|
| ||||||
| Hello there, Here is a second example of my latest tutorial. This beautiful stat was made Deanne. Didn't she do a lovely job!! I will send in one more example, and then the tutorial will follow. Hugs, Robin | ||||||
|
| ||||||
| Hi everyone, Here is an example of the tutorial that I will be sending through the group. This gorgeous stat was made by Dennis (psychohounddog). I have attached a blank tag he made. Hugs, | ||||||
|
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the united_tut_writers_inc
group.
File : /Tutorials by REL Designs/MS Word Format/Stars And Stripes Frame and SB Tutorial.doc
Uploaded by : rel_nc <tag.junkie@gmail.com>
Description :
You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/united_tut_writers_inc/files/Tutorials%20by%20REL%20Designs/MS%20Word%20Format/Stars%20And%20Stripes%20Frame%20and%20SB%20Tutorial.doc
To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles
Regards,
rel_nc <tag.junkie@gmail.com>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/united_tut_writers_inc/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/united_tut_writers_inc/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:united_tut_writers_inc-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:united_tut_writers_inc-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
united_tut_writers_inc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
Hello,
This email message is a notification to let you know that
a file has been uploaded to the Files area of the united_tut_writers_inc
group.
File : /Tutorials by REL Designs/Incredimail Format/stars_&_stripes_frame_sb_tut.imf
Uploaded by : rel_nc <tag.junkie@gmail.com>
Description :
You can access this file at the URL:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/united_tut_writers_inc/files/Tutorials%20by%20REL%20Designs/Incredimail%20Format/stars_%26_stripes_frame_sb_tut.imf
To learn more about file sharing for your group, please visit:
http://help.yahoo.com/l/us/yahoo/groups/original/members/web/index.htmlfiles
Regards,
rel_nc <tag.junkie@gmail.com>
------------------------------------
Yahoo! Groups Links
<*> To visit your group on the web, go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/united_tut_writers_inc/
<*> Your email settings:
Individual Email | Traditional
<*> To change settings online go to:
http://groups.yahoo.com/group/united_tut_writers_inc/join
(Yahoo! ID required)
<*> To change settings via email:
mailto:united_tut_writers_inc-digest@yahoogroups.com
mailto:united_tut_writers_inc-fullfeatured@yahoogroups.com
<*> To unsubscribe from this group, send an email to:
united_tut_writers_inc-unsubscribe@yahoogroups.com
<*> Your use of Yahoo! Groups is subject to:
http://docs.yahoo.com/info/terms/
rec.photo.digital
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
rec.photo.digital@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* Items in basic D90 bundle? - 7 messages, 4 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9e66f2cd716d4f6e?hl=en
* Palestinians Under Attack - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/785f7679e18aa82a?hl=en
* Lithium & future long term battery cost - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6d45d9eb5b0863b4?hl=en
* Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700 - 5 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
* Adobe gone crazy? - 2 messages, 2 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c0344eda38bd828?hl=en
* So called Freeware, MPEG-2 licensing and you - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/514dbdd886b02f31?hl=en
* OT: The Flat Stomach ad: Worst Photography Ever? - 3 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aab53b1bdf37b057?hl=en
* Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ef39fca12569e5d3?hl=en
* Photos of Guppys - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad5f006dfb858982?hl=en
* NEW: Nikon Coolpix P90 - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/186d46379d383b45?hl=en
* Ping:Annika (hawk photo) - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c858e9758b8b40e?hl=en
* Ochrocephala - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/38224cc0499247b4?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Items in basic D90 bundle?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/9e66f2cd716d4f6e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 7 ==
Date: Wed, Feb 4 2009 4:18 am
From: "PDM"
One reason for missing items is that is has previously been sold and then
returned, the original owner not putting everything back in the box. Had
this happen to me last year. It is very rare for Nikon, Canon et al not to
have included all the right accessories.
PDM
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:040220092355088071%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gme4sl$s84$1@news.motzarella.org>, mianileng
> <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote:
>
>> The Nikon D90 I ordered from a dealer has just arrived but some
>> items seem to be missing. Since not even a manual is included, I
>> cannot be sure what should be included. My broadband is down
>> again, dial-up is slower than normal and it's difficult to
>> download the manual or browse around for information.
>>
>> The package includes the camera, battery, battery charger and
>> power cord. Nothing else. I'd expected at least a manual, data
>> cable, software CD/DVD and neckstrap to be included.
>>
>> Please tell me what items are missing from the standard basic
>> bundle so that I can call the dealers and tell them what is
>> missing.
>
> <http://www.nikonusa.com/Find-Your-Nikon/Product/Digital-SLR/25446/D90.h
> tml>
>
> Supplied Accessories
>
> EN-EL3e Rechargeable Li-ion Battery, MH-18a Quick Charger, DK-5
> Eyepiece Cap, DK-21 Rubber Eyecup, UC-E4 USB Cable, EG-D2 Audio Video
> Cable, AN-DC1 Camera Strap, BM-10 LCD Monitor Cover, Body Cap, BS-1
> Accessory Shoe Cover, Software Suite CD-ROM Supplied accessories may
> differ depending on country or area
== 2 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 5:16 am
From: Caesar Romano
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 13:05:41 +0530, "mianileng"
<mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote Re Items in basic D90 bundle?:
>The Nikon D90 I ordered from a dealer has just arrived but some
>items seem to be missing. Since not even a manual is included, I
>cannot be sure what should be included.
What dealer did you buy from?
== 3 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 7:01 am
From: "mianileng"
mianileng wrote:
> The Nikon D90 I ordered from a dealer has just arrived but some
> items seem to be missing. Since not even a manual is included,
> I
> cannot be sure what should be included. My broadband is down
> again, dial-up is slower than normal and it's difficult to
> download the manual or browse around for information.
>
> The package includes the camera, battery, battery charger and
> power cord. Nothing else. I'd expected at least a manual, data
> cable, software CD/DVD and neckstrap to be included.
>
> Please tell me what items are missing from the standard basic
> bundle so that I can call the dealers and tell them what is
> missing.
Thanks for the replies, everyone. What I didn't mention in my
initial post was that I asked the dealer to substitute an
18-200mm Nikkor for the 18-105mm kit lens and for some reason,
they're sending the lens in a separate package which has not
arrived yet.
