Photoshop recommendations
Members
Search
Help
Register
Login
Home
:: E-mail to friend 
> John Navas wrote:
>
>> Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>> I said Elements, not the full version. Have you used Elements?
>>>
>>> I used Elements 2 for a little while. Went back to PSP. Same
>>> problem, the interface and features didn't appeal to me as PSP's did.
>>
>> Elements is now up to 7. Much has changed.
>
> Has anybody tried Picasa recently? Unless you want to do something
> elaborate, it works really nicely. Newest improvement -- a clone-like
> tool which is REALLY easy. The easy red-eye correction has been in
> there for a long time.
>
> The price is right, and the on-line albums aren't all that bad either..
Probably 99% of my photo work is done in Picasa. I love some of the
additions made to V3. There's still some things I'd like to see, but
it's improving a lot, and it's quick and easy for most of what I really
need to do. I especially like the third-party plugin for easy upload to
my Facebook account.
  |
  |
in <gj4dh4$4t7$2@reader.motzarella.org>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:41:45 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <gj198l$cbq$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>> I used Elements 2 for a little while. Went back to PSP. Same problem,
>>> the interface and features didn't appeal to me as PSP's did.
>>
>> Elements is now up to 7. Much has changed.
>
>And this is reason I should change what I'm already comfortable and
>happy with?
Where did I say that?
>PSP has changed much over the years. As has GIMP. As has Windows,
>MacOS, *nix, and computer hardware in general. I see no point in
>changing just for the sake of changing.
My point was simply that experience with ancient Elements 2 is not
terribly germane to current Elements 7, nothing more.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 21:12:51 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com>
wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:41:45 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <gj198l$cbq$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> ... Photoshop and GIMP are both very powerful packages in
>>>>>>> the right hands. GIMP is open source and FREE. It has a huge following
>>>>>>> in the Linux world and there is lots of support. It lacks some of the
>>>>>>> capabilities of Photoshop, but I doubt you would notice.
>>>>>> The other issue is that many people, me included, find the GIMP
>>>>>> interface to be unintuitive to the point of pain. While the GIMP is
>>>>>> quite powerful and free, I'll think you'll find the interface in
>>>>>> Photoshop Elements much easier, and it can be found for under $30.
>>>>>> (See link in my earlier post.)
>>>>> Similarly, I find the Photoshop interface rather unintuitive, at least
>>>>> compared to Paintshop Pro.
>>>> I said Elements, not the full version. Have you used Elements?
>>> I used Elements 2 for a little while. Went back to PSP. Same problem,
>>> the interface and features didn't appeal to me as PSP's did.
>>
>> Elements is now up to 7. Much has changed.
>
>And this is reason I should change what I'm already comfortable and
>happy with?
I don't see where it was suggested that you change anything. You made
the statement that Photoshop's interface is rather unintuitive. You
added that the interface and feature don't appeal to you. (If I've
read the attributions correctly)
John brought up the fact that there are newer versions available, and
implied in that comment is that the newer versions may offer an
interface that is more to your liking. That's not a suggestion to
change. That's simply a point to consider.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 16:41:45 -0800, Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote
>> in <gj198l$cbq$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>>
>>> John Navas wrote:
>>>
>>>>>>> ... Photoshop and GIMP are both very powerful packages in
>>>>>>> the right hands. GIMP is open source and FREE. It has a huge following
>>>>>>> in the Linux world and there is lots of support. It lacks some of the
>>>>>>> capabilities of Photoshop, but I doubt you would notice.
>>>>>> The other issue is that many people, me included, find the GIMP
>>>>>> interface to be unintuitive to the point of pain. While the GIMP is
>>>>>> quite powerful and free, I'll think you'll find the interface in
>>>>>> Photoshop Elements much easier, and it can be found for under $30.
>>>>>> (See link in my earlier post.)
>>>>> Similarly, I find the Photoshop interface rather unintuitive, at least
>>>>> compared to Paintshop Pro.
>>>> I said Elements, not the full version. Have you used Elements?
>>> I used Elements 2 for a little while. Went back to PSP. Same problem,
>>> the interface and features didn't appeal to me as PSP's did.
>>
>> Elements is now up to 7. Much has changed.
>
>And this is reason I should change what I'm already comfortable and
>happy with?
I don't see where it was suggested that you change anything. You made
the statement that Photoshop's interface is rather unintuitive. You
added that the interface and feature don't appeal to you. (If I've
read the attributions correctly)
John brought up the fact that there are newer versions available, and
implied in that comment is that the newer versions may offer an
interface that is more to your liking. That's not a suggestion to
change. That's simply a point to consider.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
| |
|
On 27 Dec 2008 03:17:29 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
<6rll29F28np1U2@mid.individual.net>:
>On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:50:56 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>
>> On 27 Dec 2008 01:46:54 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>> <6rlfoeF28bcjU4@mid.individual.net>:
>>>Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how
>>>to use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
>>
>> Really? What's reasonable to you? 30 months? ;)
>
>I expect that adobe would have better luck with a 90 day period. It's all
>really about trying to get the potential buyer 'hooked'. Yes - 90 days
>would seem quite reasonable.
And somebody will say that's too limiting, that it should be at least 9
months. And the next person 27 months. And so on.
The problem with 90 days is that quite a few people would simply use the
software without paying for it.
30 days is quite reasonable in my opinion.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
<6rll29F28np1U2@mid.individual.net>:
>On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:50:56 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>
>> On 27 Dec 2008 01:46:54 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>> <6rlfoeF28bcjU4@mid.individual.net>:
>>>Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how
>>>to use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
>>
>> Really? What's reasonable to you? 30 months? ;)
>
>I expect that adobe would have better luck with a 90 day period. It's all
>really about trying to get the potential buyer 'hooked'. Yes - 90 days
>would seem quite reasonable.
And somebody will say that's too limiting, that it should be at least 9
months. And the next person 27 months. And so on.
The problem with 90 days is that quite a few people would simply use the
software without paying for it.
30 days is quite reasonable in my opinion.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
In article <eoq4l.1243$496.1001@newsfe13.iad>,
Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
> are saved.
>
> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
> photos? What would be the price range?
>
> Thank you in advance for any help.
I am a long-time Photoshop user and for amateur's, I strongly recommend
Photoshop Elements. Everything you need to do is available in Photoshop
Elements at a fraction of the price of the full Photoshop. You can be
PSE anywhere you can buy Photoshop.
By the way, there's a very active Photoshop newsgroup, which I think is
called comp.graphics.apps.photoshop or something along those lines.
There are also online discussion groups on Photoshop on Adobe's web
site. All of those forums are resources you should check out.
Neil Jones <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Hi,
>
> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
> are saved.
>
> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
> photos? What would be the price range?
>
> Thank you in advance for any help.
I am a long-time Photoshop user and for amateur's, I strongly recommend
Photoshop Elements. Everything you need to do is available in Photoshop
Elements at a fraction of the price of the full Photoshop. You can be
PSE anywhere you can buy Photoshop.
By the way, there's a very active Photoshop newsgroup, which I think is
called comp.graphics.apps.photoshop or something along those lines.
There are also online discussion groups on Photoshop on Adobe's web
site. All of those forums are resources you should check out.
| |
|
"Benny" <no spam ple@se.com> wrote in message
news:OYT4l.4504$cu.3366@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>
>> I would strongly suggest that you check out this page:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors
>>
>> It lists most all of the better-known graphic editors. Many of them are
>> freeware
>> and would do more than you will ever need.
>>
>> For someone in your position, anything by Adobe is overkill and a waste
>> of money
>> and time. I personally never use Adobe anything, as there are much better
>> editors out there. A few that would be more than you will ever need are
>> Paint
>> Shop Pro (v9.01 is more than you will need), Zoner Photo Studio,
>> PhotoBrush,
>> IrfanView, PhotoImpact, Serif PhotoPlus, FastStone, and Gimp. Just
>> because
>> others say to use Adobe doesn't mean it's the best. Adobe has been
>> outclassed by
>> many many other editors many years ago. The "pros" just are so used to
>> using
>> outdated Adobe software with last-century features and capabilities that
>> they
>> don't know any better. Stuck in a rut. There is much better software out
>> there
>> now, going on 8 years. You're in a position to learn from the beginning,
>> finding
>> even better software that the trolls and "pros" are unwilling or
>> incapable of
>> learning anew.
>>
>>
>
> I'm very open to using other graphics software instead of Adobe Photoshop
> CS or Elements.
> Can you please give some examples of what your suggested packages are
> capable of that are lacking in Adobe products.
> regards
> Benny
>
>
>
news:OYT4l.4504$cu.3366@news-server.bigpond.net.au...
>
>>
>> I would strongly suggest that you check out this page:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors
>>
>> It lists most all of the better-known graphic editors. Many of them are
>> freeware
>> and would do more than you will ever need.
>>
>> For someone in your position, anything by Adobe is overkill and a waste
>> of money
>> and time. I personally never use Adobe anything, as there are much better
>> editors out there. A few that would be more than you will ever need are
>> Paint
>> Shop Pro (v9.01 is more than you will need), Zoner Photo Studio,
>> PhotoBrush,
>> IrfanView, PhotoImpact, Serif PhotoPlus, FastStone, and Gimp. Just
>> because
>> others say to use Adobe doesn't mean it's the best. Adobe has been
>> outclassed by
>> many many other editors many years ago. The "pros" just are so used to
>> using
>> outdated Adobe software with last-century features and capabilities that
>> they
>> don't know any better. Stuck in a rut. There is much better software out
>> there
>> now, going on 8 years. You're in a position to learn from the beginning,
>> finding
>> even better software that the trolls and "pros" are unwilling or
>> incapable of
>> learning anew.
>>
>>
>
> I'm very open to using other graphics software instead of Adobe Photoshop
> CS or Elements.
> Can you please give some examples of what your suggested packages are
> capable of that are lacking in Adobe products.
