'Digital Cameras' started by Nige Danton, Mar 13, 2014.

  1. Nige Danton

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Yup. Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in". The rest
    should call theirs "Plug-in for Photoshop".

    Never said that.
     
    Tony Cooper, Mar 17, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  2. Nige Danton

    Guest Guest

    you just did, above.
     
    Guest, Mar 17, 2014
    1. Advertisements

  3. Nige Danton

    Sandman Guest

    That's hilarious!
    So, anyone can make photoshp plug-ins but only Adobe can *call* them
    Photoshop plug-ins? Haha!

    I wonder why you, again, snipped this stupidity of yours that totally
    contradicts this:

    Tony Cooper
    03/13/2014 <> fonts

    "Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."

    And why you totally ignored the earlier post, where someone else than Adobe
    calls their plug-in a "Photoshop plug-in":

    <http://tinyurl.com/ngbuqzw>

    "Adobe Photoshop Plug-in Module"

    You're a riot, Tony. I've never seen a troll so invested in his own pride
    that it is totally impossible for him to ever in his life admit to making
    even the smallest error. You can talk for days, weeks trying to twist
    reality to make it seem like you didn't make an error. Hilarious!
     
    Sandman, Mar 17, 2014
  4. Nige Danton

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Evidently, your reading skills are not working today. Anyone can
    create a plug-in to be used with Photoshop. They cannot legitimately
    call it a "Photoshop Plug-in", though.

    I don't know if Adobe ever makes one, though. A plug-in that Adobe
    makes would be one created by Adobe.
     
    Tony Cooper, Mar 17, 2014
  5. Nige Danton

    Sandman Guest

    You've made that stupid statement a couple of times now. I've been busy
    laughing at you - but I think it's time for you to actually, you know,
    substantiate it.

    You claim that only Adobe can "call" a plug-in a "Photoshop plug-in" and we
    know that many developers call their plug-ins "Photoshop plug-in" and we
    know that Adobe lists third party plugin's under the heading "Photoshop
    plug-in" so so far there is nothing out there in the real world that has
    yet to align to your claims.

    http://css3ps.com - "Photoshop plugin"
    http://www.cutandslice.me - "Photoshop plugin"
    http://www.divine-project.com - "Photoshop Plugin"
    http://subtlepatterns.com - "Photoshop plugin"
    http://webzap.uiparade.com - "PS plugin"
    http://pnghat.madebysource.com - "Photoshop plugin"
    http://skeuomorphism.it - "Photoshop plugin"
    http://www.autofx.com/ - "Adobe Photoshop plug-ins"

    So, please tell us again how these people can't "call" their plugins the
    way they are already calling them, Tony.
    You don't know... whether... Adobe ever... made a plug-in... for Photoshop?

    What ARE you doing in this thread? I mean - you are here saying that *only*
    Adobe can call a plugin a "Photoshop plug-in" and you've said this:

    "Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."

    So, what plug-ins were you in reference to there, Mr six feet under?

    Surely the hole you're digging is starting to become hot, you're going to
    come way too close to the center of the earth.
     
    Sandman, Mar 17, 2014
  6. Nige Danton

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Yep. You've almost got it. If it's not a plug-in created by Adobe,
    it should be called a "Plug-in for Photoshop".

    Otherwise, it's misleading. Using "Photoshop Plug-in", there is an
    implication that the plug-in is either created by Adobe or approved by
    Adobe.
    The fact that there are examples of misuse does not make it any less
    of a misuse.

    Interesting, though, that you provide a 2006 document that refers to a
    product that works on Windows 2000 or Windows XP, and Photoshop CS or
    CS2 or Elements Version 1.0 or 2.0.

    The current webpage has statements like "Is the UP-CR10L Plug-In
    Module compatible with Photoshop CS4?"

    It's also interesting that what you've provided is a reference to a
    plug-in that allows a digital photo printer to use a template that
    puts a border around an image that is to be printed. You really are
    into some high-tech stuff, aren't you?
     
    Tony Cooper, Mar 17, 2014
  7. Nige Danton

    Guest Guest

    nonsense. they can and do.

    here's one from microsoft. maybe you've heard of them:
    <http://research.microsoft.com/en-us/um/redmond/groups/ivm/hdview/HDPhot
    oshopPlugin.htm>
    camera raw is the most obvious one, but there are many more in the
    plug-ins folder. however, on mac, the adobe plug-ins are in the app
    bundle's plug-in folder. windows doesn't have bundles so they might
    still be in the app folder.
     
    Guest, Mar 17, 2014
  8. Nige Danton

    Guest Guest

    nonsense.

    nobody but you is confused.
     