Armed with the info you provided, I called the dealer and they
assured me that all the items missing from the camera box are
coming with the lens.
Rather surprising that they separated those standard accessories,
even the manual, from the camera body. ATM I'm giving them the
benefit of the doubt and assuming that they opened the box to
take out the 18-105mm kit lens and forgot to put the other items
back.
The dealer is J.J.Mehta & Sons in Mumbai, India and they have
established themselves for several years as both conventional and
online shops. Their website is http://www.jjmehta.com and they
have a fairly active photography forum.
== 4 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 7:37 am
From: Caesar Romano
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:31:26 +0530, "mianileng"
<mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote Re Re: Items in basic D90 bundle?:
>mianileng wrote:
>> The Nikon D90 I ordered from a dealer has just arrived but some
>> items seem to be missing. Since not even a manual is included,
>> I
>> cannot be sure what should be included. My broadband is down
>> again, dial-up is slower than normal and it's difficult to
>> download the manual or browse around for information.
>>
>> The package includes the camera, battery, battery charger and
>> power cord. Nothing else. I'd expected at least a manual, data
>> cable, software CD/DVD and neckstrap to be included.
>>
>> Please tell me what items are missing from the standard basic
>> bundle so that I can call the dealers and tell them what is
>> missing.
>
>Thanks for the replies, everyone. What I didn't mention in my
>initial post was that I asked the dealer to substitute an
>18-200mm Nikkor for the 18-105mm kit lens and for some reason,
>they're sending the lens in a separate package which has not
>arrived yet.
>
>Armed with the info you provided, I called the dealer and they
>assured me that all the items missing from the camera box are
>coming with the lens.
>
>Rather surprising that they separated those standard accessories,
>even the manual, from the camera body. ATM I'm giving them the
>benefit of the doubt and assuming that they opened the box to
>take out the 18-105mm kit lens and forgot to put the other items
>back.
>
>The dealer is J.J.Mehta & Sons in Mumbai, India and they have
>established themselves for several years as both conventional and
>online shops. Their website is http://www.jjmehta.com and they
>have a fairly active photography forum.
>
Please let us know how this turns out. You might also consider adding
a rating review for jjmehta.com at http://www.resellerratings.com/
You would have to add them as a new merchant as they are not currently
listed.
== 5 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 8:40 am
From: "mianileng"
Caesar Romano wrote:
> On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 20:31:26 +0530, "mianileng"
> <mianileng@invalid.invalid> wrote Re Re: Items in basic D90
> bundle?:
>
>> mianileng wrote:
>>> The Nikon D90 I ordered from a dealer has just arrived but
>>> some
>>> items seem to be missing. Since not even a manual is
>>> included,
>>> I
>>> cannot be sure what should be included. My broadband is down
>>> again, dial-up is slower than normal and it's difficult to
>>> download the manual or browse around for information.
>>>
>>> The package includes the camera, battery, battery charger and
>>> power cord. Nothing else. I'd expected at least a manual,
>>> data
>>> cable, software CD/DVD and neckstrap to be included.
>>>
>>> Please tell me what items are missing from the standard basic
>>> bundle so that I can call the dealers and tell them what is
>>> missing.
>>
>> Thanks for the replies, everyone. What I didn't mention in my
>> initial post was that I asked the dealer to substitute an
>> 18-200mm Nikkor for the 18-105mm kit lens and for some reason,
>> they're sending the lens in a separate package which has not
>> arrived yet.
>>
>> Armed with the info you provided, I called the dealer and they
>> assured me that all the items missing from the camera box are
>> coming with the lens.
>>
>> Rather surprising that they separated those standard
>> accessories,
>> even the manual, from the camera body. ATM I'm giving them the
>> benefit of the doubt and assuming that they opened the box to
>> take out the 18-105mm kit lens and forgot to put the other
>> items
>> back.
>>
>> The dealer is J.J.Mehta & Sons in Mumbai, India and they have
>> established themselves for several years as both conventional
>> and
>> online shops. Their website is http://www.jjmehta.com and they
>> have a fairly active photography forum.
>>
>
> Please let us know how this turns out. You might also consider
> adding
> a rating review for jjmehta.com at
> http://www.resellerratings.com/
> You would have to add them as a new merchant as they are not
> currently
> listed.
I'll do that. Thanks again for your interest.
== 6 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:06 am
From: "bmoag" <-aetoo@hotmail.com>
Are you sure J.J.Mehta & Sons in Mumbai, India isn't really based in
Brooklyn?
== 7 of 7 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:40 am
From: "mianileng"
bmoag wrote:
> Are you sure J.J.Mehta & Sons in Mumbai, India isn't really
> based in
> Brooklyn?
I'm not sure if that wasn't a sarcastic rhetorical question. But
here's my answer:
I have not actually visited their shop but I'm familiar with the
area they pinpointed as their location in Mumbai. The people I
spoke to on several occasions have unmistakable Indian accents.
Members of their forum occasionally mention the shop - usually
neither glowing praise nor criticism, just matter-of-fact
mentions. The D90 I received today bore a Mumbai postmark and
transit time was about the same as with any other product I
ordered from Mumbai before.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Palestinians Under Attack
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/785f7679e18aa82a?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 5:22 am
From: Chris H
In message <10jlo41t5qjd9lbhu6jchdk0sjkpancv2n@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
<nospamplease@now.com> writes
>On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 07:44:35 +0000, Chris H <chris@phaedsys.org> wrote:
>
>>In message <d6jko4pir7kp09megalqragutmagg4gfv3@4ax.com>, Stephen Bishop
>><nospamplease@now.com> writes
>>>On 04 Feb 2009 05:07:14 GMT, rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>>> I served in the military,
>>>>>>
>>>>>>So what?
>>>>>
>>>>>So I've actually put my belief in liberty in action
>>>>
>>>>Bullshit. Military service in NO WAY proves a commitment to liberty.
>>
>>I agree with that completely.
>>
>>>That's what people who are either too afraid of military service or
>>>who hate the military often say.
>>
>>I have about a decade's military service and you are WRONG
>>
>>>But the fact is that unless you put feet to your opinions, that is all
>>>they are.
>>
>>This is a red herring. Being in the military (especially the US
>>military) had nothing to do with liberty. The US military has a very
>>poor trak record of promoting Liberty. It does project US interests
>>abroad. It says they are promoting Liberty but that is not what it
>>does.
