How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
Design resources, Photoshop add-ons, UI Kits and Inspiration
Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.
What is it, and is it required?
Thanks,
Rick
License Manager ? Just guessing.
"Rick" wrote in message
What is it, and is it required?
Thanks,
Rick
Just found this elsewhere on Usenet. Sounds pretty hardcore. Macrovision rears its ugly head yet again.
Rick
—–
"Adobe LM service" appears to be comprised of three components:
1. Adobelmsvc.exe
This is (c) Macrovision Corp.
2. AdobeLM.dll
Related to product activation, e.g. links to
activate.adobe.com/servlets/inet/Inetactivate
3. Adobelmsvc Installer.dll
This is also (c) Macrovision and references:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision with one subkey:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision\SafeCast
and one "AF_2" subkey under this, with several hex values.
The dll also appears to perform hardware enumeration
(including SID) on the system and calculates whether
product reactivation is required.
—–
"noone" wrote in message
License Manager ? Just guessing.
"Rick" wrote in message
What is it, and is it required?
Thanks,
Rick
buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine
"Rick" wrote in message
Just found this elsewhere on Usenet. Sounds pretty hardcore. Macrovision rears its ugly head yet again.
Rick
—–
"Adobe LM service" appears to be comprised of three components:
1. Adobelmsvc.exe
This is (c) Macrovision Corp.
2. AdobeLM.dll
Related to product activation, e.g. links to
activate.adobe.com/servlets/inet/Inetactivate
3. Adobelmsvc Installer.dll
This is also (c) Macrovision and references:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision with one subkey:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision\SafeCast
and one "AF_2" subkey under this, with several hex values.
The dll also appears to perform hardware enumeration
(including SID) on the system and calculates whether
product reactivation is required.
—–
"noone" wrote in messageLicense Manager ? Just guessing.
"Rick" wrote in message
What is it, and is it required?
Thanks,
Rick
I’d rather Adobe provide at least a bit of documentation for this service. BTW it was said in one group that the LM service will re-enable itself if it’s disabled. Amazing, no?
Rick
"crapbottom" wrote in messagebuy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine
"Rick" wrote in message
Just found this elsewhere on Usenet. Sounds pretty hardcore. Macrovision rears its ugly head yet again.
Rick
—–
"Adobe LM service" appears to be comprised of three components:
1. Adobelmsvc.exe
This is (c) Macrovision Corp.
2. AdobeLM.dll
Related to product activation, e.g. links to
activate.adobe.com/servlets/inet/Inetactivate
3. Adobelmsvc Installer.dll
This is also (c) Macrovision and references:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision with one subkey:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision\SafeCast
and one "AF_2" subkey under this, with several hex values.
The dll also appears to perform hardware enumeration
(including SID) on the system and calculates whether
product reactivation is required.
—–
"noone" wrote in messageLicense Manager ? Just guessing.
"Rick" wrote in message
What is it, and is it required?
Thanks,
Rick
Yep, just confirmed. The service cannot be permanently disabled, and if the installer dll is renamed PS doesn’t load at all.
At least now we know the real reason why Win2K or XP is required.
Hey Chris, how does it feel to be a corporate whore as well as a bald-faced liar?
Rick
"Rick" wrote in message
I’d rather Adobe provide at least a bit of documentation for this service. BTW it was said in one group that the LM service will re-enable itself if it’s disabled. Amazing, no?
Rick
"crapbottom" wrote in message
buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine
"Rick" wrote in message
Just found this elsewhere on Usenet. Sounds pretty hardcore. Macrovision rears its ugly head yet again.
Rick
—–
"Adobe LM service" appears to be comprised of three components:
1. Adobelmsvc.exe
This is (c) Macrovision Corp.
2. AdobeLM.dll
Related to product activation, e.g. links to
activate.adobe.com/servlets/inet/Inetactivate
3. Adobelmsvc Installer.dll
This is also (c) Macrovision and references:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision with one subkey:
HKLM\Software\Macrovision\SafeCast
and one "AF_2" subkey under this, with several hex values.
The dll also appears to perform hardware enumeration
(including SID) on the system and calculates whether
product reactivation is required.
—–
"noone" wrote in messageLicense Manager ? Just guessing.
"Rick" wrote in message
What is it, and is it required?
Thanks,
Rick
i’ll type a doc later – the service can be removed and perm. disabled and still have ps load
Services that enable
themselves are known as worms and trojans, not legitimate copy protection.
