This is Interesting: Free Magazines for Graphics designers and webmasters
Home > Archive > Computer Graphics with Photoshop > June 2004 > ANN: Fantastic Photoshop Plugin Available on Mac/PC
You are viewing an archived Text-only version of the thread.
To view this thread in it's original format and/or if you want to reply to
this thread please [click here]
| Author |
ANN: Fantastic Photoshop Plugin Available on Mac/PC
|
|
| Kermit Woodall 2004-05-25, 11:14 pm |
| ANN: Fantastic Photoshop Plugin Available on Mac/PC
This must-have PhotoShop plug-in is now available for the Apple Macintosh
and Windows platforms! Cinematte is an advanced plug-in for PhotoShop that
can automatically create masks and clipping paths using blue/green screen
technology. Support for PhotoShop's Layers and Actions allows batch
processing and multiple layers. Allows blue or green screen background for
input and can output layer masks, mattes, transparencies and keyed
foregrounds.
A Snap for Photographers
Photographers love Cinematte because it allows them to composite backgrounds
in later to suit the client's needs. Cinematte's controls make creating
mattes and transparencies simple.
A Must-Have for the Print Industry
Creating catalogs, brochures or flyers? Cinematte automates what used to be
a laborious task of creating clipping paths. Now you can simply use
Cinematte to generate a transparency and either use it directly to composite
with background layers or turn it into a path with PhotoShop's Paths
Palette!
Easy to Use
A PhotoShop standard interface, with friendly online help, lets you create
transparencies easily and quickly. Simple, straightforward, and standard
controls let you work in an integrated real time preview so you can see the
results of your work instantly!
Cinematte Features
.. Macintosh OS 8.6 through OS X compatible or any version of Windows
.. Works with PhotoShop Elements through PhotoShop CS and JASC PaintShop Pro
.. Large preview mode option for detail work
.. Uses and supports PhotoShop layers and Actions
.. Totally resolution independent - works on any size RGB image up to 20mb+
.. Supports both blue and green screen backgrounds
.. Sophisticated color-spill algorithms
.. Foreground color protection keeps your colors accurate
.. Multiple output options for keyed foregrounds, mattes and more
Inexpensive
Cinematte is available immediately at a direct price of $189.95 plus
shipping and handling. You can order by calling (804) 282-1157 or order
online from our web site at www.novadesign.com
| |
| Brian 2004-05-26, 12:14 pm |
| Boycott all companies who use SPAM to advertise their products.
| |
| Duncan Allan 2004-05-26, 7:14 pm |
| Agreed, especially when they send them to countries other than their origin!
Duncan
"Brian" <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:575d5$40b49cdf$d1cc6c12$18323@snip.allthenewsgroups.com...
> Boycott all companies who use SPAM to advertise their products.
| |
| nospam 2004-05-27, 4:14 am |
| This is not spam. It is perfectly on topic. It isn't like they are selling
chicken heads or something. It is a Photoshop product in a Photoshop
newsgroup.
On the other hand this is not their first posting for this product. Once is
definitely enough. At least per version/upgrade.
Jerry
"Brian" <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:575d5$40b49cdf$d1cc6c12$18323@snip.allthenewsgroups.com...
> Boycott all companies who use SPAM to advertise their products.
| |
| Gene Palmiter 2004-05-27, 12:14 pm |
| Its an unsolicited commercial...its SPAM. It's cross-posted all over the
place. It's not true either. Over and over again they claim to be a leader
in computer graphics. ..but who has ever heard of them? Not me.
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:Ocetc.13440$Fo4.187879@typhoon.sonic.net...
> This is not spam. It is perfectly on topic. It isn't like they are selling
> chicken heads or something. It is a Photoshop product in a Photoshop
> newsgroup.
>
> On the other hand this is not their first posting for this product. Once
is
> definitely enough. At least per version/upgrade.
>
> Jerry
>
> "Brian" <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote in message
> news:575d5$40b49cdf$d1cc6c12$18323@snip.allthenewsgroups.com...
>
>
| |
| Brian 2004-05-27, 12:14 pm |
| > This is not spam.