>>
>>The British Army is under no illusions of the sort of clap trap the US
>>military spouts about liberty and freedoms.
>>
>>> What have you actually done, Ray boy? Being a cranky fool
>>>for many years on usenet spouting your left-wing opinions does nothing
>>>to promote liberty.
>>
>>Ray is not left win. More of a pragmatist and Stephen I have seen
>>nothing you have said that promotes "liberty" Most propaganda people
>>use terms like "liberty" , "Freedom", "Democracy" life the Peoples
>>Liberation Army (China), the Democratic Federal Republic (East Germany)
>>etc
>>
>>>Seriously, what have you done?
>>
>>Classified... As you said :-)
>> but involved Iran , Iraq, Syria Kurdistan and talking to people there..
>>Not bombing from 10K or driving around in a tank. As you said unless
>>you have been there with your feet on the ground your words are just
>>uniformed opinion.
>>
>>>You are truly a fool who should be thankful for those in the military
>>>who have protected your right to make an idiot of yourself in public
>>>like you do.
>>
>>
>>SO how did you protect Ray? Since 1946 the US has been the aggressor and
>>attacked others.... So much so it caused several terrorist groups to
>>fight back.
>>
>>It got so bad that OBL said "Enough" we will fight back and did three
>>RETALIATION attacks (as he stated in an interview 6 weeks before the
>>first one). It was the two embassies and then the finally 9/11
>>
>>So the US military has made things LESS safe and delivered Democracy to
>>no one. The only "democracy" Iraq has is the ability to vote and say
>>"things are worse than under Saddam" They have no electricity, water
>>and sanitation which they had under Saddam. They security situation is
>>WORSE and there are fewer jobs.
>>
>>They recent election has said we want the US out "NOW!" not in 12
>>months,... well will the US give them democracy and get out as they ask?
>
>
>And another elitist country with bigoted opinions is heard from...
In short you have no answer to the comments above.
--
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\
\/\/\/\/\ Chris Hills Staffs England /\/\/\/\/
\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/\/
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Lithium & future long term battery cost
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/6d45d9eb5b0863b4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 5:56 am
From: Savageduck
Twibil wrote:
> On Feb 4, 5:59 pm, Savageduck <savaged...@savage.net> wrote:
>
>>> What I find Ironic is that Abu Dhabi are creating a zero carbon
>>> emission city (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Masdar_City) using money
>>> made from fossil fuels. ;-)
>> Now that is truly ironic. I see they aren't able to quite meet their
>> goal at night. They also have a high degree of hypocrisy with the
>> aluminum smelter and the F1/GP racetrack.
>
> Smelter, yup, but an F1 track? Sure, a race weekend contributes some
> uncountably tiny percentage to the world's daily c02 output, but at
> the same time it provides *dramatic* photographic opportunities!
>
> I mean, *get your priorities in order*, man!
I know, I know! Point taken.
I was just pointing at the irony of the situation. I am an avid F1
(though the new track designs leave much to be desired???) and Le Mans
series fan (NASCAR does nil for me) and Laguna Seca is just up the road
from me.
>
> ~Pete
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe Photoshop CS4 Save $700
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8157c93d0d1d72bc?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 5:57 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote in message
news:040220091159392318%nospam@nospam.invalid...
> In article <gmcidr$upa$1@qmul>, whisky-dave
> <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>> At $700 I'd never buy Photoshop or any other program for using perhaps a
>> couple of hours a week,
>
> if you only are going to use it 'a couple of hours a week,' then the
> full version is not for you, but rather the consumer version, photoshop
> elements.
Well not really, last week I was asked how do you dom HDR with PS.
This was a friend who works for a charity, teaching the homeless and drug
and drink re-hab patients what else they can do with their lives.
This friend isn;t very technical so come to me for free help, where she
works can;t
really afford a Pro to help them out. They have about 5 Macs running CS3
so I';m not sure how I'd tell them how to do HDR in CS3 by using elements.
I'ver got elements anyway and found it a bit confusing, but then I've got
used to PS
since 2.5.
>
>> If they offered it for download at say $70 I'd buy a copy same as people
>> have been
>
> photoshop elements retails for about $100 and can usually be found on
> sale for half that. it's even bundled for free with various products.
I've various versions of the old PS up to 5 the LE versions, still in there
wrappings.
== 2 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 6:00 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4989e23d$0$1653$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> NelsonTodd <ntodd@retriever.org> wrote:
>>>> rfischer@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>>>whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>
>>>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of
>>>>>>> us
>>>>>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>>>>>
>>>>>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>>>>>program for 'free'
>>>>>
>>>>>Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>>>
>>>>You do.
>>>
>>> Nope.
>>>
>>>>>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>>>>
>>>>>Yes. Adding features costs money. The thieves take away money that
>>>>>might have been used to make the product better.
>>>>
>>>>They took away no money so they are not thieves.
>>>
>>> You're either stupid or lying. Stealing the software denies the
>>> company it could use to produce the software.
>>
>>How ?
>
> Moron.
Just out of spite I gave the latest copy of ASC4 to my cat last night....
Can you explain how adobe will loose money and won;t be able to
update their product line, if you can I'll get it back from him.
>
== 3 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 6:25 am
From: "whisky-dave"
"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
news:4989e339$0$1653$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>
>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>>>
>>>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>>>program for 'free'
>>>
>>> Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>
>>Those that make money from selling their photographs or are employed
>>because they know how to get the best from using such a program.
>
> That doesn't even make sense. Adobe doesn't get royalties on photos
> produced using Photoshop.
No, not directly but why do most people purchase Photoshop ?
At $700 (I'm in the UK) I doubt it's your average person that
takes pictures of his family on the beach or at the park.
Why would anyone pay $700 just to edit a photo, what sort of people
do that ?
>>>>has any diverse effect on anyone that has paid for it ?
>>>
>>> Yes. Adding features costs money.
>>
>>So, they don;t have to add any features they could have stayed with
>>version
>>2.5 which
>>was the first version I ever used (a copy).
>
> Which would mean that Adobe would no longer exist.
But they do despite all the copying, the more people that have it the more
that know about
it know how to use, it's a bit like advertising.
What conpany makes the most out of the software they write ?
Isn't it the same company that is most copied ........