> regards
> Benny
>
>
>
| |
|
OK, so let's say 'many' rather than 'most'. The point I was attempting to
make is that unless you spend most of your day every day in front of the
computer playing with the software, 30 days is likely to be enough to get
a very general introduction - certainly not to master anything or get a
real feel for what it will do. I have a life aside from photography. My
time would be limited to a few hours here and there. I find 30 days to be
quite a short evaluation period. But since I'm not likely to evaluate
adobe products until the Linux version comes out, I guess my opinion does
not count.
make is that unless you spend most of your day every day in front of the
computer playing with the software, 30 days is likely to be enough to get
a very general introduction - certainly not to master anything or get a
real feel for what it will do. I have a life aside from photography. My
time would be limited to a few hours here and there. I find 30 days to be
quite a short evaluation period. But since I'm not likely to evaluate
adobe products until the Linux version comes out, I guess my opinion does
not count.
| |
|
"John Navas" <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote in message
news:fp1bl41ikgi4ji8caqif3ku47f23n44stj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:57:23 -0500, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in
> <evoal4tuaofnmujnvfcff8ahtop5lohuad@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:07:26 -0500, Dave Cohen <user@example.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>My local library has some stuff on both PS and Elements. Not sure what
>>>versions are covered. I got a $50 gift certificate for Barnes & Noble so
>>>I'll see what they carry.
>>
>>If you purchase Elements 5.0, 6.0, or 7.0, and all your library
>>carries are books on 4.0 or any previous version to what you purchase,
>>it won't make a great deal of difference to you. The basic functions
>>have not changed. A book on 4.0 will be useful in learning how to use
>>6.0. It won't cover some added features, but you'll be starting out
>>with the basics. Some of the new features are pretty
>>self-explanatory. Just try them and see what they do.
>
> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
> to see just what to do.
Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
I highly recommend the Adobe website tutorials and Russell Brown (if you can
get by his weird "sense of humor")
always top notch techniques
and great ideas
If the vids do not play from the page
right click and choose save target as
let them download to your comp and watch later
> Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
> John
same to you all
happy whatever you celebrate
news:fp1bl41ikgi4ji8caqif3ku47f23n44stj@4ax.com...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 18:57:23 -0500, tony cooper
> <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in
> <evoal4tuaofnmujnvfcff8ahtop5lohuad@4ax.com>:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 17:07:26 -0500, Dave Cohen <user@example.net>
>>wrote:
>>
>>>My local library has some stuff on both PS and Elements. Not sure what
>>>versions are covered. I got a $50 gift certificate for Barnes & Noble so
>>>I'll see what they carry.
>>
>>If you purchase Elements 5.0, 6.0, or 7.0, and all your library
>>carries are books on 4.0 or any previous version to what you purchase,
>>it won't make a great deal of difference to you. The basic functions
>>have not changed. A book on 4.0 will be useful in learning how to use
>>6.0. It won't cover some added features, but you'll be starting out
>>with the basics. Some of the new features are pretty
>>self-explanatory. Just try them and see what they do.
>
> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
> to see just what to do.
Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
I highly recommend the Adobe website tutorials and Russell Brown (if you can
get by his weird "sense of humor")
always top notch techniques
and great ideas
If the vids do not play from the page
right click and choose save target as
let them download to your comp and watch later
> Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
> John
same to you all
happy whatever you celebrate
| |
|
"ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
news:6rlfoeF28bcjU4@mid.individual.net...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:10 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <6rkup5F263alU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > there is no restriction in functionality. it just expires after 30
>>> > days.
>>>
>>> Geez - that would seem to be a major restriction!
>>
>> how much time do you need to evaluate it and decide if it is worth
>> purchasing? 30 days is fairly generous; most people probably can decide
>> within a week or two.
>
> Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how to
> use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
If you take a class the comps have educational copies already installed on
the comps in the room
no purchase other than course money is required
also qualifies you to buy a cheaper and fully functional and identical
program of PS at educational prices
wonder why gimp and free program fans who dislike PS hang out here in PS
users group and feel the need to make put downs?
like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
news:6rlfoeF28bcjU4@mid.individual.net...
> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:10 -0500, nospam wrote:
>
>> In article <6rkup5F263alU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> > there is no restriction in functionality. it just expires after 30
>>> > days.
>>>
>>> Geez - that would seem to be a major restriction!
>>
>> how much time do you need to evaluate it and decide if it is worth
>> purchasing? 30 days is fairly generous; most people probably can decide
>> within a week or two.
>
> Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how to
> use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
If you take a class the comps have educational copies already installed on
the comps in the room
no purchase other than course money is required
also qualifies you to buy a cheaper and fully functional and identical
program of PS at educational prices
wonder why gimp and free program fans who dislike PS hang out here in PS
users group and feel the need to make put downs?
like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
| |
|
"tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
news:jnabl4p46ebtbh8e57ism080fp39bs3075@4ax.com...
> On 27 Dec 2008 01:46:54 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:10 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <6rkup5F263alU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > there is no restriction in functionality. it just expires after 30
>>>> > days.
>>>>
>>>> Geez - that would seem to be a major restriction!
>>>
>>> how much time do you need to evaluate it and decide if it is worth
>>> purchasing? 30 days is fairly generous; most people probably can decide
>>> within a week or two.
>>
>>Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how to
>>use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
>
> I don't know where you get that idea. Certainly, some user have taken
> a class, but it's far from "most". Even the people who have taken a
> class are usually people who have worked with Photoshop for a period
> of time and signed up for a class to improve their skills.
>
> Not only have most people not taken a class, but it's not that easy to
> find a Photoshop class. Some universities have undergraduate courses
> in graphic design, but they aren't for beginning Photoshop users.
> Some community colleges have non-credit courses, but are usually so
> general that they are not worthwhile to take.
>
> I attended a half-day "class" put on by Adobe at one of the Adobe
> traveling roadshows, but it was nothing more than a presentation of
> the newest version that highlighted the new features. It was not
> hands-on. It wasn't worth the time for me.
>
> The average non-professional who uses the full Photoshop is
> self-taught from books or online tutorials. The average
> non-professional is employed full-time and doesn't have the time
> available to take a university course if one was offered.
>
> A person interested in using Photoshop who downloads the trial version
> and works through some of the on-line tutorials, or follows a book
> with an enclosed CD of examples, will gradually pick up the basic
> skills. How proficient that person becomes will depend on how much
> time he spends on tutorials or completing projects from books.
>
> If you follow the Adobe forums you'll find that most new users are
> learning the basics by this method.
>
> I have been using full Photoshop for six years, and except for that
> rather disappointing half-day, I've never taken a class. I'm no pro,
> but I'm rather advanced in the use of Photoshop.
>
> I don't know why you would make a statement about "most" users when
> you have no idea what "most" users do. I've followed the Photoshop
> newsgroups and forums for six years, and I think I have a good idea of
> what "most" do.
>
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
have to agree tony
the "courses" are mostly sales pitches you pay for
and all about the upgrades
never took any courses just learned bit by bit since version 4.0
and learned more as I went along
and I still learn new things and adapt to changes in the program as it
upgrades to new versions
I was invited to teach as a guest lecturer at a fashion college
it seems the regular professor was a little clueless himself
just used the syllabus book
learned his stuff the night before and then taught it the next day!!!
his background is web design and although proficient at that when it came to
retouching and creating images photography techniques and enhancing etc he
was a little out his box
hence my invite
I would be pissed if I paid for a course with a teacher like that
I can read a book myself
he gets $35 US dollars an hour for that!~!!
news:jnabl4p46ebtbh8e57ism080fp39bs3075@4ax.com...
> On 27 Dec 2008 01:46:54 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>
>>On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:10 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <6rkup5F263alU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > there is no restriction in functionality. it just expires after 30
>>>> > days.
>>>>
>>>> Geez - that would seem to be a major restriction!
>>>
>>> how much time do you need to evaluate it and decide if it is worth
>>> purchasing? 30 days is fairly generous; most people probably can decide
>>> within a week or two.
>>
>>Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how to
>>use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
>
> I don't know where you get that idea. Certainly, some user have taken
> a class, but it's far from "most". Even the people who have taken a
> class are usually people who have worked with Photoshop for a period
> of time and signed up for a class to improve their skills.
>
> Not only have most people not taken a class, but it's not that easy to
> find a Photoshop class. Some universities have undergraduate courses
> in graphic design, but they aren't for beginning Photoshop users.
> Some community colleges have non-credit courses, but are usually so
> general that they are not worthwhile to take.
>
> I attended a half-day "class" put on by Adobe at one of the Adobe
> traveling roadshows, but it was nothing more than a presentation of
> the newest version that highlighted the new features. It was not
> hands-on. It wasn't worth the time for me.
>
> The average non-professional who uses the full Photoshop is
> self-taught from books or online tutorials. The average
> non-professional is employed full-time and doesn't have the time
> available to take a university course if one was offered.
>
> A person interested in using Photoshop who downloads the trial version
> and works through some of the on-line tutorials, or follows a book
> with an enclosed CD of examples, will gradually pick up the basic
> skills. How proficient that person becomes will depend on how much
> time he spends on tutorials or completing projects from books.
>
> If you follow the Adobe forums you'll find that most new users are
> learning the basics by this method.
>
> I have been using full Photoshop for six years, and except for that
> rather disappointing half-day, I've never taken a class. I'm no pro,
> but I'm rather advanced in the use of Photoshop.
>
> I don't know why you would make a statement about "most" users when
> you have no idea what "most" users do. I've followed the Photoshop
> newsgroups and forums for six years, and I think I have a good idea of
> what "most" do.
>
>
> --
> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
have to agree tony
the "courses" are mostly sales pitches you pay for
and all about the upgrades
never took any courses just learned bit by bit since version 4.0
and learned more as I went along
and I still learn new things and adapt to changes in the program as it
upgrades to new versions
I was invited to teach as a guest lecturer at a fashion college
it seems the regular professor was a little clueless himself
just used the syllabus book
learned his stuff the night before and then taught it the next day!!!
his background is web design and although proficient at that when it came to
retouching and creating images photography techniques and enhancing etc he
was a little out his box
hence my invite
I would be pissed if I paid for a course with a teacher like that
I can read a book myself
he gets $35 US dollars an hour for that!~!!
| |
|
In article <6rn34cF2emitU5@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
wrote:
> OK, so let's say 'many' rather than 'most'. The point I was attempting to
> make is that unless you spend most of your day every day in front of the
> computer playing with the software, 30 days is likely to be enough to get
> a very general introduction - certainly not to master anything or get a
> real feel for what it will do.
that's all it's supposed to do - give you an introduction so that you
can decide whether to choose it over another product.
