Skip to main content
news

Re: post processing

Sandman
SubjectRe: post processing
FromSandman
Date03/15/2014 09:28 (03/15/2014 09:28)
Message-ID<slrnli83s9.nuo.mr@irc.sandman.net>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsTony Cooper
FollowupsTony Cooper (5h & 44m) > Sandman

In article <81j6i91js8j41eae457ml92909blj2il6j@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:

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.

Haha!

Sandman
Only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-ins!

Tony Cooper
Correct.

Funnier and funnier!

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>

"Photoshop 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.

But you just said that only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-ins, and that page lists Photoshop plug-ins. Tricky situation you've gotten yourself into!

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".

Note the use of "Photoshop Plug-ins", something Tony told me means that Adobe is the author of the software. Yeah, he's a bit whacky :)

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.

Of course not, since what you said was incorrect and what I said was correct - how could it describe the same thing?

Just admit that you spoke out of ignorance and you thought that Lightroom did accept Photoshop plug-ins but you now realize that you didn't look it up carefully enough. Be a man here.

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?

In the quote above, illiterate boy.

-- Sandman[.net]

Tony Cooper (5h & 44m) > Sandman