>>>The thieves take away money that
>>> might have been used to make the product better.
>>
>>That's why such people aren't thieves
>
> People who steal are thieves.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Stealing
That's the problem with the way the law was written and what stealing
means,
you'll have to find another word.
How about sexual abuse of adobe ?????? would that sound better.
>
>>because they don;t remove any money
>>from anyone.
>
> That's an stupid lie.
Then explain the process. How does giving a copy to my cat cost adobe
anything.
> If I take your paycheck before you get it, is
> that not stealing because I haven't removed any money from you?
I get paid directly in to my bank account, if you steal the payslip,
all you get is free toilet paper, enjoy yourself.
== 4 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 6:46 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-02-04 21:35:52 -0800, TooFunny <toofunny@standups.net> said:
> The value of "money" is all in your mind.
Oh. Well, if it isn't worth anything, send me all you've got. I'm sure
I can figure out something I can do with it.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
== 5 of 5 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 7:05 am
From: tony cooper
On Thu, 5 Feb 2009 14:25:07 -0000, "whisky-dave"
<whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>
>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>news:4989e339$0$1653$742ec2ed@news.sonic.net...
>> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>> whisky-dave <whisky-dave@final.front.ear> wrote:
>>>>>"Ray Fischer" <rfischer@sonic.net> wrote in message
>>>>>
>>>>>> There are always criminals and thieves who try to screw the rest of us
>>>>>> for their own selfish wants.
>>>>>
>>>>>Tue but how is it that if someone else aquires photoshop or any other
>>>>>program for 'free'
>>>>
>>>> Who then pays the developers to produce Photoshop?
>>>
>>>Those that make money from selling their photographs or are employed
>>>because they know how to get the best from using such a program.
>>
>> That doesn't even make sense. Adobe doesn't get royalties on photos
>> produced using Photoshop.
>
>No, not directly but why do most people purchase Photoshop ?
>At $700 (I'm in the UK) I doubt it's your average person that
>takes pictures of his family on the beach or at the park.
>Why would anyone pay $700 just to edit a photo, what sort of people
>do that ?
Me. Not $700, but about a third of that several years ago. I forget
the actual amount, but I got the student price. I took a course at a
community college on spreadsheets and data bases and had a student ID
number. That allowed me to buy Photoshop through the bookstore at the
student price.
Anyone can do this. A community college course is usually under $100.
That qualifies the person for the student price. It can be any course
on any subject.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Adobe gone crazy?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c0344eda38bd828?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 6:52 am
From: Wolfgang Weisselberg
Alfred Molon <alfred_molon@yahoo.com> wrote:
> Wolfgang Weisselberg says...
>> Oh, now you are saying no non-destructive editing with settings
>> saved per image exists? I was under the impression Photoshop
>> was well able to do this, but lacking photoshop I cannot confirm
>> this.
> It can't. Do some editing in Photoshop and it won't sace the editing
> history.
Say you've got 5 shots and want to treat them identically. You say
you cannot do that in PS, at least not if you save your work at
some time and restart PS? Or if you first do 3 shots and then,
a crash and a few days later, the other 2?
If that's so, PS must be pretty limited as far as non-destructive
editing goes.
>> > And you have to apply two image processing applications in sequence,
>> > messy and time consuming if compared to the single step-approach of the
>> > RAW converter which does everything.
>> Of course, you have never heard of batch files, either. Or
>> of a simple shell script. Or of a simple GUI with a 'click
>> here' button where you can drag the RAW file in.
> Perhaps not everybody knows how to write software?
"But you have to trigger the shutter button to take a
picture"[1] --- "So use a finger and press the button!" ---
"Perhaps the user doesn't have a finger or toe to press the
shutter button?"
That's the kind of arguments you offer. It's getting very,
very tiring.
Just because *you* don't know the first thing about writing
simple batch files --- not to mention programming --- doesn't
make your claims how things cannot be done or must be in some
certain way true. In fact, your claim has been debunked.
Live with it.
>> > Lastly, some image processing steps, such as chromatic aberration
>> > removal can only be applied at the RAW conversion stage,
>> As ofthers have told you, you are wrong.
> No. But it looks like you don't know much about this issue.
Coming from you, and based on the rest of your posts, I have
doubts that you have true understanding of the matter; too
often you have claimed things to be in some way when it is
obvious they aren't.
> Chromatic aberrations removal at the RAW conversion stage directly
> accesses the individual R, G and B layers. It shrinks or expands them a
> bit, so that they again match.
That is true. It doesn't, however, *need* access to the raw data,
you can get these layers out of any image format containing colour.
> This kind of chromatic aberration removal - the only one which restores
> image sharpness (magenta desaturation techniques do not, because the
> mismatch in the individual colour layers remains) -
It doesn't restore sharpness due to sub-pixel shifts. An otherwise
identical lens without CA delivers a better result.
> cannot be applied
> after RGB conversion because the original colour channel information is
> no longer available.
Since CA is a special case and no visible CA is the normal case ---
at least with good glass and certainly in the center --- your
solution is not allowed to degrade the normal case.
You may start thinking how to demosaic images properly(!) when
the R G and B measuring points are randomly positioned, since
that will be the case if you don't demosaic first. I await your
description of a random position demosaicing algorithm that rivals
the best known ones for fixed bayer positions. (Please
provide proof of the quality.)
On top of that: Why do you need the exact data when practically
all lenses don't resolve exactly enough in the areas where CA
is visible?
-Wolfgang
[1] wrong in itself, you can drive many cameras from your laptop.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:33 am
From: Alan Browne
Mr.T wrote:
> "Floyd L. Davidson" <floyd@apaflo.com> wrote in message
> news:873aeutu6w.fld@apaflo.com...
>> You may have noticed that DSLR raw data
>> files are all different, and proprietary! (It might be
>> argued that DNG files from Pentax are not, but...)
>
> Which would be wrong since DNG is an Adobe proprietary format, which like
> PDF, they allow others to use given certain conditions.
> IMO it's a pity that there is not a single "Raw" format however, DNG or
> otherwise.
DNG is being incorporated as an ISO standard, it will be the only open
standard format out there. As it is, it is open for any co. to use.
I just wish my camera would produce DNG's. Losslessly compressed I'd
get 30 - 50% more images onto the card. (Currently get ~210 ish raws on
an 8 GB card).