> I have a life aside from photography. My
> time would be limited to a few hours here and there. I find 30 days to be
> quite a short evaluation period.
30 days is more than enough to get an idea whether or not to purchase
the product.
if you only spend a couple hours here and there, then the full suite is
clearly not for you (it's targeted at pros who make their living with
it). a better choice would be photoshop elements. it's just $100,
often found for less and even free when it's bundled with hardware.
in other words, if you haven't decided in 30 days for something that
costs as little as $30-50 or so, you probably don't want it all that
much. extending the trial period to 90 days is not likely to result in
changing your mind.
> But since I'm not likely to evaluate
> adobe products until the Linux version comes out, I guess my opinion does
> not count.
the likelihood of a linux version of adobe creative suite is for all
intents, zero. in fact, they actually had a bsd version of photoshop
in the early 90s and it didn't sell.
wrote:
> OK, so let's say 'many' rather than 'most'. The point I was attempting to
> make is that unless you spend most of your day every day in front of the
> computer playing with the software, 30 days is likely to be enough to get
> a very general introduction - certainly not to master anything or get a
> real feel for what it will do.
that's all it's supposed to do - give you an introduction so that you
can decide whether to choose it over another product.
> I have a life aside from photography. My
> time would be limited to a few hours here and there. I find 30 days to be
> quite a short evaluation period.
30 days is more than enough to get an idea whether or not to purchase
the product.
if you only spend a couple hours here and there, then the full suite is
clearly not for you (it's targeted at pros who make their living with
it). a better choice would be photoshop elements. it's just $100,
often found for less and even free when it's bundled with hardware.
in other words, if you haven't decided in 30 days for something that
costs as little as $30-50 or so, you probably don't want it all that
much. extending the trial period to 90 days is not likely to result in
changing your mind.
> But since I'm not likely to evaluate
> adobe products until the Linux version comes out, I guess my opinion does
> not count.
the likelihood of a linux version of adobe creative suite is for all
intents, zero. in fact, they actually had a bsd version of photoshop
in the early 90s and it didn't sell.
| |
|
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:06:08 -0500, KatWoman wrote:
> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:6rlfoeF28bcjU4@mid.individual.net...
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:10 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <6rkup5F263alU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > there is no restriction in functionality. it just expires after 30
>>>> > days.
>>>>
>>>> Geez - that would seem to be a major restriction!
>>>
>>> how much time do you need to evaluate it and decide if it is worth
>>> purchasing? 30 days is fairly generous; most people probably can
>>> decide within a week or two.
>>
>> Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how
>> to use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
>
> If you take a class the comps have educational copies already installed
> on the comps in the room
>
> no purchase other than course money is required also qualifies you to
> buy a cheaper and fully functional and identical program of PS at
> educational prices
>
> wonder why gimp and free program fans who dislike PS hang out here in PS
> users group and feel the need to make put downs?
>
> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
Excuse me? rec.photo.digital is NOT a "PS users group". And I'm not
putting anything down. Simply suggesting that there are other things
worth trying that won't cost an arm and a leg and will probably do all
most folks need.
> "ray" <ray@zianet.com> wrote in message
> news:6rlfoeF28bcjU4@mid.individual.net...
>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:10 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>
>>> In article <6rkup5F263alU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> > there is no restriction in functionality. it just expires after 30
>>>> > days.
>>>>
>>>> Geez - that would seem to be a major restriction!
>>>
>>> how much time do you need to evaluate it and decide if it is worth
>>> purchasing? 30 days is fairly generous; most people probably can
>>> decide within a week or two.
>>
>> Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how
>> to use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
>
> If you take a class the comps have educational copies already installed
> on the comps in the room
>
> no purchase other than course money is required also qualifies you to
> buy a cheaper and fully functional and identical program of PS at
> educational prices
>
> wonder why gimp and free program fans who dislike PS hang out here in PS
> users group and feel the need to make put downs?
>
> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
Excuse me? rec.photo.digital is NOT a "PS users group". And I'm not
putting anything down. Simply suggesting that there are other things
worth trying that won't cost an arm and a leg and will probably do all
most folks need.
| |
|
KatWoman schrieb:
>
> If you take a class the comps have educational copies already installed on
> the comps in the room
>
> no purchase other than course money is required
> also qualifies you to buy a cheaper and fully functional and identical
> program of PS at educational prices
>
nice to know...
> wonder why gimp and free program fans who dislike PS hang out here in PS
> users group and feel the need to make put downs?
>
This might be, because this post is crossposted in 4 different groups
(look at the headers) and not every of this groups is dedicated to
photoshop. But this is only my own clueless assumption.
> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
>
did someone diss photoshop? I've read the thread but I did not see
someone really saying something agains PS. Only people telling, that It
does not have to be photoshop since there are alternatives.
And just to finish this: Just because a software is used by the biggest
part of the audience it does not always mean that it is the best
software for everyone and anything.
For me personally: I can't (don't want to) afford PS. So instead of
using a pirated copy I'm just using Gimp. Maybe also because I'm using
linux :-)
kruemi
--
Dimage A2, Agfa isolette
http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi
And a cool timekiller: http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=9708
>
> If you take a class the comps have educational copies already installed on
> the comps in the room
>
> no purchase other than course money is required
> also qualifies you to buy a cheaper and fully functional and identical
> program of PS at educational prices
>
nice to know...
> wonder why gimp and free program fans who dislike PS hang out here in PS
> users group and feel the need to make put downs?
>
This might be, because this post is crossposted in 4 different groups
(look at the headers) and not every of this groups is dedicated to
photoshop. But this is only my own clueless assumption.
> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
>
did someone diss photoshop? I've read the thread but I did not see
someone really saying something agains PS. Only people telling, that It
does not have to be photoshop since there are alternatives.
And just to finish this: Just because a software is used by the biggest
part of the audience it does not always mean that it is the best
software for everyone and anything.
For me personally: I can't (don't want to) afford PS. So instead of
using a pirated copy I'm just using Gimp. Maybe also because I'm using
linux :-)
kruemi
--
Dimage A2, Agfa isolette
http://flickr.com/photos/kruemi
And a cool timekiller: http://www.starpirates.net/register.php?referer=9708
| |
|
On 27 Dec 2008 20:26:41 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
<6rnhc1F2bs7qU2@mid.individual.net>:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:06:08 -0500, KatWoman wrote:
>> wonder why gimp and free program fans who dislike PS hang out here in PS
>> users group and feel the need to make put downs?
>>
>> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
>
>Excuse me? rec.photo.digital is NOT a "PS users group". ...
This is being cross-posted to:
* adobe.photoshop.windows
* comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
<6rnhc1F2bs7qU2@mid.individual.net>:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:06:08 -0500, KatWoman wrote:
>> wonder why gimp and free program fans who dislike PS hang out here in PS
>> users group and feel the need to make put downs?
>>
>> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
>
>Excuse me? rec.photo.digital is NOT a "PS users group". ...
This is being cross-posted to:
* adobe.photoshop.windows
* comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 21:31:45 +0100, Marco Tedaldi
<news0708.kruemi@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
<gj6386$n89$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>KatWoman schrieb:
>> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
>>
>did someone diss photoshop? ...
Shall we just say GIMP advocacy then? On Linux no less. ;)
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
<news0708.kruemi@spamgourmet.com> wrote in
<gj6386$n89$1@reader.motzarella.org>:
>KatWoman schrieb:
>> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
>>
>did someone diss photoshop? ...
Shall we just say GIMP advocacy then? On Linux no less. ;)
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
Matt Ion <soundy106@gmail.com> wrote:
> > Elements is now up to 7. Much has changed.
>
> And this is reason I should change what I'm already comfortable and
> happy with?
>
> PSP has changed much over the years. As has GIMP. As has Windows,
> MacOS, *nix, and computer hardware in general. I see no point in
> changing just for the sake of changing.
Most of the changes were BIG improvements. My favorite improvements are:
1) Lighten shadows.
2) Darken highlights.
These really speed up what were curve changes.
3) Also changes are much faster.
Probably the next most favorite changes is the
4) smart edge select tool.
It makes it a snap to select a region for enhancement.
Also the enhancement tools are much improved. You no longer have to
constantly go back and forth between brightness and contrast. The
5) ASA tool is much better. Also, the have the
6) cool/warm tool which is much more meaningful than the old tint
control.
Fortunately, iPhoto has adapted these changes also.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net
> > Elements is now up to 7. Much has changed.
>
> And this is reason I should change what I'm already comfortable and
> happy with?
>
> PSP has changed much over the years. As has GIMP. As has Windows,
> MacOS, *nix, and computer hardware in general. I see no point in
> changing just for the sake of changing.
Most of the changes were BIG improvements. My favorite improvements are:
1) Lighten shadows.
2) Darken highlights.
These really speed up what were curve changes.
3) Also changes are much faster.
Probably the next most favorite changes is the
4) smart edge select tool.
It makes it a snap to select a region for enhancement.
Also the enhancement tools are much improved. You no longer have to
constantly go back and forth between brightness and contrast. The
5) ASA tool is much better. Also, the have the
6) cool/warm tool which is much more meaningful than the old tint
control.
Fortunately, iPhoto has adapted these changes also.
--
Pardon my spam deterrent; send email to rhodyman@earthlink.net
Cheers, Steve Henning in Reading, PA USA - http://rhodyman.net
| |
|
>>I would strongly suggest that you check out this page:
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors
>>
>>It lists most all of the better-known graphic editors. Many of them are freeware
>>and would do more than you will ever need.
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 22:06:17 -0500, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>Where the Adobe programs kick in is when you want to do more
>sophisticated editing...adjustment layers, for example. An adjustment
>layer allows you to change Levels, Brightness/Contrast, Hue and
>Saturation, etc in a non-permanent way that allows you to come back
>and tweak individual steps.