Services that enable
themselves are known as worms and trojans, not legitimate copy protection.
A worm is a computer program that copies itself from one system to another. A trojan is a program that claims to do one thing (like show pictures of tennis stars naked) but actually does something else (like email your AOL passwords back to the writer).
And both can be found as services which enable themselves without permission.
And both can be found as services which enable themselves without permission.
True, but that’s not the defining feature of a worm or a Trojan. Not all worms and Trojans make use of NT services, and not all self-starting NT services are worms or Trojans.
But you knew that already. ๐
I’ve seen one other self-starting service that behaves this way. It’s used on a form of CD music copy protection. When you insert a protected audio CD, it tells you that some software must be installed for the CD to be read. If you allow it to install the software, it installs a service that interferes with direct digital audio extraction, and makes the CD unrippable.
Fine, at least it provides some kind of notification. Or option. What Adobe is doing is going to land them on the shit lists of quite a few system admins, and deservedly so.
"Rick" wrote in message
Fine, at least it provides some kind of notification. Or option. What Adobe is doing is going to land them on the shit lists of quite a few system admins, and deservedly so.
Dog gone it, I missed this thread. What do you claim Adobe is doing? Calling home?
As far as I know, the only documentation Abobe has provided for the copy protection scheme is a link to Macromedia’s version of it. If someone has a link to *Macrovision’s* documentation it would be most welcome, since that’s who apparently wrote it.
As far as I know, the only documentation Abobe has provided for the copy protection scheme is a link to Macromedia’s version of it. If someone has a link to *Macrovision’s* documentation it would be most welcome, since that’s who apparently wrote it.
The Macrovision activation system is called "SafeCast." There’s an FAQ on it at
http://www.macrovision.com/products/safecast/safecast_pa_faq .shtml
I love the way Macrovision says SafeCast "puts you [the software vendor] back in control of how your products are used." Never mind that it’s the USER who should be in control over how the tools he has purchased are used…
More frightening, SafeCast lets the software vendor "change the rules even after your product has shipped." So if Adobe decides they want to go to, say, a pay-as-you-go rental scheme after you’ve paid your money for CS, and you don’t like that idea, well, they can pull the plug on you.
The more I find out about the product activation in Photoshop, the less Ilke it. Looks like I’m staying with 7; I don’t think I’ll be be buying 8.
"jjs" wrote in message
"Rick" wrote in message
Fine, at least it provides some kind of notification. Or option. What Adobe is doing is going to land them on the shit lists of quite a few system admins, and deservedly so.
Dog gone it, I missed this thread. What do you claim Adobe is doing? Calling
home?
That’s the problem — we don’t know what it’s doing. This much has been established, or at least I think it has:
1. The service wants internet access.
In article <bp13pe$1j91bd$>,
"Rick" wrote:
[…]
That’s the problem — we don’t know what it’s doing. This much has been established, or at least I think it has:
1. The service wants internet access.
Has anyone tested if PS will load without net access?
And both can be found as services which enable themselves without permission.
True, but that’s not the defining feature of a worm or a Trojan. Not all worms and Trojans make use of NT services, and not all self-starting NT services are worms or Trojans.
But you knew that already. ๐
I’ve seen one other self-starting service that behaves this way. It’s used on a form of CD music copy protection. When you insert a protected audio CD, it tells you that some software must be installed for the CD to be read. If you allow it to install the software, it installs a service that interferes with direct digital audio extraction, and makes the CD unrippable.
You don’t have to install the software to use the CD; other than a tiny partition that’s in ISO format, it’s just a regular audio CD.
—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
I’d consider that a trojan. It installs on my system and disables a feature of the existing system….
Thanks for the link. Despite Macrovision’s claim to the contrary SafeCast is a form of spyware.
In article <bp2nat$6jr$>, l
wrote:
In article <bp13pe$1j91bd$>,
"Rick" wrote:
[…]
That’s the problem — we don’t know what it’s doing. This much has been established, or at least I think it has:
1. The service wants internet access.
According to Adobe it does not need internet access. That would be just nuts.
Has anyone tested if PS will load without net access?
That’s not at all like Adobe. Even when their software checked the local net for other copies running the same serial number it would not bomb the program if there was no network. (Maybe it still does. Dunno.)
From: "Rick"
If PS is not activated within 30 days it will cease to function at all. In addition, customers are allowed only a "certain number" of activations (anyone know what the magic number is?)
