Subject | Re: post processing |
From | Tony Cooper |
Date | 03/17/2014 14:56 (03/17/2014 09:56) |
Message-ID | <5vudi9p2uj5ae4ksfkd8ggbncp3fibr7kg@4ax.com> |
Client | |
Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
Follows | Sandman |
Followups | Sandman (6m) |
SandmanYes, we do. Evidence of misuse doesn't change anything.
In article <itsdi9hpvo781ftb97i3od0qsckq9j0jhr@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:SandmanTony CoopernospamSo, are thesde your statements, then:1. Only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-insTony Cooper
Never said that.
you just did, above.
Evidently, your reading skills are not working today. Anyone can create a plug-in to be used with Photoshop. They cannot legitimately call it a "Photoshop Plug-in", though.
You've made that stupid statement a couple of times now. I've been busy laughing at you - but I think it's time for you to actually, you know, substantiate it.
You claim that only Adobe can "call" a plug-in a "Photoshop plug-in" and we know that many developers call their plug-ins "Photoshop plug-in"
and we know that Adobe lists third party plugin's under the heading "Photoshop plug-in" so so far there is nothing out there in the real world that has yet to align to your claims.You snipped the link to that page while posting other links. Why's that?
So, please tell us again how these people can't "call" their plugins the way they are already calling them, Tony.Evidence of misuse doesn't change anything.