Subject | Re: post processing |
From | Tony Cooper |
Date | 03/17/2014 14:40 (03/17/2014 09:40) |
Message-ID | <gatdi91fbfp3vbo908mcrou4haae7rqu91@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | nospam (4m) Sandman (13m) |
SandmanYep. You've almost got it. If it's not a plug-in created by Adobe, it should be called a "Plug-in for Photoshop".
In article <81qdi9p509anhalqskqa7cqu8d57g8412o@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:SandmanTony CooperTony CooperSandman
Yes, it's a typing error on my part. The mind said "Photoshop Plug-in" and the fingers said "Adobe Plug-in".
So you're still on record with the hilarious comment that only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop plug-in"?
Yup. Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in". The rest should call theirs "Plug-in for Photoshop".
That's hilarious!SandmanSo, are thesde your statements, then:1. Only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-insTony Cooper
Never said that.
So, anyone can make photoshp plug-ins but only Adobe can *call* them Photoshop plug-ins? Haha!
And why you totally ignored the earlier post, where someone else than Adobe calls their plug-in a "Photoshop plug-in":The fact that there are examples of misuse does not make it any less of a misuse.
<http://tinyurl.com/ngbuqzw>
"Adobe Photoshop Plug-in Module"