With all the hardware swapping I do on a routine basis, CS is virtually unusable.
(twoFrom: "Rick"
If PS is not activated within 30 days it will cease to function at all. In addition, customers are allowed only a "certain number" of activations (anyone know what the magic number is?)
You can definitely activate it on two computers, I’ve already done that
desktops).
Haven’t tried it a third time but I gather it will not do three.
With all the hardware swapping I do on a routine basis,
CS is virtually unusable.
So don’t buy it. End of problem.
From: "crapbottom"
buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine
As far as I know, the only documentation Abobe has provided for the copy protection scheme is a link to Macromedia’s version of it. If someone has a link to *Macrovision’s* documentation it would be most welcome, since that’s who apparently wrote it.
The Macrovision activation system is called "SafeCast." There’s an FAQ on it at
http://www.macrovision.com/products/safecast/safecast_pa_faq .shtml
I love the way Macrovision says SafeCast "puts you [the software vendor] back in control of how your products are used." Never mind that it’s the USER who should be in control over how the tools he has purchased are used…
More frightening, SafeCast lets the software vendor "change the rules even after your product has shipped." So if Adobe decides they want to go to, say, a pay-as-you-go rental scheme after you’ve paid your money for CS, and you don’t like that idea, well, they can pull the plug on you.
The more I find out about the product activation in Photoshop, the less Ilke it. Looks like I’m staying with 7; I don’t think I’ll be be buying 8.
From: "crapbottom"
buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine
That’s funny!
Adobe is worried about folks pirating their software so they make it so that people will either not buy it, or buy it and then crack it to use it as they wish.
Mark it down, all these anti-piracy efforts will be Photoshop’s undoing. My theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product, thus hurting Adobe in the long run. I think the time is right for some other graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe’s position atop the graphics world.
From: "Rick"
If PS is not activated within 30 days it will cease to function at all. In addition, customers are allowed only a "certain number" of activations (anyone know what the magic number is?)
You can definitely activate it on two computers, I’ve already done that (two desktops).
Haven’t tried it a third time but I gather it will not do three.
With all the hardware swapping I do on a routine basis, CS is virtually unusable.
So don’t buy it. End of problem.
Bill
"Annika1980" wrote in messageFrom: "crapbottom"
buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine
That’s funny!
Adobe is worried about folks pirating their software so they make it so that people will either not buy it, or buy it and then crack it to use it as they wish.
Mark it down, all these anti-piracy efforts will be Photoshop’s undoing. My theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product, thus hurting Adobe in the long run. I think the time is right for some other graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe’s position atop the graphics world.
American software developers either have very short memories or very little experience. In every single case, the implemention of copy protection has been the first sign that a company is heading down the sump, and has been an unqualified disaster.
Lotus (remember 1-2-3?), Novell (remember their hardware based protection scheme?), etc. It won’t be any different in Adobe’s case. Microsoft got away with WPA because they
have an effective monopoly in their market and consumers did not have any viable (or at least practical) alternatives.
And as usual, when all’s said and done, the only people who are bearing the burden of copy protection are legitimate customers.
Rick
I don’t think it is a sign of desaster but a reason.
When a company decides to eliminate casual piracy, the first result is that they cancel business-to-home-copying – the most effective marketing and training facility, where legitimate users create (mostly only one) illegal copy that provided the software manufacturer with two or more trained users.
I’d like to see a law that requires a working copy protection system that enforces individual licensing per user once a certain market share (20%) was reached. This would suddenly eliminate the tendency to create monopolies.
wormsAnd both can be found as services which enable themselves without permission.
True, but that’s not the defining feature of a worm or a Trojan. Not all
and Trojans make use of NT services, and not all self-starting NT servicesare
worms or Trojans.on a
But you knew that already. ๐
I’ve seen one other self-starting service that behaves this way. It’s used
form of CD music copy protection. When you insert a protected audio CD, it tells you that some software must be installed for the CD to be read. Ifyou
allow it to install the software, it installs a service that interfereswith
direct digital audio extraction, and makes the CD unrippable.
You don’t have to install the software to use the CD; other than a tiny partition that’s in ISO format, it’s just a regular audio CD.
—
Rude T-shirts for a rude age: http://www.villaintees.com Art, literature, shareware, polyamory, kink, and more:
http://www.xeromag.com/franklin.html
My
theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of
those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a differentproduct,
thus hurting Adobe in the long run.