Adjustment Layers is not some amazing "adobe only" concept in graphic editing
programs. On that Wiki raster-graphics page I count 35 different editors that
use layers and adjustment layers. Take Photoline for example. It alone includes
34 adjustment layer types. One more of them is a "custom" adjustment layer where
you can define as many of your own filters as you like by editing a
filter-matrix. So in reality, that program has an unlimited number of adjustment
layers if you want to define your own collection of presets on the custom one.
Photoshop was left in the dust by many programs, long ago. Online photoshop fans
just don't realize it. Like the religious, they have kept their nose plastered
into only one book all these years and accomplished nothing but becoming
phenomenally ignorant. All that's left is their trying to justify why they have
paid so much for so little for so many years.
Pity, that.
>>
>> http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_raster_graphics_editors
>>
>>It lists most all of the better-known graphic editors. Many of them are freeware
>>and would do more than you will ever need.
On Thu, 25 Dec 2008 22:06:17 -0500, tony cooper <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net>
wrote:
>Where the Adobe programs kick in is when you want to do more
>sophisticated editing...adjustment layers, for example. An adjustment
>layer allows you to change Levels, Brightness/Contrast, Hue and
>Saturation, etc in a non-permanent way that allows you to come back
>and tweak individual steps.
Adjustment Layers is not some amazing "adobe only" concept in graphic editing
programs. On that Wiki raster-graphics page I count 35 different editors that
use layers and adjustment layers. Take Photoline for example. It alone includes
34 adjustment layer types. One more of them is a "custom" adjustment layer where
you can define as many of your own filters as you like by editing a
filter-matrix. So in reality, that program has an unlimited number of adjustment
layers if you want to define your own collection of presets on the custom one.
Photoshop was left in the dust by many programs, long ago. Online photoshop fans
just don't realize it. Like the religious, they have kept their nose plastered
into only one book all these years and accomplished nothing but becoming
phenomenally ignorant. All that's left is their trying to justify why they have
paid so much for so little for so many years.
Pity, that.
| |
|
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:01:33 -0600, BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org>
wrote in <b18dl4961rp4fnqa9vq0rpfkk1lqrtkcal@4ax.com>:
>Photoshop was left in the dust by many programs, long ago. ...
Most professionals would disagree with you.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
wrote in <b18dl4961rp4fnqa9vq0rpfkk1lqrtkcal@4ax.com>:
>Photoshop was left in the dust by many programs, long ago. ...
Most professionals would disagree with you.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:39:22 -0800, John Navas wrote:
> On 27 Dec 2008 20:26:41 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
> <6rnhc1F2bs7qU2@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:06:08 -0500, KatWoman wrote:
>
>>> wonder why gimp and free program fans who dislike PS hang out here in
>>> PS users group and feel the need to make put downs?
>>>
>>> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
>>
>>Excuse me? rec.photo.digital is NOT a "PS users group". ...
>
> This is being cross-posted to:
> * adobe.photoshop.windows
> * comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
Both of which I don't read - yet I'm chastised for posting a reply in
rec.photo.digital. Well, at least I can see where you folks are coming
from.
> On 27 Dec 2008 20:26:41 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
> <6rnhc1F2bs7qU2@mid.individual.net>:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:06:08 -0500, KatWoman wrote:
>
>>> wonder why gimp and free program fans who dislike PS hang out here in
>>> PS users group and feel the need to make put downs?
>>>
>>> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
>>
>>Excuse me? rec.photo.digital is NOT a "PS users group". ...
>
> This is being cross-posted to:
> * adobe.photoshop.windows
> * comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
Both of which I don't read - yet I'm chastised for posting a reply in
rec.photo.digital. Well, at least I can see where you folks are coming
from.
| |
|
On 27 Dec 2008 22:32:44 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
<6rnoobF2igu0U1@mid.individual.net>:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:39:22 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>
>> On 27 Dec 2008 20:26:41 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>> <6rnhc1F2bs7qU2@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:06:08 -0500, KatWoman wrote:
>>
>>>> wonder why gimp and free program fans who dislike PS hang out here in
>>>> PS users group and feel the need to make put downs?
>>>>
>>>> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
>>>
>>>Excuse me? rec.photo.digital is NOT a "PS users group". ...
>>
>> This is being cross-posted to:
>> * adobe.photoshop.windows
>> * comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>
>Both of which I don't read - yet I'm chastised for posting a reply in
>rec.photo.digital. Well, at least I can see where you folks are coming
>from.
It's not worth getting upset about on either side.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
<6rnoobF2igu0U1@mid.individual.net>:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 12:39:22 -0800, John Navas wrote:
>
>> On 27 Dec 2008 20:26:41 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote in
>> <6rnhc1F2bs7qU2@mid.individual.net>:
>>
>>>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 15:06:08 -0500, KatWoman wrote:
>>
>>>> wonder why gimp and free program fans who dislike PS hang out here in
>>>> PS users group and feel the need to make put downs?
>>>>
>>>> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
>>>
>>>Excuse me? rec.photo.digital is NOT a "PS users group". ...
>>
>> This is being cross-posted to:
>> * adobe.photoshop.windows
>> * comp.graphics.apps.photoshop
>
>Both of which I don't read - yet I'm chastised for posting a reply in
>rec.photo.digital. Well, at least I can see where you folks are coming
>from.
It's not worth getting upset about on either side.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:17:31 -0800, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:01:33 -0600, BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org>
>wrote in <b18dl4961rp4fnqa9vq0rpfkk1lqrtkcal@4ax.com>:
>
>>Photoshop was left in the dust by many programs, long ago. ...
>
>Most professionals would disagree with you.
You would be correct if you say "some professionals would disagree with you."
Otherwise I would be just as correct by saying that "most professionals agree
with me." The ones that I know would agree with me.
In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional" equate to
"intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to use long ago, none
the wiser. Many use it because it was and is the best tax write-off for their
business office and nothing more. That being a large reason for its original
start. Hardly a reason to advise the use of it today if someone is looking for
the best software available.
wrote:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:01:33 -0600, BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org>
>wrote in <b18dl4961rp4fnqa9vq0rpfkk1lqrtkcal@4ax.com>:
>
>>Photoshop was left in the dust by many programs, long ago. ...
>
>Most professionals would disagree with you.
You would be correct if you say "some professionals would disagree with you."
Otherwise I would be just as correct by saying that "most professionals agree
with me." The ones that I know would agree with me.
In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional" equate to
"intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to use long ago, none
the wiser. Many use it because it was and is the best tax write-off for their
business office and nothing more. That being a large reason for its original
start. Hardly a reason to advise the use of it today if someone is looking for
the best software available.
| |
|
On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 17:12:13 -0600, BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org>
wrote in <aocdl49nm54asi2cfc5i28jnq959r4j113@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:17:31 -0800, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:01:33 -0600, BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org>
>>wrote in <b18dl4961rp4fnqa9vq0rpfkk1lqrtkcal@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>Photoshop was left in the dust by many programs, long ago. ...
>>
>>Most professionals would disagree with you.
>
>You would be correct if you say "some professionals would disagree with you."
>Otherwise I would be just as correct by saying that "most professionals agree
>with me." The ones that I know would agree with me.
>
>In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional" equate to
>"intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to use long ago, none
>the wiser. Many use it because it was and is the best tax write-off for their
>business office and nothing more. That being a large reason for its original
>start. Hardly a reason to advise the use of it today if someone is looking for
>the best software available.
You of course know better than all those professionals. ;)
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
wrote in <aocdl49nm54asi2cfc5i28jnq959r4j113@4ax.com>:
>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:17:31 -0800, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
>wrote:
>
>>On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:01:33 -0600, BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org>
>>wrote in <b18dl4961rp4fnqa9vq0rpfkk1lqrtkcal@4ax.com>:
>>
>>>Photoshop was left in the dust by many programs, long ago. ...
>>
>>Most professionals would disagree with you.
>
>You would be correct if you say "some professionals would disagree with you."
>Otherwise I would be just as correct by saying that "most professionals agree
>with me." The ones that I know would agree with me.
>
>In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional" equate to
>"intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to use long ago, none
>the wiser. Many use it because it was and is the best tax write-off for their
>business office and nothing more. That being a large reason for its original
>start. Hardly a reason to advise the use of it today if someone is looking for
>the best software available.
You of course know better than all those professionals. ;)
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
BillGarrens schrieb:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:17:31 -0800, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:01:33 -0600, BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org>
>> wrote in <b18dl4961rp4fnqa9vq0rpfkk1lqrtkcal@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> Photoshop was left in the dust by many programs, long ago. ...
>> Most professionals would disagree with you.
>
> You would be correct if you say "some professionals would disagree with you."
> Otherwise I would be just as correct by saying that "most professionals agree
> with me." The ones that I know would agree with me.
Also known as "anecdotical evidence". Consequently I dare say the earth
is flat, smoking & drinking is good for your health and the stars are
responsible for our destiny.
> In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional" equate to
> "intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to use long ago, none
> the wiser.
So it is you who is qualified what is judge what an intelligent choice
and what is not? Now fancy that!
> Many use it because it was and is the best tax write-off for their
> business office and nothing more. That being a large reason for its original
> start. Hardly a reason to advise the use of it today if someone is looking for
> the best software available.
If you really think there'd be a "best" solution the reason for this may
have less to do with there actually is a "best" solution but rather that
your personal horizon does not reach much farther than the tip of your nose.
Personally I am sure mentioned projection not to be overly protruding,
Juergen
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:17:31 -0800, John Navas <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com>
> wrote:
>
>> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:01:33 -0600, BillGarrens <bgarrens@unknown.org>
>> wrote in <b18dl4961rp4fnqa9vq0rpfkk1lqrtkcal@4ax.com>:
>>
>>> Photoshop was left in the dust by many programs, long ago. ...
>> Most professionals would disagree with you.
>
> You would be correct if you say "some professionals would disagree with you."
> Otherwise I would be just as correct by saying that "most professionals agree
> with me." The ones that I know would agree with me.