Currently I convert to losslessly compressed DNG during transfer to my
computer (while also re-naming, metatagging).
--
-- r.p.e.35mm user resource: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpe35mmur.htm
-- r.p.d.slr-systems: http://www.aliasimages.com/rpdslrsysur.htm
-- [SI] gallery & rulz: http://www.pbase.com/shootin
-- e-meil: Remove FreeLunch.
-- usenet posts from gmail.com and googlemail.com are filtered out.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: So called Freeware, MPEG-2 licensing and you
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/514dbdd886b02f31?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 7:15 am
From: TruthSquad@hope.com
On Wed, 4 Feb 2009 23:30:41 -0600, "Ken Maltby"
<kmaltby@sbcglobal.net> wrote:
>
>"Bob S." <no-one@here.com> wrote in message
>news:gmdapv$9qt$1@news.motzarella.org...
>> Not to point out the obvious but when I read posts like this, I have to
>> ask - what is the source you're quoting? You're post is more about movies
>> but since I've been doing a little work in the RIAA area, I'll use their
>> site as reference. I don't see a difference in what content is being
>> stolen, music or video, stealing is stealing but copying a CD/DVD may not
>> be illegal as you suggest.
>>
>> Any legal references (not Wiki notes) to current case law? Otherwise, this
>> is all fabricated opinion. It may or may not be fact and may not be
>> applicable under all circumstances.
>>
>> For instance, http://news.bbc.co.uk/2/hi/entertainment/7176538.stm
>>
>> I'm not about to do your research for you but without proof, this is just
>> a lot of "so what...".
>>
>> Take a read on this http://www.riaa.com/physicalpiracy.php You'll note
>> that the RIAA doesn't even mention end-user copying in that blurb but does
>> here:
>>
>> http://www.riaa.com/faq.php
>> ...............................................................................................................
>> 11. How is downloading music different from copying a personal CD?
>>
>> Record companies have never objected to someone making a copy of a CD for
>> their own personal use. We want fans to enjoy the music they bought
>> legally. But both copying CDs to give to friends and downloading music
>> illegally rob the people who created that music of compensation for their
>> work. When record companies are deprived of critical revenue, they are
>> forced to lay off employees, drop artists from their rosters, and sign
>> fewer bands. That's bad news for the music industry, but ultimately bad
>> news for fans as well. We all benefit from a vibrant music industry
>> committed to nurturing the next generation of talent.
>>
>> For more on what the law says about copying CDs, click HERE
>> ...............................................................................................................
>>
>> I think this kind of blows a hole in your FAQ don'tcha think?
>>
>> So while your intentions to inform may have been honorable, your
>> presentation leaves a bit to be desired.
>>
>> Take another whack at it but this time, take it to the newsgroups in China
>> and Russia where counterfeiting CD's and DVD's is big business and they do
>> them all, Audio, video, programs, databases and whatever else they can
>> make a buck copying.
>>
>> Bob S.
>>
>
> Actually, the subject under discussion has nothing to do with
>protecting the rights of content providers, the OP's erronious
>claim was that MPEG-2 can only be made, legally, using
>software that has paid a licence fee to the MPEG. The
>correlative example would be saying that every technology
>to digitize music to 16 bit PCM is covered by some imaginary
>patent held by the Compact Disk standards group. That you
>couldn't burn any music CD legally, even one of your spouse
>singing in the bathroom.
>
> Luck;
> Ken
>
>
Well Kenny boy, if my comments are erroneous, how come you haven't
been able to provide ONE creditable cite to refute what I said?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: OT: The Flat Stomach ad: Worst Photography Ever?
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/aab53b1bdf37b057?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 7:58 am
From: C J Campbell
The "One rule for a flat stomach" ad turns my stomach for sure. The
before and after shots are horrible.
Worse, this ad seems to appear on practically every page on the web,
sometimes two or three times. There has to be some way of blocking this
obnoxious thing using Safari on a Mac.
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
== 2 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 8:11 am
From: Bert Hyman
In news:2009020507584016807-christophercampbell@hotmailcom C J Campbell
<christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:
> There has to be some way of blocking this
> obnoxious thing using Safari on a Mac.
Does Safari have the "block images from ..." option like Firefox? In
Firefox, that shows up in the pop-up menu when you right-click an image
on a Web page.
Otherwise, look at the image properties and copy the host name of the
site that's serving the image, then edit your hosts file and add a line
like this:
127.0.0.1 ad.doubleclick.net
replacing "ad.doubleclick.net" with the name of the serving site.
I don't know where the hosts file lives on your Mac or what handsprings
you have to turn in order to edit it.
--
Bert Hyman St. Paul, MN bert@iphouse.com
== 3 of 3 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 8:26 am
From: Jürgen Exner
C J Campbell <christophercampbell@hotmail.com> wrote:
>Worse, this ad seems to appear on practically every page on the web,
>sometimes two or three times. There has to be some way of blocking this
>obnoxious thing
Never seen it. I guess the AdBlock Plus and maybe FlashBlock addons do
their job in FireFox.
>using Safari on a Mac.
Sorry, no experience with those. But maybe you can check if there are
similar addons for Safari.
jue
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Faking and expensive tilt-shift lens
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ef39fca12569e5d3?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 8:36 am
From: C J Campbell
On 2009-02-04 15:39:05 -0800, Pat <groups@artisticphotography.us> said:
> On Feb 4, 5:27 pm, C J Campbell <christophercampb...@hotmail.com>
> wrote:
>> On 2009-02-04 10:59:04 -0800, Pat <gro...@artisticphotography.us> said:
>>
>>
>>
>>> On Feb 3, 3:35 am, rfisc...@sonic.net (Ray Fischer) wrote:
>>>> Mr.T <MrT@home> wrote:
>>>>> "Sir John Howard" <sirjohnhow...@gmail.con> wrote in message
>>>>>>> This is fine if you want to reduce depth of field. However, a tilt/
> s
>>> hift
>>>>>>> lens is often used to increase depth of field. You cannot do that i
> n
>>>>>>> Photoshop with a single image.
>>
>>>>>> A tilt/shift lens is primary used to correct perspective. A lens ape
> rt
>>> ure
>>>>>> controls depth of field.
