Google| Subject | Re: post processing |
| From | nospam |
| Date | 2014-03-14 22:30 (2014-03-14 17:30) |
| Message-ID | <140320141730573565%nospam@nospam.invalid> |
| Client | |
| Newsgroups | rec.photo.digital |
| Follows | Tony Cooper |
| Followups | Tony Cooper (19m) > nospam |
In article <hu96i9199f3tocv162rgrr5uv247har7pf@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:
you *must* be kidding me.Tony 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.nope. you really are serious. holy shit. just when i thought i'd seen it all.
i've written photoshop plug-ins. i know many software developers who have written photoshop plug-ins. i know people at adobe who worked on the photoshop plug-in sdk.
nobody says 'a plug-in for photoshop'. every single person i know who has written plug-ins says photoshop plug-in (or whatever app it is, as there are plug-ins for other apps too).
also, a photoshop plug-in can be used in other apps in some cases.
this is just another one of your insanely absurd and idiotic semantic arguments, where you pretend to know a lot about something you know absolutely nothing.
2014-03-13-
-
-