I think the time is right for some other
graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe’s position atop the graphics world.
these are easy as well – start up your *cough* protected audio cd, look in device manager and you will see a new device (name varies), dont uninstall it, just disable it.
these are easy as well – start up your *cough* protected audio cd, look in device manager and you will see a new device (name varies), dont uninstall it, just disable it.
Best be careful; according to the article on The Register, people who distribute that information are being prosecuted under the DMCA… ๐
If it ever gets to the point in this country where the free exchange of information is met with a visit from the federal government, it’s time to find another, less fascist and repressive place to live.
Land of the free indeed. We’ve become a nation of pussy whipped corporate whores.
From: (Tacit)
Microsoft might be able to come up with an image editor suitable for home users, but there’s no way they could ever come up with an image editor that professionals will use.
From: "crapbottom"
buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine
That’s funny!
Adobe is worried about folks pirating their software so they make it so that people will either not buy it, or buy it and then crack it to use it as they wish.
Mark it down, all these anti-piracy efforts will be Photoshop’s undoing. My theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product, thus hurting Adobe in the long run. I think the time is right for some other graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe’s position atop the graphics world.
On Fri, 14 Nov 2003 17:07:49 -0800, "Rick" wrote:
"Annika1980" wrote in messageFrom: "crapbottom"
buy the legal version
apply the latest crack
disable the service
works just fine
That’s funny!
Adobe is worried about folks pirating their software so they make it so that people will either not buy it, or buy it and then crack it to use it as they wish.
Mark it down, all these anti-piracy efforts will be Photoshop’s undoing. My theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product, thus hurting Adobe in the long run. I think the time is right for some other graphics giant (or maybe even Microsoft) to make a run at Adobe’s position atop the graphics world.
American software developers either have very short memories or very little experience. In every single case, the implemention of copy protection has been the first sign that a company is heading down the sump, and has been an unqualified disaster.
I don’t think it is a sign of desaster but a reason.
When a company decides to eliminate casual piracy, the first result is that they cancel business-to-home-copying – the most effective marketing and training facility, where legitimate users create (mostly only one) illegal copy that provided the software manufacturer with two or more trained users.
Instead people will buy a software for home use that is cheaper or copy something different and recommend that when upgrading becomes a topic at their workplace.
Do we know that Adobe is trying to limit the licensing in that manner? As I understand it, Adobe is permitting a home copy and work copy as long as both cannot (or are not) used at the same time.
Does anyone know the restrictions on a site license and how they might be enforced?
I understand that one does not have to activate such copies.
From: Paul J Gans
Already there is resistance in the Office Suite market.
Who *really* needs to upgrade their version of Word?
Paul J Gans wrote:
Does anyone know the restrictions on a site license and how they might be enforced?
There is no site-licences for Photoshop but the Corporate distribution has been there for several years, they come with 5 or more licenses. Could someone pls give examples about the pricing?
I understand that one does not have to activate such copies.
Currently that is so.
From: Paul J Gans
Already there is resistance in the Office Suite market.
Who *really* needs to upgrade their version of Word?
Having worked 20 years in a Dilbert-like corporate environment I can answer that … as soon as your biggest customer sends you a document using the latest version of Word or Excel you’ll find you *REALLY* need to upgrade ๐
It is something like the current bruhaha over stolen
movies on DVD. It turns out that most of the illegal
copies come out of the studios themselves and not
from individuals sitting in theaters getting the film
on their camcorder or whatever the studios claim is
going on.
Yeah. I work in an academic environment in which Deans and other such folk send out memos in Word format. Of course, we have no site license for Word…
From: Paul J Gans
Already there is resistance in the Office Suite market.
Who *really* needs to upgrade their version of Word?
Having worked 20 years in a Dilbert-like corporate environment I can answer that … as soon as your biggest customer sends you a document using the latest version of Word or Excel you’ll find you *REALLY* need to upgrade ๐
My
theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of
those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Photoshop has stayed on top of the graphics field because it has no competition, not because people pirate it and then learn it. In the world of professional prepress, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop.
Now that Adobe has implemented the intrusive anti-piracy measures, it will be interesting to see if some of those people will switch to a different product, thus hurting Adobe in the long run.
Switch to what? While casual users and amateurs have many alternatives to choose from, people who work in the fields of professional prepress and printing don’t. It’s Photoshop or nothing.