    Guest, Mar 17, 2014
  9. Nige Danton

    Sandman Guest

    Oh, so now they need not be made by Adobe any longer? They can be
    "approved" by Adobe? So when you read "Photoshop plugin" it's either made
    by Adobe or "approved" by Adobe? Your story keeps changing.
    How do you knwo it's misused? Perhaps they have been "approved" by Adobe,
    Tony? That's the implication, right? I mean, otherwise - how could they
    ever call it a "Photoshop plugin"?
    First google hit. Is this approval process and Adobe-centric thing
    something recent? Can older plugin's be called "photoshop plugin" without
    being approved or made by Adobe... according to Tony?
    So when did this rule change, Tony? Here are some current examples:

    http://css3ps.com - "Photoshop plugin"
    http://www.cutandslice.me - "Photoshop plugin"
    http://www.divine-project.com - "Photoshop Plugin"
    http://subtlepatterns.com - "Photoshop plugin"
    http://webzap.uiparade.com - "PS plugin"
    http://pnghat.madebysource.com - "Photoshop plugin"
    http://skeuomorphism.it - "Photoshop plugin"
    http://www.autofx.com/ - "Adobe Photoshop plug-ins"

    All made by Adobe - or "approved"? I mean, we've already established that
    the only approval process you have been able to produce is for the
    inclusion on their plugin portfolio on adobe.com - and none of the above
    links lead to that page, so I'm guess they are all breaking the
    law/rules/whatever that you can't direct us to?
    Ah, so the word "Photoshop plug-in" is ok for non-approved plug-ins that
    aren't made by Adobe as long as their function is trivial?

    This is really your reply?

    And what plug-ins were you in reference to when you made this statement
    that you desperately want to make disappear:

    "Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."
     
    Sandman, Mar 17, 2014
  10. Nige Danton

    Tony Cooper Guest

    Yes, we do. Evidence of misuse doesn't change anything.
    You snipped the link to that page while posting other links. Why's
    that?

    The Adobe Exchange page is published by Adobe. If Adobe wants to list
    vendors/programs that are approved by Adobe, that's up to them. They
    also stated on that page that the plug-ins were *for* Photoshop.
    Evidence of misuse doesn't change anything.
     
    Tony Cooper, Mar 17, 2014
  11. Nige Danton

    Sandman Guest

    But you have yet to established that this actually is misuse, Tony. We're
    waiting.
    To what page, the Adobe exchange link? I snipped no link from my post.
    You're the one who snips out things you're running away from, Tony. You
    know, like you just did. Again.
    Also that they are "Photoshop plugins".
    So what plugin's where you in reference to here:

    "Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins"

    Go ahead, snip away your mistake yet again and pretend it never happened.
     
    Sandman, Mar 17, 2014
  12. Nige Danton

    Eric Stevens Guest

    I've already done that. Now I have to get to use them. :)
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 17, 2014
  13. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    My word 'Play" was used in the sense of being creative and the ability
    to make major adjustments, far beyond that which can be achieved with a
    JPEG file. . That is certainly not insignificant.
    Very often I will take an image, and wuite often, usually after time has
    elapsed, the image will tell me what to do. Quite often if owuld be
    difficult to tell what the original image looked like. For my use this
    is not insignificant.
     
    PeterN, Mar 17, 2014
  14. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    Can we talk you into sharing it?
     
    PeterN, Mar 17, 2014
  15. To a degree that has truth. But "play" in your sense is not
    what I was getting at for RAW processing.

    I'm digging at the idea that JPEG by definition means "getting
    it right in the camera" as opposed to RAW meaning you can play
    an image to discover the correct creative adjustments that will
    produce an image.

    I want to see the resulting image first, *before* the shutter is
    released, and have data recorded that allows me to then produce
    the image that was already visualized. In camera processing
    usually just can't get very close because the parameters are
    estimated rather than set up inspection with full knowledge of
    precisely the effect, and also just because the granularity of
    the adjustment is large in the camera and much finer with post
    processing software.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 17, 2014
  16. Sure. Email me your address and send $325 via PayPal; I'll send
    you a canvas print.

    Otherwise, there simply is no way to share the effect of a
    24"x36" print.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 18, 2014
  17. Nige Danton

    Eric Stevens Guest

    Quite right. This is something that many people fail to appreciate. So
    many prints which look great on a screen fail utterly as a large
    print. Vice versa also.
     
    Eric Stevens, Mar 18, 2014
  18. Just mention Andreas Gursky's huge print known as Rhine II, and
    pseudo photography critics come out of the woodwork on the
    Internet to call it a POS. They've never seen the $4 million
    print, just a useless 1024x768 copy of it.
     
    Floyd L. Davidson, Mar 18, 2014
  19. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    I make no claim that it's not best to get it as close to "right" in the
    camera, as possible. But remember, I also like to make a lot of abstracts.
     
    PeterN, Mar 18, 2014
  20. Nige Danton

    PeterN Guest

    Similarly, I have never seen a photo of the Baptistry doors, that even
    comes close to evoking the emotion I feel when viewing the originals.
    I just stood there, immobilized for some period of time.

    But, as to my request, I well understand your answer. I have felt the
    same way myself, with some of my images.
     
    PeterN, Mar 18, 2014
    1. Advertisements

Ask a Question

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

You'll need to choose a username for the site, which only take a couple of moments (here). After that, you can post your question and our members will help you out.