Google| Subject | Re: post processing |
| From | Sandman |
| Date | 2014-03-14 18:41 (2014-03-14 18:41) |
| Message-ID | <slrnli6frs.jac.mr@irc.sandman.net> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
| Followups | Tony Cooper (1h & 3m) > Sandman |
In article <hu96i9199f3tocv162rgrr5uv247har7pf@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper wrote:
Ah - of course. Which one is it that's the "accepted" one, now again? :-DTony CooperTony CooperSandman
Nik says they offer "powerful plug-ins for Photoshop and Lightroom".
But Tony said just above that Nik doesn't claim to be plug-ins! He'll be pissed at you now.
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.
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.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!! Only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-ins!
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?
And when you said this:
Tony Cooper 03/13/2014 <evo3i9p9n2fuik675s20suc9q39b7kqlq3@4ax.com>
"Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."
You were clearly saying "Photoshop plug-ins", so you must have meant that all the plugin-ins made by Adobe for Photoshop CC is "accepted" by Lightroom. And why did you even mention onOne or Nik then if it's not even covered by that comment, since - according to you - it's not a "Photoshop plug-in"
You still want to play the semantics game?
Which would have been equally false.Sandman
Nor will you find them talking about a "binary file", but their download comes with one either way. Plugins are how they show up in the Photoshop CC and Lightroom menues, it's the method of interaction, and Tony once said this:"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".
"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.
"These companies don't claim to be "PS plug-ins" or "LR plug-ins"."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?
In fact, they do.
-- Sandman[.net]
2014-03-13-
-
-