In article <bp98ku$brn$>, Paul J Gans wrote:
It is something like the current bruhaha over stolen
movies on DVD. It turns out that most of the illegal
copies come out of the studios themselves and not
from individuals sitting in theaters getting the film
on their camcorder or whatever the studios claim is
going on.
Can you substantiate that or any of your claims? Sounds like impressionistic speculation to me.
In article <bp98ku$brn$>, Paul J Gans wrote:
It is something like the current bruhaha over stolen
movies on DVD. It turns out that most of the illegal
copies come out of the studios themselves and not
from individuals sitting in theaters getting the film
on their camcorder or whatever the studios claim is
going on.
Can you substantiate that or any of your claims? Sounds like impressionistic speculation to me.
In article <bp98nu$brn$>, Paul J Gans
wrote:
Yeah. I work in an academic environment in which Deans and other such folk send out memos in Word format. Of course, we have no site license for Word…
You metion quite often that you know of stolen software, and here you mention it again. So, are you saying that New York University has pirated licensed software? Be a hero. Turn them in. Hell, if you don’t have tenure by now, then you may as well go out with a bang.
On 15 Nov 2003 19:36:27 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:
My
theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of
those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Photoshop has stayed on top of the graphics field because it has no competition, not because people pirate it and then learn it. In the world of professional prepress, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop.
Yes.
But my guess is that >80% of the people using pirated versions don’t even need the functions in Elements. They just take their "free" version of PS because it is "cheaper" than the legal alternatives available for their purpose. Like those who use illegal versions of Word for things they could do in Wordpad.
Xalinai wrote:I don’t know. But if you read the requests for help on trivial tasks in this group and the number of requests for PS downloads you come to a certain view – even if those who ask for help here are already from the more intelligent end of the unskilled users group and the downloaders come from the less intelligent pirates…
On 15 Nov 2003 19:36:27 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:
My
theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of
those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Photoshop has stayed on top of the graphics field because it has no competition, not because people pirate it and then learn it. In the world of professional prepress, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop.
Yes.
But my guess is that >80% of the people using pirated versions don’t even need the functions in Elements. They just take their "free" version of PS because it is "cheaper" than the legal alternatives available for their purpose. Like those who use illegal versions of Word for things they could do in Wordpad.
That may be true but I’m not certain. Photoshop is hard for a novice to use. Why not either pay the low price for a simple program (there are lots of them even if they have fewer features) or pirate one of *those*.
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:20:20 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:
Xalinai wrote:I don’t know. But if you read the requests for help on trivial tasks in this group and the number of requests for PS downloads you come to a certain view – even if those who ask for help here are already from the more intelligent end of the unskilled users group and the downloaders come from the less intelligent pirates…
On 15 Nov 2003 19:36:27 GMT, (Tacit) wrote:
My
theory is that there are certainly a great many people who pirate Photoshop. But this in itself has made Photoshop stay atop the graphics field, and many of
those people have probably gone on to purchase legal versions.
Photoshop has stayed on top of the graphics field because it has no competition, not because people pirate it and then learn it. In the world of professional prepress, there simply is no alternative to Photoshop.
Yes.
But my guess is that >80% of the people using pirated versions don’t even need the functions in Elements. They just take their "free" version of PS because it is "cheaper" than the legal alternatives available for their purpose. Like those who use illegal versions of Word for things they could do in Wordpad.
That may be true but I’m not certain. Photoshop is hard for a novice to use. Why not either pay the low price for a simple program (there are lots of them even if they have fewer features) or pirate one of *those*.
The funny thing is that the "unskilled users" post the same kind of questions to the paint shop pro group…
Xalinai wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:20:20 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:
That may be true but I’m not certain. Photoshop is hard for a novice to use. Why not either pay the low price for a simple program (there are lots of them even if they have fewer features) or pirate one of *those*.I don’t know. But if you read the requests for help on trivial tasks in this group and the number of requests for PS downloads you come to a certain view – even if those who ask for help here are already from the more intelligent end of the unskilled users group and the downloaders come from the less intelligent pirates…
The funny thing is that the "unskilled users" post the same kind of questions to the paint shop pro group…
<grin>
Yup. I think the key word is "unskilled" and it has little to do with the product. In many areas programs work the same way. Word processors, compilers, spreadsheets, etc. So once one gets over the learning hump on one program one picks up the next one more quickly.
But if it is your first program…..
