Skip to main content
news

Re: post processing

Sandman
Google Google
SubjectRe: post processing
FromSandman
Date2014-03-17 14:54 (2014-03-17 14:54)
Message-ID<slrnlidvn4.t1.mr@irc.sandman.net>
Client
Newsgroupsrec.photo.digital
FollowsTony Cooper
In article <gatdi91fbfp3vbo908mcrou4haae7rqu91@4ax.com>, Tony Cooper <tonycooper214@gmail.com>wrote:

Sandman
So, anyone can make photoshp plug-ins but only Adobe can *call* them Photoshop plug-ins? Haha!

Tony Cooper
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".

Haha!

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.

Sandman
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"

Tony Cooper
The fact that there are examples of misuse does not make it any less of a misuse.

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"?

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:

http://css3ps.com - "Photoshop plugin" http://www.cutandslice.me - "Photoshop plugin" http://www.divine-project.com - "Photoshop Plugin" http://subtlepatterns.com - "Photoshop plugin" http://webzap.uiparade.com - "PS plugin" http://pnghat.madebysource.com - "Photoshop plugin" http://skeuomorphism.it - "Photoshop plugin" http://www.autofx.com/ - "Adobe Photoshop plug-ins"

All made by Adobe - or "approved"? I mean, we've already established that the only approval process you have been able to produce is for the inclusion on their plugin portfolio on adobe.com - and none of the above links lead to that page, so I'm guess they are all breaking the law/rules/whatever that you can't direct us to?

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?

This is really your reply?

And what plug-ins were you in reference to when you made this statement that you desperately want to make disappear:

"Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."

-- Sandman[.net]