It absolutely *is* spam... unsolicited, uncompensated advertising on
Usenet is spam. If they are a reputable company with a quality
commercial product that they wish to sell for a profit then they should
pay for advertising like everyone else; allowing these cretins to invade
Usenet is only setting a terrible precedent, and pretty soon
commercialism will be everywhere.
| |
| Tom Thomas 2004-05-27, 12:14 pm |
| Brian <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote:
>It absolutely *is* spam... unsolicited, uncompensated advertising on
>Usenet is spam. If they are a reputable company with a quality
>commercial product that they wish to sell for a profit then they should
>pay for advertising like everyone else; allowing these cretins to invade
>Usenet is only setting a terrible precedent, and pretty soon
>commercialism will be everywhere.
I'm not a fan of spam by any means; however, you may wish to note that
the official Usenet charter for comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
specifically permits the posting of announcements for new,
Photoshop-related products.
-------------------------------
Tom
Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.
| |
| Brian 2004-05-27, 12:14 pm |
| In-Reply-To: <v9vbb0tperndao49hkeflgetrdlr7jm65t@4ax.com>
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii; format=flowed
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
Message-ID: <823ee$40b60722$d1cc6c12$29885@snip.allthenewsgroups.com>
X-Complaints-To: abuse@allthenewsgroups.com
Organization: AllTheNewsgroups.com
Lines: 11
NNTP-Posting-Host: mailhost.discmakers.com
X-Trace: 823ee40b607227469c9b729885
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.graphics.apps.photoshop:283435
> I'm not a fan of spam by any means; however, you may wish to note that
> the official Usenet charter for comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
> specifically permits the posting of announcements for new,
> Photoshop-related products.
How very unfortunate. I have to say that I would have voted against such
a clause were I involved in creating the forum (which I wasn't, of course).
Despite my being an unapologetic capitalist I cannot help but feel that
overt commercialism is invading every single facet of our lives; where
does the line get drawn?
| |
| Tom Thomas 2004-05-27, 7:14 pm |
| Brian <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote:
>How very unfortunate. I have to say that I would have voted against such
>a clause were I involved in creating the forum (which I wasn't, of course).
Perhaps, knowing what you know today; however, the group was chartered
at a time when few people would have envisioned how grossly
commercialized (and concurrently uncivilized) the Internet would
become.
>Despite my being an unapologetic capitalist I cannot help but feel that
>overt commercialism is invading every single facet of our lives; where
>does the line get drawn?
As with most facets of life, we each draw our own line.
Unfortunately, our lines sooner or later are stepped upon by someone
who has drawn the line at a different point. C'est la vie?
-------------------------------
Tom
Unsolicited advertisements cheerfully ignored.
| |
| Gene Palmiter 2004-05-27, 7:14 pm |
| I can't help but feel that if someone came on and wrote that they have
created a new plug-in for chromakeys....they would not be attacked. That is
information...the rest is advertisement.
"patrick" <patw@teleport.com> wrote in message
news:B8otc.503$uR.374@news01.roc.ny...
>
> "Tom Thomas" <tom187@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:v9vbb0tperndao49hkeflgetrdlr7jm65t@4ax.com...
invade[color=darkred]
> That's true. However, the obviously phony subject line is just too cute
and
> puts in the realm of spam for me. "Hey, Ann! Have I got a hot deal for
you!"
> Pardom me while I retch. . . . patrick
>
>
| |
|
| /snip/
>
> That's true. However, the obviously phony subject line is just too cute and
> puts in the realm of spam for me. "Hey, Ann! Have I got a hot deal for you!"
> Pardom me while I retch. . . . patrick
>
>
ANN: is short for ANNOUNCEMENT and is quite commonly used. When you see
it you know it's probably an ad and can ignore it.
--
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html
| |
| nospam 2004-05-29, 7:14 pm |
| Oh, well just because you haven't heard of them makes it bogus. Well I have
never heard of you, does that make you bogus. As I said posting such a
message once is fine. It is a Photoshop product in a Photoshop newsgroup,
commercial or not.
If you have a problem with this then you should have a problem with Joe Smoe
posting his web site address to a site that has ads on it (place by him or
not) that sells anything. Commercial is commercial.