>>
>>>>> Partly true, a simple tilt-shift lens is not a complete substitute fo
> r a
>>>>> full view camera with tilting film back and lensboard which DO allow
> the
>>>>> depth of field to be non parallel to the film/image plane.
>>>>> And you cannot do that with lens aperture alone.
>>
>>>> I've taken photos that had subjects from six inches to infinity, and
>>>> even at f22 it's hard to get everything to be sharp. Of course, TS
>>>> lenses tend to be too expensive for the occasional need.
>>
>>>> --
>>>> Ray Fischer
>>>> rfisc...@sonic.net
>>
>>> There is software to handle the extended depth of field. You take a
>>> series of pictures and merge them. Say you start by focusing 6 inche
> s
>>> out. Then if your DOF ends at 12", you take another picture and focu
> s
>>> 8 inches out. If your DOF then ends at 16", your next picture is at
>>> 12" or so. You then merge the photos together and get one picture
>>> with extended DOF. I've never used the software but I've read
>>> articles about it and it's pretty slick (and easy).
>>
>>> It is the same concept of bracketing exposures and blending the images
>>> to give a larger dynamic range.
>>
>> Sure, but it is not always possible to take multiple exposures so that
>> you can merge them together.
>>
>> After all, you can take two exposures and effectively double the pixels
>> in your camera, too. So why bother getting a 24 megapixel camera when
>> you can get nearly the same resolution with two 12 megapixel exposures?
>> Maybe the bride won't sit still?
>>
>> --
>> Waddling Eagle
>> World Famous Flight Instructor
>
> Actually, if you took 10 images where you did nothing except changed
> the focus and you merge them together, you'd still have your original
> resolution. You wouldn't be gaining any information, you'd just be
> making sure that all of it was in focus.
I said nothing about changing focus.
As for gaining information, perhaps if you moved the camera to the left
a half a pixel for the second shot. :-)
--
Waddling Eagle
World Famous Flight Instructor
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Photos of Guppys
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/ad5f006dfb858982?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 8:45 am
From: John McWilliams
John McWilliams wrote:
> tony cooper wrote:
>
>>>
>>> Try the links in my post upstream a few, esp. the one with dashes
>>> (and sans % or spaces.)
>>
>> Oh, I got to his full gallery. I just backtracked on the URL.
>>
> Er, yes; I know. I wanted to see if the URL worked for you and your news
> client.
>
> Not a biggie.
Did it?
--
john mcwilliams
==============================================================================
TOPIC: NEW: Nikon Coolpix P90
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/186d46379d383b45?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:10 am
From: "mianileng"
Doug Jewell wrote:
>
> The readers of this NG might prefer to have 10X zoom,
> allowing a bigger sensor for similar sized lens, or might
> prefer to only have 6MP in return for better high-ISO
> performance, considering there probably wouldn't be much
> difference in actual resolution.
I, for one, would certainly have preferred a less noisy, lower
pixel count with my otherwise excellent 8MP Pana FZ30. The higher
MP figure was not the reason I upgraded from my earlier 5MP FZ20.
It was the major overhauling of other features like the much
faster startup, zoom ring, swivel LCD, relocation of the memory
card slot, extended shutter speed range, higher resolution EVF
and LCD, addition of RAW and 3:2 format, etc. etc. I'd even hoped
that the change from 1/2.5" sensor to 1/1.8" would have offset
the noise of a higher pixel density, but I was disappointed in
this respect.
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ping:Annika (hawk photo)
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/8c858e9758b8b40e?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:51 am
From: "Tzortzakakis Dimitrios"
...Thanks a lot Bret, for the hawk photo. I took the liberty of printing it
out on my Canon Pixma iP 4300, with Agfa 4 X 5" glossy paper, Epson A4 (8 X
10") matte paper, Epson 8 X10" high resolution paper, with outstanding
results, I made at least a dozen copies which I gave to friends, so your
masterpiece is cherished by many people. ( I am using the original Chroma
Life 100 canon inks).
--
Tzortzakakis Dimitrios
major in electrical engineering
mechanized infantry reservist
hordad AT otenet DOT gr
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Ochrocephala
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/t/38224cc0499247b4?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 11:31 am
From: "Miguel"
Hello:
It is an interesting subspecies of the parrot that I put previously:
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3256424634/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3256424642/
http://www.flickr.com/photos/mmyv/3256424652/
Always It's interesting to know your opinions and appreciations.
--
Miguel M. Yalán
http://mmyv.com
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "rec.photo.digital"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to rec.photo.digital+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/rec.photo.digital/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
adobe.photoshop.macintosh
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh?hl=en
adobe.photoshop.macintosh@googlegroups.com
Today's topics:
* 2009 Macs and Peripherals :: General Discussion :: Chapter III - 6 messages,
3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/c2f0ebcc850b85d0?hl=en
* Bridge->ImageProcessor->jpeg or Tiff or PSD, the color fades - 2 messages, 2
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/cb0cd7a848b34ed6?hl=en
* Anyone else having a Problem with Leopard and Photoshop CS3? - 4 messages, 3
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/2448effaa20ec500?hl=en
* Change in EXR open from CS2 to CS3 can this be fixed? - 6 messages, 4
authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/8948fc2c826ed062?hl=en
* Bridge - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/ebd9d7ea9b8d8d5d?hl=en
* CS4 is shutting down computer - 6 messages, 3 authors
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/7a6155d19d66587b?hl=en
* PS animation trouble..... - 1 messages, 1 author
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/6778f575049b4f70?hl=en
==============================================================================
TOPIC: 2009 Macs and Peripherals :: General Discussion :: Chapter III
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/c2f0ebcc850b85d0?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:17 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
Linda,
trouble with the newer Seagate being recognized by the G5
Seagate told me about some Barracuda 7200.11 drives failing to be consistently recognized (data remains intact) and requiring a firmware update (Windows machine required for this). See: <http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207931&Hilite=> Their newest generation 7200.12 drives, I've been assured, have no such problem.
Also, their drives come Windows formated (NTFS, a read-only format with a Mac). You must use Disk Utility to reformat the drive for the Mac (a good idea for almost any hard drive or USB flash memory to be used only on the Mac). This, of course, would mean booting off the Mac System disc if you are creating the only startup drive.