Also known as "anecdotical evidence". Consequently I dare say the earth
is flat, smoking & drinking is good for your health and the stars are
responsible for our destiny.
> In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional" equate to
> "intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to use long ago, none
> the wiser.
So it is you who is qualified what is judge what an intelligent choice
and what is not? Now fancy that!
> Many use it because it was and is the best tax write-off for their
> business office and nothing more. That being a large reason for its original
> start. Hardly a reason to advise the use of it today if someone is looking for
> the best software available.
If you really think there'd be a "best" solution the reason for this may
have less to do with there actually is a "best" solution but rather that
your personal horizon does not reach much farther than the tip of your nose.
Personally I am sure mentioned projection not to be overly protruding,
Juergen
| |
|
BillGarrens wrote:
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:17:31 -0800, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:01:33 -0600, BillGarrens
> > <bgarrens@unknown.org> wrote in
> > <b18dl4961rp4fnqa9vq0rpfkk1lqrtkcal@4ax.com>:
> >
> > > Photoshop was left in the dust by many programs, long ago. ...
> >
> > Most professionals would disagree with you.
>
> You would be correct if you say "some professionals would disagree
> with you." Otherwise I would be just as correct by saying that "most
> professionals agree with me." The ones that I know would agree with
> me.
>
> In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional"
> equate to "intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to
> use long ago, none the wiser. Many use it because it was and is the
> best tax write-off for their business office and nothing more. That
> being a large reason for its original start. Hardly a reason to
> advise the use of it today if someone is looking for the best
> software available.
Ahh... The ol' PhotoLine32 troll returns. I wondered when you would
surface in this thread.
--
Cliff
> On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 14:17:31 -0800, John Navas
> <spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
>
> > On Sat, 27 Dec 2008 16:01:33 -0600, BillGarrens
> > <bgarrens@unknown.org> wrote in
> > <b18dl4961rp4fnqa9vq0rpfkk1lqrtkcal@4ax.com>:
> >
> > > Photoshop was left in the dust by many programs, long ago. ...
> >
> > Most professionals would disagree with you.
>
> You would be correct if you say "some professionals would disagree
> with you." Otherwise I would be just as correct by saying that "most
> professionals agree with me." The ones that I know would agree with
> me.
>
> In all my travels and in all I have met, rarely does "professional"
> equate to "intelligent". Some just keep using what they were told to
> use long ago, none the wiser. Many use it because it was and is the
> best tax write-off for their business office and nothing more. That
> being a large reason for its original start. Hardly a reason to
> advise the use of it today if someone is looking for the best
> software available.
Ahh... The ol' PhotoLine32 troll returns. I wondered when you would
surface in this thread.
--
Cliff
| |
|
On 27 Dec 2008 16:23:40 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>OK, so let's say 'many' rather than 'most'. The point I was attempting to
>make is that unless you spend most of your day every day in front of the
>computer playing with the software, 30 days is likely to be enough to get
>a very general introduction - certainly not to master anything or get a
>real feel for what it will do. I have a life aside from photography. My
>time would be limited to a few hours here and there. I find 30 days to be
>quite a short evaluation period. But since I'm not likely to evaluate
>adobe products until the Linux version comes out, I guess my opinion does
>not count.
Photoshop users will not tell you they have mastered Photoshop in 30
days even if they devote their full time to Photoshop. However, a 30
day trial is more than adequate to evaluate a product. Assuming one
hour each night five times a week and you have 20 or more hours of
hands-on use. That's more than enough time to make an evaluation.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>OK, so let's say 'many' rather than 'most'. The point I was attempting to
>make is that unless you spend most of your day every day in front of the
>computer playing with the software, 30 days is likely to be enough to get
>a very general introduction - certainly not to master anything or get a
>real feel for what it will do. I have a life aside from photography. My
>time would be limited to a few hours here and there. I find 30 days to be
>quite a short evaluation period. But since I'm not likely to evaluate
>adobe products until the Linux version comes out, I guess my opinion does
>not count.
Photoshop users will not tell you they have mastered Photoshop in 30
days even if they devote their full time to Photoshop. However, a 30
day trial is more than adequate to evaluate a product. Assuming one
hour each night five times a week and you have 20 or more hours of
hands-on use. That's more than enough time to make an evaluation.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
| |
|
KatWoman wrote:
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:jnabl4p46ebtbh8e57ism080fp39bs3075@4ax.com...
>> On 27 Dec 2008 01:46:54 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:10 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <6rkup5F263alU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> there is no restriction in functionality. it just expires after 30
>>>>>> days.
>>>>> Geez - that would seem to be a major restriction!
>>>> how much time do you need to evaluate it and decide if it is worth
>>>> purchasing? 30 days is fairly generous; most people probably can decide
>>>> within a week or two.
>>> Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how to
>>> use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
>> I don't know where you get that idea. Certainly, some user have taken
>> a class, but it's far from "most". Even the people who have taken a
>> class are usually people who have worked with Photoshop for a period
>> of time and signed up for a class to improve their skills.
>>
>> Not only have most people not taken a class, but it's not that easy to
>> find a Photoshop class. Some universities have undergraduate courses
>> in graphic design, but they aren't for beginning Photoshop users.
>> Some community colleges have non-credit courses, but are usually so
>> general that they are not worthwhile to take.
>>
>> I attended a half-day "class" put on by Adobe at one of the Adobe
>> traveling roadshows, but it was nothing more than a presentation of
>> the newest version that highlighted the new features. It was not
>> hands-on. It wasn't worth the time for me.
>>
>> The average non-professional who uses the full Photoshop is
>> self-taught from books or online tutorials. The average
>> non-professional is employed full-time and doesn't have the time
>> available to take a university course if one was offered.
>>
>> A person interested in using Photoshop who downloads the trial version
>> and works through some of the on-line tutorials, or follows a book
>> with an enclosed CD of examples, will gradually pick up the basic
>> skills. How proficient that person becomes will depend on how much
>> time he spends on tutorials or completing projects from books.
>>
>> If you follow the Adobe forums you'll find that most new users are
>> learning the basics by this method.
>>
>> I have been using full Photoshop for six years, and except for that
>> rather disappointing half-day, I've never taken a class. I'm no pro,
>> but I'm rather advanced in the use of Photoshop.
>>
>> I don't know why you would make a statement about "most" users when
>> you have no idea what "most" users do. I've followed the Photoshop
>> newsgroups and forums for six years, and I think I have a good idea of
>> what "most" do.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
> have to agree tony
> the "courses" are mostly sales pitches you pay for
> and all about the upgrades
>
> never took any courses just learned bit by bit since version 4.0
> and learned more as I went along
> and I still learn new things and adapt to changes in the program as it
> upgrades to new versions
>
> I was invited to teach as a guest lecturer at a fashion college
> it seems the regular professor was a little clueless himself
> just used the syllabus book
> learned his stuff the night before and then taught it the next day!!!
> his background is web design and although proficient at that when it came to
> retouching and creating images photography techniques and enhancing etc he
> was a little out his box
> hence my invite
>
> I would be pissed if I paid for a course with a teacher like that
> I can read a book myself
>
> he gets $35 US dollars an hour for that!~!!
>
>
>
I got to say that I always enjoy your replies.
--
JD..
> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
> news:jnabl4p46ebtbh8e57ism080fp39bs3075@4ax.com...
>> On 27 Dec 2008 01:46:54 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>
>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:10 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>
>>>> In article <6rkup5F263alU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>>> there is no restriction in functionality. it just expires after 30
>>>>>> days.
>>>>> Geez - that would seem to be a major restriction!
>>>> how much time do you need to evaluate it and decide if it is worth
>>>> purchasing? 30 days is fairly generous; most people probably can decide
>>>> within a week or two.
>>> Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how to
>>> use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
>> I don't know where you get that idea. Certainly, some user have taken
>> a class, but it's far from "most". Even the people who have taken a
>> class are usually people who have worked with Photoshop for a period
>> of time and signed up for a class to improve their skills.
>>
>> Not only have most people not taken a class, but it's not that easy to
>> find a Photoshop class. Some universities have undergraduate courses
>> in graphic design, but they aren't for beginning Photoshop users.
>> Some community colleges have non-credit courses, but are usually so
>> general that they are not worthwhile to take.
>>
>> I attended a half-day "class" put on by Adobe at one of the Adobe
>> traveling roadshows, but it was nothing more than a presentation of
>> the newest version that highlighted the new features. It was not
>> hands-on. It wasn't worth the time for me.
>>
>> The average non-professional who uses the full Photoshop is
>> self-taught from books or online tutorials. The average
>> non-professional is employed full-time and doesn't have the time
>> available to take a university course if one was offered.
>>
>> A person interested in using Photoshop who downloads the trial version
>> and works through some of the on-line tutorials, or follows a book
>> with an enclosed CD of examples, will gradually pick up the basic
>> skills. How proficient that person becomes will depend on how much
>> time he spends on tutorials or completing projects from books.
>>
>> If you follow the Adobe forums you'll find that most new users are
>> learning the basics by this method.
>>
>> I have been using full Photoshop for six years, and except for that
>> rather disappointing half-day, I've never taken a class. I'm no pro,
>> but I'm rather advanced in the use of Photoshop.
>>
>> I don't know why you would make a statement about "most" users when
>> you have no idea what "most" users do. I've followed the Photoshop
>> newsgroups and forums for six years, and I think I have a good idea of
>> what "most" do.
>>
>>
>> --
>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>
> have to agree tony
> the "courses" are mostly sales pitches you pay for
> and all about the upgrades
>
> never took any courses just learned bit by bit since version 4.0
> and learned more as I went along
> and I still learn new things and adapt to changes in the program as it
> upgrades to new versions
>
> I was invited to teach as a guest lecturer at a fashion college
> it seems the regular professor was a little clueless himself
> just used the syllabus book
> learned his stuff the night before and then taught it the next day!!!
> his background is web design and although proficient at that when it came to
> retouching and creating images photography techniques and enhancing etc he
> was a little out his box
> hence my invite
>
> I would be pissed if I paid for a course with a teacher like that
> I can read a book myself
>
> he gets $35 US dollars an hour for that!~!!
>
>
>
I got to say that I always enjoy your replies.
--
JD..
| |
|
John Navas wrote:
> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>KatWoman schrieb:
>
>>> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
>>>
>>did someone diss photoshop? ...
>
> Shall we just say GIMP advocacy then? On Linux no less. ;)
I imagine GIMP would be really nifty if I wanted to use it bad enough to
actually learn to do stuff with it. I remember that the 'remove the
redeye' instructions took 3 pages and still didn't work :-(
Portunately we Friends of the Penguin have Picasa. Doesn't do
everything that even PS Elements does, but it does what I need.
--
Cheers,
Bev
*******************************************
My computer doesn't have to be friendly;
civil is entirely sufficient.
> Marco Tedaldi wrote:
>>KatWoman schrieb:
>
>>> like Chevy drivers dissing Ferraris
>>>
>>did someone diss photoshop? ...
>
> Shall we just say GIMP advocacy then? On Linux no less. ;)
I imagine GIMP would be really nifty if I wanted to use it bad enough to
actually learn to do stuff with it. I remember that the 'remove the
redeye' instructions took 3 pages and still didn't work :-(
Portunately we Friends of the Penguin have Picasa. Doesn't do
everything that even PS Elements does, but it does what I need.
--
Cheers,
Bev
*******************************************
My computer doesn't have to be friendly;
civil is entirely sufficient.
| |
|
Hans Dull wrote:
> Neil Jones wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
>> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
>> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
>> are saved.
>>
>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>> photos? What would be the price range?
>>
>> [...]
>>
> I can recommend GIMP 2.6.3 - It has everything an amateur photographer needs
> and it runs on Linux as well as on any Windows (The CPU should be fast
> allready for both, Gimp or (PS) Photoshop). In my opinon, PS Elements has
> lower funtionality than Gimp, wich has lower functionality than Photoshop
> CS. PS is a verry powerful Software which ist too powerful for an Amateur.
>
For now, I think I will stay with GIMP (to save some money).
Thank you everyone for giving me great ideas about which product would
better suit my amateur skills.
Happy New Year and peace on earth everyone!
Regards,
NJ
> Neil Jones wrote:
>
>> Hi,
>>
>> I am amateur photographer, only up to the point of taking pictures. For
>> the pictures I shoot, I do not process the pictures or enhance them with
>> touch ups etc. The pictures that turn out good are printed and the rest
>> are saved.
>>
>> I am planning to purchase Photoshop to enhance the photos. It appears
>> that Photoshop has a religious following in the photo processing area.
>> To tell the truth, when I went to the Adobe site I was completely lost.
>> They have tons of products with varying price ranges. What Photoshop
>> version(s) are used by the community at large to process and enhance
>> photos? What would be the price range?
>>
>> [...]
>>
> I can recommend GIMP 2.6.3 - It has everything an amateur photographer needs
> and it runs on Linux as well as on any Windows (The CPU should be fast
> allready for both, Gimp or (PS) Photoshop). In my opinon, PS Elements has
> lower funtionality than Gimp, wich has lower functionality than Photoshop
> CS. PS is a verry powerful Software which ist too powerful for an Amateur.
>
For now, I think I will stay with GIMP (to save some money).
Thank you everyone for giving me great ideas about which product would
better suit my amateur skills.
Happy New Year and peace on earth everyone!
Regards,
NJ
| |
|
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:08:02 -0500, Neil Jones
<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote in
<8uG5l.21519$hr3.2049@newsfe01.iad>:
>For now, I think I will stay with GIMP (to save some money).
$28 is too much?
Thanks for wasting our time.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote in
<8uG5l.21519$hr3.2049@newsfe01.iad>:
>For now, I think I will stay with GIMP (to save some money).
$28 is too much?
Thanks for wasting our time.
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
John Navas wrote:
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:08:02 -0500, Neil Jones
> <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote in
> <8uG5l.21519$hr3.2049@newsfe01.iad>:
>
>> For now, I think I will stay with GIMP (to save some money).
>
> $28 is too much?
>
> Thanks for wasting our time.
>
There were sold out! I am keeping an eye out for them. Someone earlier
suggested about Elements being shipped with Wacom Tablets. That version
of Elements is sort of old. Hopefully in February/March it will be a
Tablet + CS3.
Cheers,
NJ
> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:08:02 -0500, Neil Jones
> <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote in
> <8uG5l.21519$hr3.2049@newsfe01.iad>:
>
>> For now, I think I will stay with GIMP (to save some money).
>
> $28 is too much?
>
> Thanks for wasting our time.
>
There were sold out! I am keeping an eye out for them. Someone earlier
suggested about Elements being shipped with Wacom Tablets. That version
of Elements is sort of old. Hopefully in February/March it will be a
Tablet + CS3.
Cheers,
NJ
| |
|
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:18:56 -0500, Neil Jones
<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote in
<4yO5l.49330$X05.37656@newsfe03.iad>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:08:02 -0500, Neil Jones
>> <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <8uG5l.21519$hr3.2049@newsfe01.iad>:
>>
>>> For now, I think I will stay with GIMP (to save some money).
>>
>> $28 is too much?
>>
>> Thanks for wasting our time.
>
>There were sold out!
Sorry. There were 5 left when I posted the link.
>I am keeping an eye out for them.
v6 @ $39:
< http://www.consumerdepot.com/products.asp?id=883919135885R&a mp;referer=google>
v5 @ $29 (10 in stock):
< http://www.pricegrabber.com/user_sales_getprod.php?masterid= 27260624&lot_id=4234317>
v4 @ $9 (150 in stock):
< http://www.pricegrabber.com/user_sales_getprod.php?masterid= 12128413&lot_id=4129762>
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote in
<4yO5l.49330$X05.37656@newsfe03.iad>:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:08:02 -0500, Neil Jones
>> <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <8uG5l.21519$hr3.2049@newsfe01.iad>:
>>
>>> For now, I think I will stay with GIMP (to save some money).
>>
>> $28 is too much?
>>
>> Thanks for wasting our time.
>
>There were sold out!
Sorry. There were 5 left when I posted the link.
>I am keeping an eye out for them.
v6 @ $39:
< http://www.consumerdepot.com/products.asp?id=883919135885R&a mp;referer=google>
v5 @ $29 (10 in stock):
< http://www.pricegrabber.com/user_sales_getprod.php?masterid= 27260624&lot_id=4234317>
v4 @ $9 (150 in stock):
< http://www.pricegrabber.com/user_sales_getprod.php?masterid= 12128413&lot_id=4129762>
--
Very best wishes for the holiday season and for the coming new year,
John
| |
|
On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 12:18:56 -0500, Neil Jones
<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:08:02 -0500, Neil Jones
>> <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <8uG5l.21519$hr3.2049@newsfe01.iad>:
>>
>>> For now, I think I will stay with GIMP (to save some money).
>>
>> $28 is too much?
>>
>> Thanks for wasting our time.
>>
>
>There were sold out! I am keeping an eye out for them. Someone earlier
>suggested about Elements being shipped with Wacom Tablets. That version
>of Elements is sort of old. Hopefully in February/March it will be a
>Tablet + CS3.
I just got my Wacom Bamboo Fun tablet. The bundled software includes
Elements 5.0, Corel Painter, and Nik Color Efex Pro 2.0. $87 from
BuyDig. I already have Elements 5.0, but I like the Nik program.
I tried the Wacom Bamboo on a very detailed masking project in
Photoshop, and it works a treat.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
>John Navas wrote:
>> On Sun, 28 Dec 2008 03:08:02 -0500, Neil Jones
>> <castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote in
>> <8uG5l.21519$hr3.2049@newsfe01.iad>:
>>
>>> For now, I think I will stay with GIMP (to save some money).
>>
>> $28 is too much?
>>
>> Thanks for wasting our time.
>>
>
>There were sold out! I am keeping an eye out for them. Someone earlier
>suggested about Elements being shipped with Wacom Tablets. That version
>of Elements is sort of old. Hopefully in February/March it will be a
>Tablet + CS3.
I just got my Wacom Bamboo Fun tablet. The bundled software includes
Elements 5.0, Corel Painter, and Nik Color Efex Pro 2.0. $87 from
BuyDig. I already have Elements 5.0, but I like the Nik program.
I tried the Wacom Bamboo on a very detailed masking project in
Photoshop, and it works a treat.
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
| |
|
"John Navas" wrote: $28 is too much?
>
> Thanks for wasting our time. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you're being a little harsh, John. The posters to this thread were
not only responding to the OP, but also exchanging ideas among themselves.
I think many questions raised in such newsgroups, and this is a good
example, are informative to many others--they provide answers to questions
that many did not know how to ask.
>
> Thanks for wasting our time. (clip)
^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
I think you're being a little harsh, John. The posters to this thread were
not only responding to the OP, but also exchanging ideas among themselves.
I think many questions raised in such newsgroups, and this is a good
example, are informative to many others--they provide answers to questions
that many did not know how to ask.
| |
|
"JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
news:HPqdnRXTj61nbsvUnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@posted.grandecom...
> KatWoman wrote:
>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:jnabl4p46ebtbh8e57ism080fp39bs3075@4ax.com...
>>> On 27 Dec 2008 01:46:54 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:10 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <6rkup5F263alU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> there is no restriction in functionality. it just expires after 30
>>>>>>> days.
>>>>>> Geez - that would seem to be a major restriction!
>>>>> how much time do you need to evaluate it and decide if it is worth
>>>>> purchasing? 30 days is fairly generous; most people probably can
>>>>> decide
>>>>> within a week or two.
>>>> Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how
>>>> to
>>>> use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
>>> I don't know where you get that idea. Certainly, some user have taken
>>> a class, but it's far from "most". Even the people who have taken a
>>> class are usually people who have worked with Photoshop for a period
>>> of time and signed up for a class to improve their skills.
>>>
>>> Not only have most people not taken a class, but it's not that easy to
>>> find a Photoshop class. Some universities have undergraduate courses
>>> in graphic design, but they aren't for beginning Photoshop users.
>>> Some community colleges have non-credit courses, but are usually so
>>> general that they are not worthwhile to take.
>>>
>>> I attended a half-day "class" put on by Adobe at one of the Adobe
>>> traveling roadshows, but it was nothing more than a presentation of
>>> the newest version that highlighted the new features. It was not
>>> hands-on. It wasn't worth the time for me.
>>>
>>> The average non-professional who uses the full Photoshop is
>>> self-taught from books or online tutorials. The average
>>> non-professional is employed full-time and doesn't have the time
>>> available to take a university course if one was offered.
>>>
>>> A person interested in using Photoshop who downloads the trial version
>>> and works through some of the on-line tutorials, or follows a book
>>> with an enclosed CD of examples, will gradually pick up the basic
>>> skills. How proficient that person becomes will depend on how much
>>> time he spends on tutorials or completing projects from books.
>>>
>>> If you follow the Adobe forums you'll find that most new users are
>>> learning the basics by this method.
>>>
>>> I have been using full Photoshop for six years, and except for that
>>> rather disappointing half-day, I've never taken a class. I'm no pro,
>>> but I'm rather advanced in the use of Photoshop.
>>>
>>> I don't know why you would make a statement about "most" users when
>>> you have no idea what "most" users do. I've followed the Photoshop
>>> newsgroups and forums for six years, and I think I have a good idea of
>>> what "most" do.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>
>> have to agree tony
>> the "courses" are mostly sales pitches you pay for
>> and all about the upgrades
>>
>> never took any courses just learned bit by bit since version 4.0
>> and learned more as I went along
>> and I still learn new things and adapt to changes in the program as it
>> upgrades to new versions
>>
>> I was invited to teach as a guest lecturer at a fashion college
>> it seems the regular professor was a little clueless himself
>> just used the syllabus book
>> learned his stuff the night before and then taught it the next day!!!
>> his background is web design and although proficient at that when it came
>> to retouching and creating images photography techniques and enhancing
>> etc he was a little out his box
>> hence my invite
>>
>> I would be pissed if I paid for a course with a teacher like that
>> I can read a book myself
>>
>> he gets $35 US dollars an hour for that!~!!
>>
>>
>>
>
> I got to say that I always enjoy your replies.
>
> --
> JD..
thanks JD
and Frank Arthur if you see this message
I will be at the adobe.Photoshop.windows NG from now on
seems a more civil bunch
been coming to these other two groups many years till I was the only female
left on here
now there are just too many hostile nasty misogynists
ungrateful louts
who bitch and complain about FREE ADVICE
news:HPqdnRXTj61nbsvUnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@posted.grandecom...
> KatWoman wrote:
>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>> news:jnabl4p46ebtbh8e57ism080fp39bs3075@4ax.com...
>>> On 27 Dec 2008 01:46:54 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:10 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> In article <6rkup5F263alU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>>> there is no restriction in functionality. it just expires after 30
>>>>>>> days.
>>>>>> Geez - that would seem to be a major restriction!
>>>>> how much time do you need to evaluate it and decide if it is worth
>>>>> purchasing? 30 days is fairly generous; most people probably can
>>>>> decide
>>>>> within a week or two.
>>>> Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how
>>>> to
>>>> use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
>>> I don't know where you get that idea. Certainly, some user have taken
>>> a class, but it's far from "most". Even the people who have taken a
>>> class are usually people who have worked with Photoshop for a period
>>> of time and signed up for a class to improve their skills.
>>>
>>> Not only have most people not taken a class, but it's not that easy to
>>> find a Photoshop class. Some universities have undergraduate courses
>>> in graphic design, but they aren't for beginning Photoshop users.
>>> Some community colleges have non-credit courses, but are usually so
>>> general that they are not worthwhile to take.
>>>
>>> I attended a half-day "class" put on by Adobe at one of the Adobe
>>> traveling roadshows, but it was nothing more than a presentation of
>>> the newest version that highlighted the new features. It was not
>>> hands-on. It wasn't worth the time for me.
>>>
>>> The average non-professional who uses the full Photoshop is
>>> self-taught from books or online tutorials. The average
>>> non-professional is employed full-time and doesn't have the time
>>> available to take a university course if one was offered.
>>>
>>> A person interested in using Photoshop who downloads the trial version
>>> and works through some of the on-line tutorials, or follows a book
>>> with an enclosed CD of examples, will gradually pick up the basic
>>> skills. How proficient that person becomes will depend on how much
>>> time he spends on tutorials or completing projects from books.
>>>
>>> If you follow the Adobe forums you'll find that most new users are
>>> learning the basics by this method.
>>>
>>> I have been using full Photoshop for six years, and except for that
>>> rather disappointing half-day, I've never taken a class. I'm no pro,
>>> but I'm rather advanced in the use of Photoshop.
>>>
>>> I don't know why you would make a statement about "most" users when
>>> you have no idea what "most" users do. I've followed the Photoshop
>>> newsgroups and forums for six years, and I think I have a good idea of
>>> what "most" do.
>>>
>>>
>>> --
>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>
>> have to agree tony
>> the "courses" are mostly sales pitches you pay for
>> and all about the upgrades
>>
>> never took any courses just learned bit by bit since version 4.0
>> and learned more as I went along
>> and I still learn new things and adapt to changes in the program as it
>> upgrades to new versions
>>
>> I was invited to teach as a guest lecturer at a fashion college
>> it seems the regular professor was a little clueless himself
>> just used the syllabus book
>> learned his stuff the night before and then taught it the next day!!!
>> his background is web design and although proficient at that when it came
>> to retouching and creating images photography techniques and enhancing
>> etc he was a little out his box
>> hence my invite
>>
>> I would be pissed if I paid for a course with a teacher like that
>> I can read a book myself
>>
>> he gets $35 US dollars an hour for that!~!!
>>
>>
>>
>
> I got to say that I always enjoy your replies.
>
> --
> JD..
thanks JD
and Frank Arthur if you see this message
I will be at the adobe.Photoshop.windows NG from now on
seems a more civil bunch
been coming to these other two groups many years till I was the only female
left on here
now there are just too many hostile nasty misogynists
ungrateful louts
who bitch and complain about FREE ADVICE
| |
|
KatWoman wrote:
> "JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:HPqdnRXTj61nbsvUnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@posted.grandecom...
>> KatWoman wrote:
>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:jnabl4p46ebtbh8e57ism080fp39bs3075@4ax.com...
>>>> On 27 Dec 2008 01:46:54 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:10 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <6rkup5F263alU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there is no restriction in functionality. it just expires after 30
>>>>>>>> days.
>>>>>>> Geez - that would seem to be a major restriction!
>>>>>> how much time do you need to evaluate it and decide if it is worth
>>>>>> purchasing? 30 days is fairly generous; most people probably can
>>>>>> decide
>>>>>> within a week or two.
>>>>> Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how
>>>>> to
>>>>> use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
>>>> I don't know where you get that idea. Certainly, some user have taken
>>>> a class, but it's far from "most". Even the people who have taken a
>>>> class are usually people who have worked with Photoshop for a period
>>>> of time and signed up for a class to improve their skills.
>>>>
>>>> Not only have most people not taken a class, but it's not that easy to
>>>> find a Photoshop class. Some universities have undergraduate courses
>>>> in graphic design, but they aren't for beginning Photoshop users.
>>>> Some community colleges have non-credit courses, but are usually so
>>>> general that they are not worthwhile to take.
>>>>
>>>> I attended a half-day "class" put on by Adobe at one of the Adobe
>>>> traveling roadshows, but it was nothing more than a presentation of
>>>> the newest version that highlighted the new features. It was not
>>>> hands-on. It wasn't worth the time for me.
>>>>
>>>> The average non-professional who uses the full Photoshop is
>>>> self-taught from books or online tutorials. The average
>>>> non-professional is employed full-time and doesn't have the time
>>>> available to take a university course if one was offered.
>>>>
>>>> A person interested in using Photoshop who downloads the trial version
>>>> and works through some of the on-line tutorials, or follows a book
>>>> with an enclosed CD of examples, will gradually pick up the basic
>>>> skills. How proficient that person becomes will depend on how much
>>>> time he spends on tutorials or completing projects from books.
>>>>
>>>> If you follow the Adobe forums you'll find that most new users are
>>>> learning the basics by this method.
>>>>
>>>> I have been using full Photoshop for six years, and except for that
>>>> rather disappointing half-day, I've never taken a class. I'm no pro,
>>>> but I'm rather advanced in the use of Photoshop.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know why you would make a statement about "most" users when
>>>> you have no idea what "most" users do. I've followed the Photoshop
>>>> newsgroups and forums for six years, and I think I have a good idea of
>>>> what "most" do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>> have to agree tony
>>> the "courses" are mostly sales pitches you pay for
>>> and all about the upgrades
>>>
>>> never took any courses just learned bit by bit since version 4.0
>>> and learned more as I went along
>>> and I still learn new things and adapt to changes in the program as it
>>> upgrades to new versions
>>>
>>> I was invited to teach as a guest lecturer at a fashion college
>>> it seems the regular professor was a little clueless himself
>>> just used the syllabus book
>>> learned his stuff the night before and then taught it the next day!!!
>>> his background is web design and although proficient at that when it came
>>> to retouching and creating images photography techniques and enhancing
>>> etc he was a little out his box
>>> hence my invite
>>>
>>> I would be pissed if I paid for a course with a teacher like that
>>> I can read a book myself
>>>
>>> he gets $35 US dollars an hour for that!~!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I got to say that I always enjoy your replies.
>>
>> --
>> JD..
>
> thanks JD
> and Frank Arthur if you see this message
> I will be at the adobe.Photoshop.windows NG from now on
>
> seems a more civil bunch
> been coming to these other two groups many years till I was the only female
> left on here
> now there are just too many hostile nasty misogynists
> ungrateful louts
> who bitch and complain about FREE ADVICE
>
OK, I have subscribed to that newsgroup. I have to agree with you about
those that complain about free advice. Sometimes it's more like a
pi$$ing match than a newsgroup for helping others.