In this case I do have a problem because they did cross post, which by
itself isn't a problem, but that couple with the constant reposting is. Any
one that is interested in the product would have already since the thing
with the first post. Posting it over and over is needless and anything.
Jerry
"Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
news:_Zjtc.24907$yc4.632@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
> Its an unsolicited commercial...its SPAM. It's cross-posted all over the
> place. It's not true either. Over and over again they claim to be a leader
> in computer graphics. ..but who has ever heard of them? Not me.
>
> "nospam" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
> news:Ocetc.13440$Fo4.187879@typhoon.sonic.net...
selling[color=darkred]
> is
>
>
| |
| nospam 2004-05-29, 7:14 pm |
| It gets draw by complaining to them. Not because the posted the message, but
because they kept on posting it. While this type of message is allowed there
was no need to keep reposting. In fact had they only posted it once and even
went to the trouble of posting to each group separately I doubt anyone would
have had a problem. At the very least and the very most it is was poor
judgment on their part. Send them an e-mail suggesting that if they want to
not be hated to be more sensible in their posting habits.
No need to be mean or rude. They just need help understanding.
Jerry
"Brian" <no.spam@no.spam.com> wrote in message
news:823ee$40b60722$d1cc6c12$29885@snip.allthenewsgroups.com...
>
> How very unfortunate. I have to say that I would have voted against such
> a clause were I involved in creating the forum (which I wasn't, of
course).
>
> Despite my being an unapologetic capitalist I cannot help but feel that
> overt commercialism is invading every single facet of our lives; where
> does the line get drawn?
| |
| nospam 2004-05-29, 7:14 pm |
| You can also filter it out. I filter out attachments in newsgroups, as I
don't trust. luckily I have the brains to know that when someone announces
something I can either read it out skip it. I already knew what this plug-in
was and I have a good idea of who uses it (whose does the most blue and
green screening?) This is not a product for most people, how many people
have the lighting and blue or green screens setup for such work at home. Not
many.
Some could also argue that the bull shit Adobe spouts out about Photoshop is
a bunch of crap to. Lets face Photoshop is starting to fall behind other
programs on the market. Feature wise, speed wise and in the ever growing
number of bugs and the so far total lack of a patch to correct the bugs.
If you don't like these posts, then filter them out. Or don't read them.
Jerry
"edjh" <edjhann@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:bKttc.2555$Hf.1496079@newshog.newsread.com...
> /snip/
>
and[color=darkred]
you!"[color=darkred]
> ANN: is short for ANNOUNCEMENT and is quite commonly used. When you see
> it you know it's probably an ad and can ignore it.
>
> --
> Comic book sketches and artwork:
> http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
> Comics art for sale:
> http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html
>
| |
|
| STOP these advertisements. They are SPAM at best. I hope your software
finds it way to Kaaza!
| |
| David Haley 2004-05-31, 4:14 am |
| This day of Sat, 29 May 2004 17:08:36 GMT, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.com>
proclaimed:
>Some could also argue that the bull shit Adobe spouts out about Photoshop is
>a bunch of crap to. Lets face Photoshop is starting to fall behind other
>programs on the market. Feature wise, speed wise and in the ever growing
>number of bugs and the so far total lack of a patch to correct the bugs.
No intention to start a flame-war here. I just invested money into buying
Photoshop, so it's not pleasant to hear that it's falling behind; I'd heard the
contrary from people I consider knowledgeable in the area. What would you have
suggested instead?
Thanks,
-dhaley
--
~david-haley
| |
| Gene Palmiter 2004-05-31, 7:14 pm |
| As a matter of fact...chances are if they are a leader in computer
graphic...I have heard of them. I am not claiming that they have heard of
me....but the odds are very good that I have been reading trade magazines
since before they would have gotten a mention in one.
"nospam" <nospam@nospam.com> wrote in message
news:zk3uc.13906$Fo4.195398@typhoon.sonic.net...
> Oh, well just because you haven't heard of them makes it bogus. Well I
have
> never heard of you, does that make you bogus. As I said posting such a
> message once is fine. It is a Photoshop product in a Photoshop newsgroup,
> commercial or not.