—- Paul J. Gans
On Tue, 18 Nov 2003 00:16:46 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:
Xalinai wrote:
On Mon, 17 Nov 2003 17:20:20 +0000 (UTC), Paul J Gans
wrote:
That may be true but I’m not certain. Photoshop is hard for a novice to use. Why not either pay the low price for a simple program (there are lots of them even if they have fewer features) or pirate one of *those*.I don’t know. But if you read the requests for help on trivial tasks in this group and the number of requests for PS downloads you come to a certain view – even if those who ask for help here are already from the more intelligent end of the unskilled users group and the downloaders come from the less intelligent pirates…
The funny thing is that the "unskilled users" post the same kind of questions to the paint shop pro group…
<grin>
Yup. I think the key word is "unskilled" and it has little to do with the product. In many areas programs work the same way. Word processors, compilers, spreadsheets, etc. So once one gets over the learning hump on one program one picks up the next one more quickly.
But if it is your first program…..
You try, ask questions, get sufficiently rude answers – then go and pay a pro to do the work and, with a little kink, pay for a part of a legal photoshop license….. :-))
Michael
skilled ones. So they ask questions. Even that pro you want them to pay to do the work was unskilled once.
In article <bpgala$osa$>,
Paul J Gans wrote:
skilled ones. So they ask questions. Even that pro you want them to pay to do the work was unskilled once.
The pro would never have become a pro by asking the trivial questions in usenet. There just is not not enough time to learn enough things if one does not do their own homework. Checking the same question from the programs?s Help or looking it up the manual would, in the case of the trivial questions, take only a few seconds and one could continue while the task is still hot.
Don?t take me wrong, I do not think that no-one should post to usenet to ask things. But I have seen that only a small fraction of those questions have not yet been answered. So if one really needs the info, why not get it now and not wait till tomorrow. That?s part of what separates the ones that will be pros and the ones that will not; a motivation to get the info, now. Another important part is of course to get the basic education first. Going to a Photoshop class will teach so much more to a beginner than hanging out in newsgroups. Once one knows the major outlines of the subject, learning new things from books and the net will be much easier.
.lauri
But more to the point, why does this newsgroup exist? If it was for non-novices should it not have been named something like
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop.non-newbies.only
๐
As for the rest, I’n not a pro. And there was no way I was going to go to a Photoshop class. Since I’ve been involved
But I’m well aware that most folks don’t do that. Most manuals are impossible for newbies to read. Sure, there are good ones out there, but how does a newbie know which one is good?
So they ask questions here. A short answer or a pointer not only helps but it builds friends. A snotty one (such as some folks gave) only turns the newbie off. The only thing it teaches him is that photoshop users are nasty.
In article <bpjqtm$2ij$>,
Paul J Gans wrote:
But more to the point, why does this newsgroup exist? If it was for non-novices should it not have been named something like
comp.graphics.apps.photoshop.non-newbies.only
๐
No, no, no, sorry. I certainly did not mean this or any groups should exclude newbies. Just looking at the questions most asked and answered here shows that a lot of them are, well, newbie questions. So obviously there is a market for them.
As for the rest, I’n not a pro. And there was no way I was going to go to a Photoshop class. Since I’ve been involved
Not everyone needs a Photoshop class. But those willing to become pros in just about anything, not just in Photoshop, usually do go to some sort of class about the subject. Well, at least the ones that have done so, usually find the education worth it. But all that is of course worth the money only for the ones trying to seriously learn the subject.
But I’m well aware that most folks don’t do that. Most manuals are impossible for newbies to read. Sure, there are good ones out there, but how does a newbie know which one is good?
Ah, a newbie obviously asks if someone can recommend a good book that requires minimum prior knowledge of the subject from the reader. And, since the net has been populated with people for quite some time, the newbie that wants to know this now and not tomorrow asks mr Google first ๐ If the newbie finds even the answers of mr Google impossible to read, he might then better save his money and not buy any book at all.
So they ask questions here. A short answer or a pointer not only helps but it builds friends. A snotty one (such as some folks gave) only turns the newbie off. The only thing it teaches him is that photoshop users are nasty.
Not only the Photoshop users may be nasty, especially in usenet. A question that yields a lot of RTFM or Read the FAQ answers is usually one asked three times a week and there may even be active threads about the very subject in the same group. I think that not reading the possible answers before asking the question is rude. Replying in a snotty way is of course equally rude, but hey, there are just people behind the answers, not machines. Cannot expect them all to behave nice all the time.
.lauri
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections