Tony Cooper
On 14 Mar 2014 17:41:19 GMT, Sandman <mr@sandman.net>wrote:

Sandman
In article <hu96i9199f3tocv162rgrr5uv247har7pf@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper
Nik says they offer "powerful plug-ins for Photoshop and Lightroom".

Sandman
But Tony said just above that Nik doesn't claim to be plug-ins! He'll be pissed at you now.

Tony Cooper
I knowing you sometimes struggle with the language, but you should be able to understand the difference between "a Photoshop plug-in" and "a plug-in for Photoshop". That word "for" in there should be simple to understand.

Sandman
Ah - of course. Which one is it that's the "accepted" one, now again? :-D

Tony Cooper
A "Photoshop plug-in" would be a plug-in authored by, and offered by, Adobe. A "Plug-in for Photoshop" is a plug-in that is authored by some other organization and offered as something that will work with Photoshop. Nik is offering a plug-in, a plug-in that will work with Photoshop, but not a Photoshop plug-in.

Sandman
Haha! Tony digs himself even deeper. He now claims that the order of words defines the author of the software. You can't call Alien Skin's Snap Art! a "Photoshop plug-in" becuase it wasn't made by Adobe!!

Tony Cooper
I would not. Not the order, but the words included.

Sandman
Only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-ins!

Tony Cooper
Correct.

Sandman
But hey, even though semantics have nothing to do with this, you know how I love shoving your ignorance down your throat (sound familliar), let's see what Adobe has to say about it:

<http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?l=6&s=4&o=desc&exc=16&cat=193&event=producthome&scat=253>

Plug-ins"

Is it your claim now that the plug-ins listed on that page were all written by Adobe, Tony?

Tony Cooper
No, each plug-in listing tells you who developed the plug-in. Adobe is specifying that they didn't develop them.

Adobe is careful to specify on that page "A new way to discover and install plug-ins, extensions, and content for the Creative Suite".

Note the use of "for".

Sandman
"Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."

Which was false. I'm just letting him know this.

Tony Cooper
It was an incomplete statement designed to work at your level of understanding of English, but - you are right - it should have been written "Lightroom accepts some plug-ins that also work in Photoshop".

Sandman
Which would have been equally false.

"Some authors make software and provide a Photoshop plug-in for Photoshop and a Lightroom plug-in for Lightroom" is the correct way to say it.

Tony Cooper
It's a different statement that does not describe the same thing.

Sandman
That said, and you know how I really like to shove your ignorance down your throat, here's a link for you:

http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite8/

"Perfect Photo Suite works as a plug-in and is a perfect companion to Adobe Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, and Apple Aperture."

So not even that was something you could get right.

Tony Cooper
What was wrong about my statement?

Sandman
"These companies don't claim to be "PS plug-ins" or "LR plug-ins"."

In fact, they do.

Tony Cooper
Where?