>
> If you have a problem with this then you should have a problem with Joe
Smoe
> posting his web site address to a site that has ads on it (place by him or
> not) that sells anything. Commercial is commercial.
>
> In this case I do have a problem because they did cross post, which by
> itself isn't a problem, but that couple with the constant reposting is.
Any
> one that is interested in the product would have already since the thing
> with the first post. Posting it over and over is needless and anything.
>
> Jerry
>
> "Gene Palmiter" <palmiter_gene@verizon.net> wrote in message
> news:_Zjtc.24907$yc4.632@nwrdny02.gnilink.net...
leader[color=darkred]
> selling
Once[color=darkred]
>
>
| |
| nospam 2004-05-31, 7:14 pm |
| David, don't worry Photoshop is good, I guess my big complaint is that in a
lot of ways it is behind the times, it is also full of half completed
features.
In the behind the times categories we have...
Filters, even the basic and most useful of the lot that haven't been updated
in years.
We are still lacking a customizable interface so that you can create a
completely custom work environment that works for you and save it for use
later. Just about every other image editor does this.
Full built-in scripting support, with editor and basic protections for the
authors scripts. Instead what we have is a poorly done scripting plug-in
with poor documentation, no editor, and only one of the supported languages
having direct menu access support in Photoshop and no protection of any kind
for the authors scripts. Mean while programs from Jasc and Corel have had
these capabilities for years.
Filter layers. Adobe says they can't be done, but they have been available
in other programs for years including Canvas and Adobe's own video editing
programs.
There are others in this category. On the half done features arena we have.
Natural media brushes that are some of the suckiest I have ever seen. If
real watercolor brushed looked like what Photoshop renders artists would
have gouged out their eyes years ago. Not to mention that Photoshop isn't
even smart enough to tell a pen from a mouse and turn off the pressure
sensitive stuff for mouse users so you have to go do this each time you
change brushes. This gets old fast and why you have to do this is unless you
turn those things off you can paint with a mouse.
The new Filter Gallery, is one big waste of screen space. It doesn't support
all of the filters in Photoshop. It allows you to layer them, but doesn't
have opacity or blending mode controls. You also can't turn the damn thing
off when you are fed up with it, it uses a generic image to show what the
filter will look like. Overall, a half done mess.
File browser. While this does seem to be getting a little better with each
new version, it should have been done right and finished by now. It is still
far too slow, and is still far too limited in the file formats it supports
and is far too limited in features.
The history palette. Instead of just giving us multiple undo's which is what
was asked for they give us the history palette, but only half of it. You
can't save your history steps with your image, it is limited in the number
of steps you can have, you can't turn the history in an action and it can
only be edited linearly. Again, another great feature but only half done.
Actions. Awesome idea, but only half complete. There are now logic commands
(if/then/else statements). No editor for changing your actions. No way to
password protect them. They need to be made more like a macro language like
in Word, etc. You need to be able to password protect the editing of them
and you need a way to edit them without having to recreate them.
Again, the list of half done features goes on and on. You mention any of
this to Adobe and their canned answer is that it can't be done. Which is
bull because these things and more have been done in other programs like
Corel Photo-Paint, Jasc PaintShop Pro and even Painter which they had the
chance to buy but didn't. That would have really give you nice natural media
painting tools in Photoshop.
Jerry
"David Haley" <junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote in message
news:eoelb09i27ntcb2o31ufnju5jil1qbf5tq@4ax.com...
> This day of Sat, 29 May 2004 17:08:36 GMT, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.com>
> proclaimed:
>
is[color=darkred]
>
>
> No intention to start a flame-war here. I just invested money into buying
> Photoshop, so it's not pleasant to hear that it's falling behind; I'd
heard the
> contrary from people I consider knowledgeable in the area. What would you
have
> suggested instead?
>
> Thanks,
>
> -dhaley
>
>
> --
> ~david-haley
| |
| David Haley 2004-06-01, 7:14 am |
| This day of Mon, 31 May 2004 16:34:42 GMT, "nospam" <nospam@nospam.com>
proclaimed:
>David, don't worry Photoshop is good, I guess my big complaint is that in a
>lot of ways it is behind the times, it is also full of half completed
>features.
