The Photoshop Family

Since a lot of people seem confused, this is what Adobe has to say about
the matter:

http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshopfamily.html

The Photoshop Family. Members:

- Photoshop CC
- Photoshop Lightroom
- Photoshop Elements

Depending on your photographic needs, one of the applications under the
brand name Photoshop will probably serve it.

(as an aside, Adobe lists Elements for $100, not $50).

 

Gee, I'll bet no one here knew that. Evidently, you don't know that
Adobe Premiere Elements, Adobe Premiere Elements Pro, and Adobe
Premiere Elements CC are also family members.

Editing. Adobe does not offer a product that takes photographs.

nospam's figure is not that far off. He's been pretty clear that
Elements is available for less than Adobe's list price from other
vendors. The "street price" varies by version, and it's not always
necessary to have the most current version. Version 12 is available
for under $60.

 

....and my copy of PSE9 obtained via a bundle with something or other I
bought (Wacom, Roxio, or whatever) works fine on this Mac running OSX
10.9.1. Effectively due to the bundle was for all intents and purposes
free.
....and it is still not PS CS6/CC.

 

apparently you missed where he said 'the photoshop family'.

do try to keep up before you say more stupid stuff, although i suspect
it cannot be stopped no matter what you do.

semantic bullshit. everyone knows what he means.

only stupid people pay full retail price.

 

Actually, the page you cite also lists two other members - Photoshop Touch
and Revel. They may be country cousins but they're still family.

 

I don't consider Premiere to be any more part of the "Photoshop" family
than I do Acrobat or Dreamweaver.

Premiere is a nonlinear video editor--very different function from what
Photoshop does.

 

Yep

 

Evidently not.

Thanks for sharing another incorrect statement, adding to your numerous
incorrect statements that came before it. Lousy habit, but some people
can't stop smoking and you can't stop being incorrect.

Ah, semantics, the troll's last resort!

 

Which no one has claimed it is. It *is* Photoshop though, and belongs to
the Photoshop family of applications.

 

No one does - Tony is just obfuscating.

 

Nospam has.
He clouded the issue by making his "Photoshop can be affordable at $50"
remark. That started us down this argumentative sub-thread. Instead of
saying that he meant "Photoshop Elements can be bought for $50 street
price", he got into this idea that it is fine to call PSE, "Photoshop"
because the word is used in its name and it mostly does what a full
version of PS CS6/CC can do.
It might be nit picking, but personally I have never referred to PSE as
"Photoshop", always "PSE", "Photoshop Elements", or merely "Elements".
Never "Photoshop". I have not recalled anybody other than nospam making
that claim.
As I stated above, no matter how much you camouflage it, nobody with
any awareness of the Adobe product line, is going to refer to PSE as
"Photoshop" and all that implies, but nospam did, and he refuses to
back out of his claim gracefully.

 

You and nospam are a hoot! Of course it's "semantics". If you had
the foggiest idea of the meaning of the word "semantics", you wouldn't
use it to defend your errors.

Semantics is the branch of linguistics that studies the meaning of
words. A full definition is "The branch of linguistics and logic
concerned with meaning. There are a number of branches and subbranches
of semantics, including formal semantics, which studies the logical
aspects of meaning, such as sense, reference, implication, and logical
form, lexical semantics, which studies word meanings and word
relations, and conceptual semantics, which studies the cognitive
structure of meaning."

When you use "photographic" when you mean "editing", that's a clear
misuse of "photographic". Semantically incorrect. It's not a nitpick
or a troll to point out the error.

 

Photo means or refers to light photoshop doesn't do anything with light unlike a camera, an enlarger or even a slide projector.
Photoshop does NOT do things to or with light.
Photoshop is the term adobe decided to use because most people took or senttheir photos to a shop for processing where a shop was a place that provided the service, and this service was NOT to use light but chemicals to remove other chemicals or change their struction to enable them to reflect or inhibite light for those that had used a device to capture light and couldn't or didn't want to process the images themselves.

Adobe mis-used that word photo in it's true sense.
Now Graphic converter got it right as far as product name discription goes.
Most things called image editors got it right too.

Now adobe called their movie editor premiere, why because it was the first,the best ?

 

According to the word from the deity in the western Baltic, everything
you say is a troll.

 

Which, of course, is far from saying "Photoshop CS6/CCC can be affordable
at $50"

Also, I would advice against putting quotation marks around a phrase and
claiming it was said by someone when it wasn't. Quotation marks should only
be used when the quote is verbatim. Nospam never said the above. He said
something similar, yes, and probably with the same intent and meaning, but
quotation marks means it's a quote, which this wasn't.

No, Eric, Peter and Tony started "us" down this sub-thread. All they want
is to argue. Had they asked him where he can get Photoshop for $50 and he
would have linked to a page about Photoshop Elements pricing and then they
would just have gone "Oh, you meant Elements, I just thought you meant CC",
then there would be no sub thread. But that's far too reasonable for these
guys, where arguing is the MO.

Adobe does not sell a "Photoshop" product. They have Photoshop Elements,
Photoshop Lightroom, Photoshop CC and Photoshop touch. Using just
"Photoshop" does not inherently mean "Photoshop CC". I agree that that's
what most people would *think* of when you say Photoshop, but that doesn't
make the original comment incorrect or even disingenuous as some have
suggested.

As is your right. You may refer to it in whatever you wish, no one can tell
you otherwise. In the same note - nospam may have *always* refered to
Photoshop Elements as Photoshop for all we know, and this was just one of
those times. There is nothing from Adobe or even logic that says that
either position is "correct".

I have, many I know that use Photoshop Elements refer to it as Photoshop,
as well they should. It's like saying they shouldn't call their iPod nano
an iPod since what "most" people consider to be the iPod is the iPod
Classic.

Lots of people refer to Photoshop Elements as just "Photoshop". I agree
that it can be quite confusing when you're trying to help someone over the
phone and they refer to Photoshop and your (or mine) preconcieved notion
has us thinking "Photoshop CC" or some earlier version, but that doesn't
make them incorrect. They launch the program and the splash screen says
Adobe Photoshop.

This has been yet another case of the resident trolls blowing something
*way* out of proportions.

 

Typical troll reply.

Your reply concerned semantics in a post that argued nothing about the
meaning of words. You didn't respond to argue, agree or add a comment to
the point that was being made in the post, only to post a semantic remark
about a possible error I made in my post.

This is the trolls last resort, when he can no longer argue the central
point. The next step is to step away from what was actually written and
start name calling and ad hominem's.

Incorrect. Even if I would agree that "photography" does not include the
processing of photographs (which I don't), it's still a semantic reply to a
statement that didn't concern the defintion of use of a specific word -
clearly making it a nitpic and in your case, trolling.

 

Now *there* is an error in syntax.

 

That may be what you advice [sic], but there are other uses for
quotation marks. There are the "apologetic quotation marks" which are
used to call attention to ironic or apologetic words. An example of
this would be me writing "There are "never" any errors in nospam's
posts" or "Sandman is an "expert" in English grammar and usage.".
These are sometimes called "scare quotes".

Unfortunately, we are limited in this forum because words in posts
cannot be underlined, italicized, or bold-faced. I am not quoting
anyone when I wrote "apologetic quotation marks", and would underline
that phrase instead of enclosing it in quotation marks in a word
processing program, but I cannot do so here.

And, I would use a single quote mark (') instead of a full quote mark
(") when using a quoted word or words within a sentence enclosed in
quotes.

The exchange was, in its entirety:

(Polly) "I don't know anything about Photoshop (except that I can't
afford it!)."

(nospam) "you can't afford $50, yet you can afford a digital camera
and a computer?"

More than just "similar". A rather hypocritical claim from someone
who complains about "syntax trolls".

If you feel the need to "teach" (scare quotes) us something here, try
to choose a subject you understand; not English usage.

 

again, there is nothing hypocritical about it. if polly really needed
the full version, price would not be a concern because it pays for
itself in short order. therefore, $50 is all that's necessary to get
photoshop. and for the nitpickers, 'photoshop elements, a proud member
of the photoshop family.'

 

no shit.

i figured it would be obvious but apparently i overestimated what some
people can understand.

correct.

when adobe says 'photoshop' they mean any of a number of products.

i have photoshop on my ipad.

is it cs6? nope. is it elements? nope.

anyone with a clue would know it's either photoshop express or
photoshop touch.

however, it's still photoshop.

the fact that some people *assume* the pro version when they hear one
word is of their own doing.

it's a version of photoshop (to satisfy the nitpickers).

good analogy.

originally it was called ipod, then after they filled out the lineup,
they renamed it to ipod classic.

in fact, the name ipod is often mistakenly used to describe *competing*
mp3 players.

yep, that's reality.

yep. standard fare for this newsgroup (and others).