Neil
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:23 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
Linda,
trouble with the newer Seagate being recognized by the G5
Seagate told me about some Barracuda 7200.11 drives failing to be consistently recognized (data remains intact) and requiring a firmware update (Windows machine required for this). See: <http://seagate.custkb.com/seagate/crm/selfservice/search.jsp?DocId=207931&Hilite=> Their newest generation 7200.12 drives, I've been assured, have no such problem.
Also, their drives come Windows formated (NTFS, a read-only format with a Mac). You must use Disk Utility to reformat the drive for the Mac (a good idea for almost any hard drive or USB flash memory to be used only on the Mac). This, of course, would mean booting off the Mac System disc if you are creating the only startup drive.
I'm currently looking into a Barracuda 7200.12 1TB, model ST31000523AS. With the jumper in place, it is set up for SATA 1.5; remove the jumper for SATA 3.0. The problem is that it is a new model and I could not find it on line when I checked last.
Neil
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:36 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
The easiest way to reformat the new HD for Mac is to install it in the machine in the place of one of your other drives (not the Boot Drive) and format the new drive through Disk utility.
Then do an Archive & Install of OSX from the original CD and upgrade from the Combo and make it your Boot Drive in System preferences.
After doing that, you can swap your new HD for your old boot drive and install your applications from their original CDs.
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:53 am
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
Hi Neil and Ann,
Thank you for your feedback. I ended up ordering the Hitachi 1TB 7K1000 for $129 from OWC. I also ordered 2-4GB Memory Modules to replace the two 512 and two of the 1GB modules for $54.99 a pair at OWC.
The prices are amazing, too good to pass up on these items.
The easiest way to reformat the new HD for Mac is to install it in the
machine in the place of one of your other drives (not the Boot Drive)
and format the new drive through Disk utility.
Then do an Archive & Install of OSX from the original CD and upgrade from
the Combo and make it your Boot Drive in System preferences.
After doing that, you can swap your new HD for your old boot drive and
install your applications from their original CDs.
Thank you for this advice Ann. Sounds like a good way to do this.
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:01 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
Linda,
The prices you paid are pretty good. Keep us posted. Let us know how quiet that Hitachi drive is.
Neil
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:07 am
From: LRK@adobeforums.com
Will do Neil. Thanks!
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bridge->ImageProcessor->jpeg or Tiff or PSD, the color fades
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/cb0cd7a848b34ed6?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:18 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
It certainly sounds as if Image Processor is unable to use the information in your .xml sidecars or ACR Database.
You could always open the whole batch in ACR and Open all of them (or Save copies of all of them in the format and size of your choice) directly out of ACR.
That is how I do it.
== 2 of 2 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:12 am
From: g_ballard@adobeforums.com
I have no idea what Image Processor is or how your workflow is set up,
but if you open one of the problem Image Processor files back into Photoshop and Edit> ASSIGN Profile: Adobe RGB, that would be a clue if the color comes back to normal...just as Edit> Assign Profile: sRGB would be a clue
also, dragging one of the jpg files into an open Safari windows would be a clue
+++++++
the problem with Photoshop is we don't know how you have it set up to deal with profiles
Mac Safari, on the other hand will either read the embedded profile correctly or it will Default/Assign/Assume/Apply your monitor profile
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Anyone else having a Problem with Leopard and Photoshop CS3?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/2448effaa20ec500?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:35 am
From: Vincent_Alessi@adobeforums.com
It's 2.8 QC with 4GB RAM.
I'm not ignorant as to what an OS does with fonts, I just highly doubt it's a simple font problem. If that were the case, it would be system wide and not simply Adobe wide. I also didn't install anything, because this company leaves the user out of it to insure everything is done by the IT Dept.
These problems exist for me, as well as other users, and considering it has been posted on Apples forums by complete strangers to myself, I'm sure it's real and probably a Leopard problem. Before I go stirring up IT, I'd like to have some answers instead of the down time that comes with IT taking over my computer.
Also, I'm not trying to justify getting CS4, I own it at home. I'm trying to figure out if I upgrade my home machine to Leopard, in order to use Zbrush, will I be dealing with the same nonsense I deal with here at work. As it is CS4 and Tiger work together better than I could have expected and have no want to open up a can of worms on my home computer.
-Vincent
== 2 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:42 am
From: Ann_Shelbourne@adobeforums.com
I would definitely get your IT guy to upgrade your system in the office to 10.5.6, and see if that solves your Finder problems, before deciding whether or not you want to make changes to your home computer.
== 3 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:57 am
From: Buko
Clone your OS. then update the clone see if things work for you. if so reclone the original and then update the original drive. Keep the clone incase you need to go back.
I just highly doubt it's a simple font problem. If that were the case,
it would be system wide
Wrong
== 4 of 4 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 11:20 am
From: Vincent_Alessi@adobeforums.com
If a System Font is corrupt, it wouldn't affect the entire system and only Adobe products?
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Change in EXR open from CS2 to CS3 can this be fixed?
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/8948fc2c826ed062?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 9:46 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
This topic, although quite heated with comments from many first-time visitors, has none-the-less been pretty civilized and articulate until post #115.
It is rare to have someone as directly involved in Photoshop development as Chris Cox appear and respond as he has here. Whether you agree with his viewpoints or not, he's a valuable asset to these forums, particularly to the many who have been regular participants over the years.
For this topic, everyone is welcome to make his or her point so Chris can use them to evaluate any future changes in the app. It's to no one's benefit to make him feel unwelcome.
So please, let's keep the topic to the point and name-calling and accusations out of here. I do not want to be put in the position of closing this long topic.
Thanks!
Neil
Forum Host
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:09 am
From: Christopher_Prosser@adobeforums.com
Hi Folks,
This is quite a thread. I'm writing as one of the people on the After Effects team that finally chose to throw in the towel on spec purity and add options are users needed.
To summarize this whole thread in my own words:
The spec is very clear that OpenEXR images are linear data and premul with their alpha data. What Photoshop CS4 extended is doing is technically correct and following the standard.
Alas, many, many other products, and people using OpenEXR's manage to stuff all sorts of data into RGBA which doesn't conform to the standard.
In the AE CS3 beta cycle we tried to conform to the standard. But in the end, we found so many 'perverse' OpenEXR files ;) , that we decided it was better for After Effects to be flexible enough to deal non-conforming files and further pollute the workflows than to follow the standard.
As Chris Cox pointed out, the Photoshop customer base is different than After Effects and the PS team has a different risk tolerance for adding support for non-conforming workflows. I'm not going to try and guess what percentage of Photoshop users are trying to work with non-conforming OpenEXR files. Clearly there are at least the number of posters in this thread ;).
Luckily both AE and Photoshop support file format plugins. For those of you who need support for non-conforming OpenEXR files in PS CS4, Brendan Bolles sells the ProEXR plugin. AE CS4 actually ships with his OpenEXR plugin for AE.
--chris prosser
ae engineering manager
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:23 am
From: JohnNack@adobeforums.com
Hi folks,
A number of people have written to bring this thread to my attention. I haven't had time to read through all 120+ posts (!), but I'll try to do so shortly (isn't that what weekends are for?).
At the end of the day, we have to do what's useful to you, and we will.
Thanks for your passion & patience,
John Nack
<http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack>
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:39 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
Chris,
For those of you who need support for non-conforming OpenEXR files in
PS CS4, Brendan Bolles sells the ProEXR plugin. AE CS4 actually ships
with his OpenEXR plugin for AE.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the solution is as easy as cloning and installing the same ProEXR plug-in in Photoshop CS4 as is included with After Effects?
Neil
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:37 am
From: Zap_Andersson@adobeforums.com
To summarize this whole thread in my own words: The spec is very clear
that OpenEXR images are linear data and premul with their alpha data.
But, as I said many times before, to say this is to *fundamentally misunderstand* what "premultiplied alpha" means.
All it *really* means is DO NOT MULTIPLY in your "over" operator.
I.e. do NOT do
r = fg * fg.alpha + bg * (1 - fg.alpha)
but do
r = fg + bg * (1 - fg.alpha)
That is ALL it means. Which, if you actually read the technical document, to OpenEXR as Florian himself (part of the team writing it!!!) posted above, *actually says*.
Yes. It *explicitly says* that the format of the RGBA data is such that the "over" operation should be
r = fg + bg * (1 - bg.alpha)
To draw from this the conclusion that a color with zero alpha and nonzero RGB is "illegal" and can be thrown away is quite an unfounded extrapolation to make!!
And also note that the spec says that this is *by convention*. Not rule, nor law, but by *convention*. I.e. "the most common case".
What Photoshop CS4 extended is doing is technically correct and following
the standard.
So not using the channel labeled "alpha" as an alpha channel is tecnically correct? To throw away fully legal RGB data just because Alpha is zero is correct?
/Z
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:40 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
Chris,
For those of you who need support for non-conforming OpenEXR files in
PS CS4, Brendan Bolles sells the ProEXR plugin. AE CS4 actually ships
with his OpenEXR plugin for AE.
Please correct me if I'm wrong, but the solution is as easy as cloning and installing the same ProEXR plug-in in Photoshop CS4 as is included with After Effects CS4?
Neil
==============================================================================
TOPIC: Bridge
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/ebd9d7ea9b8d8d5d?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 10:40 am
From: Steve_O_Collin@adobeforums.com
What happened to the browse window right in Photoshop?
It used to work great !
I upgrade to iMac with 4 Mb RAM and Bridge CS3 and it is soooo slooow !
What's up ?
Steve
==============================================================================
TOPIC: CS4 is shutting down computer
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/7a6155d19d66587b?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 11:03 am
From: Kristin_Richter-Tope@adobeforums.com
I've been using this computer for over a year and I haven't had any issues until I installed CS4 - that is why I am inclined to think it is something specific to Photoshop. I've run InDesign, Acrobat, and Illustrator and I'm not having the problem. I've run CS2 and CS3 without this problem.
== 2 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 11:05 am
From: Kristin_Richter-Tope@adobeforums.com
No one else is having the same problem that I am with CS4 Photoshop?
== 3 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 11:11 am
From: Kristin_Richter-Tope@adobeforums.com
I don't know what the GPU is - but why would it be the video card or driver when previous versions of CS have been fine. The only thing I have installed in CS4 and I have 2GB of memory and over 200GB available on my HD.
I have re-installed everything from the ground up - do you have any idea what a pain in the butt and how much time it takes?
== 4 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 11:13 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
Kristin,
You should never have a kernel panic in normal operation of this software.
Have you tried disabling GPU acceleration in Photoshop? (assuming it could
be something with the video card or driver)
Did you try this? Which exact video card do you have? Is it on Adobe's list? Do you have any issues at all with your hard drive? New RAM? How did you install/uninstall/reinstall your software? Also note that you if you are running multiple versions of CS, you should install the earlier version first. What system maintenance have you done?
Neil
== 5 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 11:15 am
From: Buko
No one else is having the same problem that I am with CS4 Photoshop?
No.
== 6 of 6 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 11:16 am
From: Neil_Keller@adobeforums.com
Kristin,
You should never have a kernel panic in normal operation of this software.
Have you tried disabling GPU acceleration in Photoshop? (assuming it could
be something with the video card or driver)
Did you try this? Which exact video card do you have? Is it on Adobe's list?
In addition to possible video card issues (please search video card or graphics card and Photoshop CS4), do you have any issues at all with your hard drive? New RAM? How did you install/uninstall/reinstall your software? Also note that you if you are running multiple versions of CS, you should install the earlier version first. What system maintenance have you done?
Neil
==============================================================================
TOPIC: PS animation trouble.....
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/t/6778f575049b4f70?hl=en
==============================================================================
== 1 of 1 ==
Date: Thurs, Feb 5 2009 11:20 am
From: jennifer_getz@adobeforums.com
did that, and can preview the animation fine in image ready, but if the animations not showing up in the browser preview, thats not good.
==============================================================================
You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "adobe.photoshop.macintosh"
group.
To post to this group, visit http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh?hl=en
To unsubscribe from this group, send email to adobe.photoshop.macintosh+unsubscribe@googlegroups.com
To change the way you get mail from this group, visit:
http://groups.google.com/group/adobe.photoshop.macintosh/subscribe?hl=en
To report abuse, send email explaining the problem to abuse@googlegroups.com
==============================================================================
Google Groups: http://groups.google.com/?hl=en
| ||||||
| My mail is really slow coming in today so I took the chance to make another WInni tut that I missed. I really did a blend and then framed it. Loved the graphic Kate | ||||||
|