>
>In the behind the times categories we have...
>
>Filters, even the basic and most useful of the lot that haven't been updated
>in years.
>
>We are still lacking a customizable interface so that you can create a
>completely custom work environment that works for you and save it for use
>later. Just about every other image editor does this.
>
>Full built-in scripting support, with editor and basic protections for the
>authors scripts. Instead what we have is a poorly done scripting plug-in
>with poor documentation, no editor, and only one of the supported languages
>having direct menu access support in Photoshop and no protection of any kind
>for the authors scripts. Mean while programs from Jasc and Corel have had
>these capabilities for years.
>
>Filter layers. Adobe says they can't be done, but they have been available
>in other programs for years including Canvas and Adobe's own video editing
>programs.
>
>There are others in this category. On the half done features arena we have.
>
>Natural media brushes that are some of the suckiest I have ever seen. If
>real watercolor brushed looked like what Photoshop renders artists would
>have gouged out their eyes years ago. Not to mention that Photoshop isn't
>even smart enough to tell a pen from a mouse and turn off the pressure
>sensitive stuff for mouse users so you have to go do this each time you
>change brushes. This gets old fast and why you have to do this is unless you
>turn those things off you can paint with a mouse.
>
>The new Filter Gallery, is one big waste of screen space. It doesn't support
>all of the filters in Photoshop. It allows you to layer them, but doesn't
>have opacity or blending mode controls. You also can't turn the damn thing
>off when you are fed up with it, it uses a generic image to show what the
>filter will look like. Overall, a half done mess.
>
>File browser. While this does seem to be getting a little better with each
>new version, it should have been done right and finished by now. It is still
>far too slow, and is still far too limited in the file formats it supports
>and is far too limited in features.
>
>The history palette. Instead of just giving us multiple undo's which is what
>was asked for they give us the history palette, but only half of it. You
>can't save your history steps with your image, it is limited in the number
>of steps you can have, you can't turn the history in an action and it can
>only be edited linearly. Again, another great feature but only half done.
>
>Actions. Awesome idea, but only half complete. There are now logic commands
>(if/then/else statements). No editor for changing your actions. No way to
>password protect them. They need to be made more like a macro language like
>in Word, etc. You need to be able to password protect the editing of them
>and you need a way to edit them without having to recreate them.
>
>Again, the list of half done features goes on and on. You mention any of
>this to Adobe and their canned answer is that it can't be done. Which is
>bull because these things and more have been done in other programs like
>Corel Photo-Paint, Jasc PaintShop Pro and even Painter which they had the
>chance to buy but didn't. That would have really give you nice natural media
>painting tools in Photoshop.
>
>Jerry
Well, thanks for your answers. The bad news for me is that a lot of that really
does sound like it would have been useful. I have to admit that the file browser
seemed awfully slow (it eats up all my cpu/memory, it's faster to open up
explorer and go to thumbnail mode, and drag the files into photoshop), in
addition to the filter gallery being incomplete.
The good news is that most of the concerns seem to be for somebody more advanced
than myself. :) Then again the goal is to become more proficient so maybe I will
start caring about all that. The other piece of good news is that I bought the
student version for "only" $300, so I guess it's less painful than if I had
spent the full $700 or however much it costs for the normal version. As far as I
can tell, the student version is fully featured, but just has 'Education' on the
splash screen.
As a programmer, I dare suggest that perhaps what they mean by "it can't be
done" is more like "our software design is becoming antiquated, we're having
trouble with the half-arse port from Mac to Windows, so to add that stuff would
mean a complete rewrite of the software that we don't feel like doing." To be
honest I was a little miffed to see the Mac Aqua interface in my PC program. :/
Not that I don't like the Mac OS/X visuals (quite the contrary, in fact); I just
don't want to see them in a PC program! I suspect that the PC version is slow in
part because it's loading up some kind of Mac-to-PC library that makes the
porting job easier. Which would explain perhaps why all the scrollbars and stuff
look like the Mac OS, and don't use the Windows environment.
