Subject | Re: post processing |
From | Sandman |
Date | 03/17/2014 14:54 (03/17/2014 14:54) |
Message-ID | <slrnlidvn4.t1.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Tony Cooper |
Haha!SandmanTony Cooper
So, anyone can make photoshp plug-ins but only Adobe can *call* them Photoshop plug-ins? Haha!
Yep. You've almost got it. If it's not a plug-in created by Adobe, it should be called a "Plug-in for Photoshop".
Otherwise, it's misleading. Using "Photoshop Plug-in", there is an implication that the plug-in is either created by Adobe or approved by Adobe.Oh, so now they need not be made by Adobe any longer? They can be "approved" by Adobe? So when you read "Photoshop plugin" it's either made by Adobe or "approved" by Adobe? Your story keeps changing.
How do you knwo it's misused? Perhaps they have been "approved" by Adobe, Tony? That's the implication, right? I mean, otherwise - how could they ever call it a "Photoshop plugin"?SandmanTony Cooper
And why you totally ignored the earlier post, where someone else than Adobe calls their plug-in a "Photoshop plug-in":
<http://tinyurl.com/ngbuqzw>
"Adobe Photoshop Plug-in Module"
The fact that there are examples of misuse does not make it any less of a misuse.
Interesting, though, that you provide a 2006 document that refers to a product that works on Windows 2000 or Windows XP, and Photoshop CS or CS2 or Elements Version 1.0 or 2.0.First google hit. Is this approval process and Adobe-centric thing something recent? Can older plugin's be called "photoshop plugin" without being approved or made by Adobe... according to Tony?
The current webpage has statements like "Is the UP-CR10L Plug-In Module compatible with Photoshop CS4?"So when did this rule change, Tony? Here are some current examples:
It's also interesting that what you've provided is a reference to a plug-in that allows a digital photo printer to use a template that puts a border around an image that is to be printed. You really are into some high-tech stuff, aren't you?Ah, so the word "Photoshop plug-in" is ok for non-approved plug-ins that aren't made by Adobe as long as their function is trivial?