I had to look up misogynist. :-(
--
JD..
> "JD" <JD@example.invalid> wrote in message
> news:HPqdnRXTj61nbsvUnZ2dnUVZ_o_inZ2d@posted.grandecom...
>> KatWoman wrote:
>>> "tony cooper" <tony_cooper213@earthlink.net> wrote in message
>>> news:jnabl4p46ebtbh8e57ism080fp39bs3075@4ax.com...
>>>> On 27 Dec 2008 01:46:54 GMT, ray <ray@zianet.com> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Fri, 26 Dec 2008 16:59:10 -0500, nospam wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> In article <6rkup5F263alU2@mid.individual.net>, ray <ray@zianet.com>
>>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>>
>>>>>>>> there is no restriction in functionality. it just expires after 30
>>>>>>>> days.
>>>>>>> Geez - that would seem to be a major restriction!
>>>>>> how much time do you need to evaluate it and decide if it is worth
>>>>>> purchasing? 30 days is fairly generous; most people probably can
>>>>>> decide
>>>>>> within a week or two.
>>>>> Considering that most users take a week or two long class to learn how
>>>>> to
>>>>> use photoshop - it does seem rather limiting.
>>>> I don't know where you get that idea. Certainly, some user have taken
>>>> a class, but it's far from "most". Even the people who have taken a
>>>> class are usually people who have worked with Photoshop for a period
>>>> of time and signed up for a class to improve their skills.
>>>>
>>>> Not only have most people not taken a class, but it's not that easy to
>>>> find a Photoshop class. Some universities have undergraduate courses
>>>> in graphic design, but they aren't for beginning Photoshop users.
>>>> Some community colleges have non-credit courses, but are usually so
>>>> general that they are not worthwhile to take.
>>>>
>>>> I attended a half-day "class" put on by Adobe at one of the Adobe
>>>> traveling roadshows, but it was nothing more than a presentation of
>>>> the newest version that highlighted the new features. It was not
>>>> hands-on. It wasn't worth the time for me.
>>>>
>>>> The average non-professional who uses the full Photoshop is
>>>> self-taught from books or online tutorials. The average
>>>> non-professional is employed full-time and doesn't have the time
>>>> available to take a university course if one was offered.
>>>>
>>>> A person interested in using Photoshop who downloads the trial version
>>>> and works through some of the on-line tutorials, or follows a book
>>>> with an enclosed CD of examples, will gradually pick up the basic
>>>> skills. How proficient that person becomes will depend on how much
>>>> time he spends on tutorials or completing projects from books.
>>>>
>>>> If you follow the Adobe forums you'll find that most new users are
>>>> learning the basics by this method.
>>>>
>>>> I have been using full Photoshop for six years, and except for that
>>>> rather disappointing half-day, I've never taken a class. I'm no pro,
>>>> but I'm rather advanced in the use of Photoshop.
>>>>
>>>> I don't know why you would make a statement about "most" users when
>>>> you have no idea what "most" users do. I've followed the Photoshop
>>>> newsgroups and forums for six years, and I think I have a good idea of
>>>> what "most" do.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
>>> have to agree tony
>>> the "courses" are mostly sales pitches you pay for
>>> and all about the upgrades
>>>
>>> never took any courses just learned bit by bit since version 4.0
>>> and learned more as I went along
>>> and I still learn new things and adapt to changes in the program as it
>>> upgrades to new versions
>>>
>>> I was invited to teach as a guest lecturer at a fashion college
>>> it seems the regular professor was a little clueless himself
>>> just used the syllabus book
>>> learned his stuff the night before and then taught it the next day!!!
>>> his background is web design and although proficient at that when it came
>>> to retouching and creating images photography techniques and enhancing
>>> etc he was a little out his box
>>> hence my invite
>>>
>>> I would be pissed if I paid for a course with a teacher like that
>>> I can read a book myself
>>>
>>> he gets $35 US dollars an hour for that!~!!
>>>
>>>
>>>
>> I got to say that I always enjoy your replies.
>>
>> --
>> JD..
>
> thanks JD
> and Frank Arthur if you see this message
> I will be at the adobe.Photoshop.windows NG from now on
>
> seems a more civil bunch
> been coming to these other two groups many years till I was the only female
> left on here
> now there are just too many hostile nasty misogynists
> ungrateful louts
> who bitch and complain about FREE ADVICE
>
OK, I have subscribed to that newsgroup. I have to agree with you about
those that complain about free advice. Sometimes it's more like a
pi$$ing match than a newsgroup for helping others.
I had to look up misogynist. :-(
--
JD..
| |
|
Leo Lichtman wrote:
> "John Navas" wrote: $28 is too much?
>> Thanks for wasting our time. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think you're being a little harsh, John. The posters to this thread were
> not only responding to the OP, but also exchanging ideas among themselves.
> I think many questions raised in such newsgroups, and this is a good
> example, are informative to many others--they provide answers to questions
> that many did not know how to ask.
>
Thanks for pointing this out. To John's credit who participated in a
seperate thread, I ended up buying a Panasonic Lumix FZ28S which I love.
The pictures that I get from this camera are amazing. Suddenly, I
decided to get more creative and started exploring Photoshop products.
Ultimately, since I am the "Decider" ;-) I have to be careful about
pocket busting software products. Even if it only costs $28. The
hidden expense from jumping into new software is the learning curve and
the time sink that is created. Lot of people don't realize the time
sink in software products.
My .02 cents.
Thank you for the suggestions though.
PS - BTW, John you are really good at searching products at discount
sites which I never knew existed!
Cheers,
NJ
> "John Navas" wrote: $28 is too much?
>> Thanks for wasting our time. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think you're being a little harsh, John. The posters to this thread were
> not only responding to the OP, but also exchanging ideas among themselves.
> I think many questions raised in such newsgroups, and this is a good
> example, are informative to many others--they provide answers to questions
> that many did not know how to ask.
>
Thanks for pointing this out. To John's credit who participated in a
seperate thread, I ended up buying a Panasonic Lumix FZ28S which I love.
The pictures that I get from this camera are amazing. Suddenly, I
decided to get more creative and started exploring Photoshop products.
Ultimately, since I am the "Decider" ;-) I have to be careful about
pocket busting software products. Even if it only costs $28. The
hidden expense from jumping into new software is the learning curve and
the time sink that is created. Lot of people don't realize the time
sink in software products.
My .02 cents.
Thank you for the suggestions though.
PS - BTW, John you are really good at searching products at discount
sites which I never knew existed!
Cheers,
NJ
| |
|
In article <2j9fl45q5n1skb4mlgd3csu95ml59kv53a@4ax.com>, John Navas
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Thanks for wasting our time.
You're the master in that department.
<spamfilter1@navasgroup.com> wrote:
> Thanks for wasting our time.
You're the master in that department.
| |
|
In article <N4Q5l.7541$pr6.4081@flpi149.ffdc.sbc.com>, Leo Lichtman
<leo.lichtman@att.net> wrote:
> "John Navas" wrote: $28 is too much?
> >
> > Thanks for wasting our time. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think you're being a little harsh, John. The posters to this thread were
> not only responding to the OP, but also exchanging ideas among themselves.
> I think many questions raised in such newsgroups, and this is a good
> example, are informative to many others--they provide answers to questions
> that many did not know how to ask.
Navas is a know tard.
<leo.lichtman@att.net> wrote:
> "John Navas" wrote: $28 is too much?
> >
> > Thanks for wasting our time. (clip)
> ^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^^
> I think you're being a little harsh, John. The posters to this thread were
> not only responding to the OP, but also exchanging ideas among themselves.
> I think many questions raised in such newsgroups, and this is a good
> example, are informative to many others--they provide answers to questions
> that many did not know how to ask.
Navas is a know tard.
| |
|
In article <xdW5l.40014$sC4.10935@newsfe04.iad>, Neil Jones
<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out. To John's credit who participated in a
> seperate thread, I ended up buying a Panasonic Lumix FZ28S which I love.
> The pictures that I get from this camera are amazing. Suddenly, I
> decided to get more creative and started exploring Photoshop products.
> Ultimately, since I am the "Decider" ;-) I have to be careful about
> pocket busting software products. Even if it only costs $28. The
> hidden expense from jumping into new software is the learning curve and
> the time sink that is created. Lot of people don't realize the time
> sink in software products.
>
> My .02 cents.
>
> Thank you for the suggestions though.
>
> PS - BTW, John you are really good at searching products at discount
> sites which I never knew existed!
He's a moron who knows little about photography (and his images prove
it).
<castellan2004-nschap@remove-this.yahoo.com> wrote:
> Thanks for pointing this out. To John's credit who participated in a
> seperate thread, I ended up buying a Panasonic Lumix FZ28S which I love.
> The pictures that I get from this camera are amazing. Suddenly, I
> decided to get more creative and started exploring Photoshop products.
> Ultimately, since I am the "Decider" ;-) I have to be careful about
> pocket busting software products. Even if it only costs $28. The
> hidden expense from jumping into new software is the learning curve and
> the time sink that is created. Lot of people don't realize the time
> sink in software products.
>
> My .02 cents.
>
> Thank you for the suggestions though.
>
> PS - BTW, John you are really good at searching products at discount
> sites which I never knew existed!
He's a moron who knows little about photography (and his images prove
it).
| |
|
KatWoman wrote:
>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>> to see just what to do.
>
>
> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
of them have any idea what they're talking about.
>> I personally think the free video tutorials on YouTube, which cover
>> features old and new, are more helpful than books, because it's easier
>> to see just what to do.
>
>
> Just be aware some of the youtube ones I saw advocate poor techniques
That goes back to my original point, that the software being "popular"
doesn't mean everyone out there will be an expert in it. Yeah, you'll
find lots of people willing to discuss it with you... doesn't mean most
of them have any idea what they're talking about.
| Pages (4): [ « ‹ 1 2 3 4 › »] | |
| Previous Topic: | BRUSH |
| Next Topic: | Changing background color -- erase tool (PS, CS4) |
Adobe Photoshop plug-ins, tools, tutorials and user discussions