In any case I appreciate your explanations, thanks for going into that for the
novice Photoshop user. :)
-dhaley
--
~david-haley
| |
|
| X-Newsreader: Value-Added NewsWatcher 3.1.1
X-Complaints-To: abuse@supernews.com
Lines: 7
Xref: number1.nntp.dca.giganews.com comp.graphics.apps.photoshop:283672
In article <5jbob09ab775dv1dmt25irlu8crs85gv7e@4ax.com>, David Haley
<junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
> As a programmer, I dare suggest that perhaps what they mean by [...]
As a programmer why don't you decompile the code and look for yourself.
Until then, spare us your impressionistic speculation.
| |
| David Haley 2004-06-01, 7:14 am |
| This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 02:48:19 -0500, john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
proclaimed:
>In article <5jbob09ab775dv1dmt25irlu8crs85gv7e@4ax.com>, David Haley
><junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>As a programmer why don't you decompile the code and look for yourself.
>Until then, spare us your impressionistic speculation.
Look, what's your problem? Why are you getting so snotty about it? This is a
known problem with nearly *every* piece of software that builds on previous
versions. If you knew just how much software is crippled from being built off of
old and outdated design, maybe you'd see where I'm coming from. I like Adobe's
software, otherwise I wouldn't have forked out the cash for it. That doesn't
mean they don't suffer from the same ills the whole software industry does. In
the meantime, I see no need for you to be so rude about it.
-dhaley
--
~david-haley
| |
|
| In article <3keob0h0pkq8gvp5t3ri6klf8dpo4gj7iu@4ax.com>, David Haley
<junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
> Look, what's your problem? Why are you getting so snotty about it?
You are right, I was being snotty. Permit me one more. You come in here
all hyper-critical about Photoshop, but uninformed as to what it can do.
Instead of trying to find what it does do, even without scripting, you
immediately presume it can't be done then suggest that PS do it _your_
way. I find that typical of programmers, and rather wearying.
> This is a known problem with nearly *every* piece of software that builds
> on previous versions. If you knew just how much software is crippled from
> being built off of
> old and outdated design, maybe you'd see where I'm coming from.
I know perfectly well how Byzantine code can become after a few
generations of coping with changes in the underlying OS, programming
styles, features, and so on. I've been at it for a long time.
> I like Adobe's
> software, otherwise I wouldn't have forked out the cash for it.
Welcome aboard.
| |
| David Haley 2004-06-01, 12:14 pm |
| This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:02:34 -0500, john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
proclaimed:
>In article <3keob0h0pkq8gvp5t3ri6klf8dpo4gj7iu@4ax.com>, David Haley
><junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>You are right, I was being snotty. Permit me one more. You come in here
>all hyper-critical about Photoshop, but uninformed as to what it can do.
>Instead of trying to find what it does do, even without scripting, you
>immediately presume it can't be done then suggest that PS do it _your_
>way. I find that typical of programmers, and rather wearying.
And I find you to be rather sensitive and defensive about something.
Hyper-critical of Photoshop? Sure pal, that's why I spent so much money on it.
Perhaps it's not much to you, but on my student budget $300 is a significant
amount of cash. If you bothered to read what I wrote, you would see that I spoke
in praise of the software. My only comment was a more general sidenote on
software in general - not just Photoshop.
I'm very amused at your comments about scripting. I see that you just recently
told off a programmer who got upset regarding their misconception of Adobe's
scripting and automation... I however have made no such comment about scripting,
and I have made no assumptions about what it can or cannot do. You will note (if
you bother to read my posts) that I was responding precisely to what Jerry said
- not making a single assumption beyond that.
So if I have struck a sore nerve in you, I apologize, but you should actually
bother to read what I write instead of reading "programmer" and dismissing me
completely. Like I have said I'm not sure what your problem is, but you're
criticizing me for things I haven't even said.
>
>I know perfectly well how Byzantine code can become after a few
>generations of coping with changes in the underlying OS, programming
>styles, features, and so on. I've been at it for a long time.
Then why, no offense, did you get so pissy about my comment, if you know full
well how true it is?
Like I said above you're acting way over-defensively, and you seem to have some
kind of knee-jerk, gut hatred of programmers. Rather sad IMHO. In the meantime I
would really appreciate that you go read my posts, point out exactly where I am
"hyper-critical" and all the other adjectives you attributed to me, and if you
cannot, apologize for too hastily categorizing me where I do not belong.
-dhaley
>
>Welcome aboard.
--
~david-haley
| |
|
| In article <ss4pb0tl7hfi5cv9j6oobfrdap3vcppt1g@4ax.com>, David Haley
<junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 09:02:34 -0500, john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
> proclaimed:
>
> And I find you to be rather sensitive and defensive about something.
> Hyper-critical of Photoshop? Sure pal, that's why I spent so much money on it.
I'm going to stop after this post. Flame wars don't interest me, but your
compaint gives me one more opportunity to suggest that people, especially
programmers, who spring for spendy software should read the documentation
before whining.
> Perhaps it's not much to you, but on my student budget $300 is a significant
> amount of cash.
$300? That's a bundle. I think our local university students get a better
deal than that.
So, you are an expert programmer while still a student! My congratulations
on your prodigal success. FWIW we do have a few excellent PS scriptors
here. One answered your earlier question and another hasn't chimed in now,
possibly because he's not amused by flame wars; his name is Warren Sarle.
When he writes, read. Good stuff.
> I'm very amused at your comments about scripting. I see that you just recently
> told off a programmer who got upset regarding their misconception of Adobe's
> scripting and automation...
Did I? Good.
> So if I have struck a sore nerve in you, I apologize, but you should actually
> bother to read what I write instead of reading "programmer" and dismissing me
> completely. Like I have said I'm not sure what your problem is, but you're
> criticizing me for things I haven't even said.
Hey, it's my 'sore nerve', not yours. No apology neccessary. So we had a
tif, or is that .tiff? In any event, I'm cool. So are you. We are each a
bit smarter from this.
Peace and enjoy PS.
| |
| David Haley 2004-06-01, 7:14 pm |
| This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:13:40 -0500, john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
proclaimed:
>In article <ss4pb0tl7hfi5cv9j6oobfrdap3vcppt1g@4ax.com>, David Haley
><junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>I'm going to stop after this post. Flame wars don't interest me, but your
>compaint gives me one more opportunity to suggest that people, especially
>programmers, who spring for spendy software should read the documentation
>before whining.
Whining? *sigh* You've yet to substantiate a single of these accusations of
yours. I'm not sure what your gripe with me is, other than I dared mention being
a programmer, and a single fault of PS which isn't really Adobe's fault but is
proper to nearly any application these days.
>
>$300? That's a bundle. I think our local university students get a better
>deal than that.
I am glad for your local university students. I'd be curious though if you could
confirm that.
>So, you are an expert programmer while still a student! My congratulations
>on your prodigal success. FWIW we do have a few excellent PS scriptors
>here. One answered your earlier question and another hasn't chimed in now,
>possibly because he's not amused by flame wars; his name is Warren Sarle.
>When he writes, read. Good stuff.
I never claimed to be an 'expert programmer', simply a 'programmer'. Given that
I've been at it for, oh, 12 years now I think I deserve at least that. I know
nothing about PS scripting, never claimed to either.
Where did Warren Sarle answer one of my questions? Are you confusing me with
somebody else?
>
>Did I? Good.
Yes... and somehow your response to him suggests to me you just don't like
programmers in general. :-)
"He did not understand what PS can do in the first place and demanded that
somehow it read his (programmer) mind rather than him reading the docs."
>
>Hey, it's my 'sore nerve', not yours. No apology neccessary. So we had a
>tif, or is that .tiff? In any event, I'm cool. So are you. We are each a
>bit smarter from this.
>
>Peace and enjoy PS.
Will do, that is after all why I bought it. Contrary to your accusations I
actually do like the software a great deal. :) I was just miffed to see an Apple
interface in a PC application, and made a side comment about why I thought that
was.
-dhaley
--
~david-haley
| |
|
| In article <e18pb0hbsv13itsbncc9u0ap3bes2v7dp2@4ax.com>, David Haley
<junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:13:40 -0500, john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
> proclaimed:
>
> I am glad for your local university students. I'd be curious though if
you could
> confirm that.
Fair enough. I'll write to them today and get back to you.
| |
|
| In article <e18pb0hbsv13itsbncc9u0ap3bes2v7dp2@4ax.com>, David Haley
<junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 10:13:40 -0500, john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
> proclaimed:
>
> I am glad for your local university students. I'd be curious though if
you could
> confirm that.
I called work: Winona State University, which is a part of the Minnesota
State Colleges and University (MNSCU) system. They must have some
particularly great volume deal because the prices are quite reasonable.
Being that MNSCU is a public institution, the following is neither
proprietary nor private information.
Adobe Creative Suite: $161.51 (Media is $22 extra.)
(That's Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive, Acrobat Pro, and Version Cue.
Photoshop CS only: $126.90 (Media is $22 extra)
This is for students and faculty only, of course. Proof in the form of a
current Student ID and current registration is required for students and
proof of current employment for Faculty. I'm pleased that they are quite
strident on that point.
| |
| David Haley 2004-06-01, 11:14 pm |
| This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:40:43 -0500, john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
proclaimed:
>In article <e18pb0hbsv13itsbncc9u0ap3bes2v7dp2@4ax.com>, David Haley
><junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>you could
>
>I called work: Winona State University, which is a part of the Minnesota
>State Colleges and University (MNSCU) system. They must have some
>particularly great volume deal because the prices are quite reasonable.
>Being that MNSCU is a public institution, the following is neither
>proprietary nor private information.
>
>Adobe Creative Suite: $161.51 (Media is $22 extra.)
>(That's Photoshop, Illustrator, InDesign, GoLive, Acrobat Pro, and Version Cue.
>
>Photoshop CS only: $126.90 (Media is $22 extra)
>
>This is for students and faculty only, of course. Proof in the form of a
>current Student ID and current registration is required for students and
>proof of current employment for Faculty. I'm pleased that they are quite
>strident on that point.
OK, then, well, it seems that the Stanford Bookstore is ripping us off rather
horribly. Hmph. Not the first time they've been known to do that. Grr. :/ They
have us show the ID and everything too, so it wouldn't be that.
-dhaley
--
~david-haley
| |
| Chris Havel 2004-06-02, 4:14 am |
| In article <6u1qb0p1bpm1chmka7kd1glabobpc2lnfn@4ax.com>,
David Haley <junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
> This day of Tue, 01 Jun 2004 17:40:43 -0500, john@xyzzy.stafford.net (jjs)
> proclaimed:
>
>
>
> OK, then, well, it seems that the Stanford Bookstore is ripping us off rather
> horribly. Hmph. Not the first time they've been known to do that. Grr. :/
> They
> have us show the ID and everything too, so it wouldn't be that.
>
> -dhaley
~$150 is about right for the academic upgrade from a previous version.
Stanford has the upgrade for $169, as does the university in my neck of
the woods (Oregon State). New, both stores do indeed have it for $299.
Minnesotans have it goood ...
--
C
| |
| David Haley 2004-06-02, 12:14 pm |
| This day of Wed, 02 Jun 2004 06:01:07 GMT, Chris Havel <chrishavel@hotmail.com>
proclaimed:
>In article <6u1qb0p1bpm1chmka7kd1glabobpc2lnfn@4ax.com>,
> David Haley <junkmale221@hotmail.com> wrote:
>
>
>
>~$150 is about right for the academic upgrade from a previous version.
>Stanford has the upgrade for $169, as does the university in my neck of
>the woods (Oregon State). New, both stores do indeed have it for $299.
>Minnesotans have it goood ...
We were talking about new versions, right? Are those $161, $126 prices above for
the new or the upgrade versions? If new, one does wonder how the Minnesotans do
manage to get such low prices... and why we others get left out. :-)
-dhaley
--
~david-haley
| |
| nospam 2004-06-02, 7:14 pm |
| I would just ignore JJS, it shoulds like he/she is on the rag or something.
Jerry
|
|
|
| | Copyright 2003 - 2008 forum4designers.com Software forum Computer Hardware reviews |
|