photoshop elemenst 3 or 4 or something else

corks wrote:

i currently have copy of elements 2 (not installed) and had been planning on getting a copy of elements 3 , when i noticed elements 4 was out – so i throught i’d get that – but i’ve seen a few reviews saying its not all that great – slow, resource hogg and some the new/auto features are that great.

so whats the opinion – from what i read elements 3 was an improvement on 3 , but 4 is less so

alernatively use i could use something else ????

have a copy of photshop 4 i think but its not installed and i think its perhaps overkill for what i need ??

ive been using paintshop pro 7 for a while ……good enuff ????
opinions or suggestions most appreciated

thanks

dave

ps apologies to anyone annoyed by cross-posting

It’s all a question of what you were weaned on.

PSP 7 suits me because I was weaned on PSP 4. I resent having to start the learning process all over again, so although I do have Photoshop Elements 2 on the PC, I rarely use it unless some discrepancy in PSP forces me to do so.

Trying to master 2 fairly complex programs in order to use one of them is not what computers are all about.

Dennis.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 16:30:57 +0800, "corks"
claimed the following :

i currently have copy of elements 2 (not installed) and had been planning on getting a copy of elements 3 , when i noticed elements 4 was out – so i throught i’d get that – but i’ve seen a few reviews saying its not all that great – slow, resource hogg and some the new/auto features are that great.

Have you used a Froggy freebie called PhotoFiltre ? :
http://photofiltre.free.fr/frames_en.htm

The main advantage of elements 3 over 2 is the raw converter. Now that version 4 is out you should get version 3 at bargain prices. I suppose its a matter of support regarding your camera and the RAW converter. Even photoshop CS doesn’t support my canon 20D RAW files as standard. I don’t know if there is a download or plugin for CS or whether an upgrade to CS2 is necessary. I should think the same issue is relevant in your choice of 3 or
4. If version3 supports your camera then i would go with that and spend
your savings on ‘the hidden power of elements 3’.

The other main feature of v3 over v2 is that you have the healing brush as well as the clone stamp tool.

As to whether using paint shop pro7 is good enough that’s pretty much down to your personal needs and level of skill with that program. "corks" wrote in message

i currently have copy of elements 2 (not installed) and had been planning on getting a copy of elements 3 , when i noticed elements 4 was out – so i throught i’d get that – but i’ve seen a few reviews saying its not all that great – slow, resource hogg and some the new/auto features are that great.
so whats the opinion – from what i read elements 3 was an improvement on 3 , but 4 is less so

alernatively use i could use something else ????

have a copy of photshop 4 i think but its not installed and i think its perhaps overkill for what i need ??

ive been using paintshop pro 7 for a while ……good enuff ????
opinions or suggestions most appreciated

thanks

dave

ps apologies to anyone annoyed by cross-posting

In article <Gm3zf.150932$>, Ian lincoln
wrote:

The main advantage of elements 3 over 2 is the raw converter… The other main feature of v3 over v2 is that you have the healing brush as well as the clone stamp tool.

And the shadows/highlights control and the quick fix panel and…

IMHO, 3 was a significant improvement on 2, whereas 4 is only a slight one on
3. Given the low price of 3 these days, I feel that will give you best value
for money of all Adobe’s products.

—

Roger

"ian lincoln" wrote in message

The main advantage of elements 3 over 2 is the raw converter. Now that version 4 is out you should get version 3 at bargain prices. I suppose its a matter of support regarding your camera and the RAW converter. Even photoshop CS doesn’t support my canon 20D RAW files as standard. I don’t know if there is a download or plugin for CS or whether an upgrade to CS2 is necessary. I should think the same issue is relevant in your choice of 3 or 4. If version3 supports your camera then i would go with that and spend your savings on ‘the hidden power of elements 3’.

The other main feature of v3 over v2 is that you have the healing brush as well as the clone stamp tool.

As to whether using paint shop pro7 is good enough that’s pretty much down to your personal needs and level of skill with that program. "corks" wrote in message

i currently have copy of elements 2 (not installed) and had been planning on getting a copy of elements 3 , when i noticed elements 4 was out – so i throught i’d get that – but i’ve seen a few reviews saying its not all that great – slow, resource hogg and some the new/auto features are that great.

so whats the opinion – from what i read elements 3 was an improvement on 3 , but 4 is less so

alernatively use i could use something else ????

have a copy of photshop 4 i think but its not installed and i think its perhaps overkill for what i need ??

ive been using paintshop pro 7 for a while ……good enuff ????
opinions or suggestions most appreciated

thanks

dave

ps apologies to anyone annoyed by cross-posting

There is a Raw plug in for CS for your 20D. Go to Adobe website.

"corks" wrote in message

i currently have copy of elements 2 (not installed) and had been planning on getting a copy of elements 3 , when i noticed elements 4 was out – so i throught i’d get that – but i’ve seen a few reviews saying its not all that great – slow, resource hogg and some the new/auto features are that great.

so whats the opinion – from what i read elements 3 was an improvement on 3 , but 4 is less so

alernatively use i could use something else ????

have a copy of photshop 4 i think but its not installed and i think its perhaps overkill for what i need ??

ive been using paintshop pro 7 for a while ……good enuff ????
opinions or suggestions most appreciated

thanks

dave

ps apologies to anyone annoyed by cross-posting

There is a Raw plug in for CS for your 20D. Go to Adobe website.

I’ve bought Elements 4 inc Premier 2 the expensive way from PC World for

"corks" wrote in message

How curious…
You use "nospam" in your Email address and spam the whole of Usenet with your message. Very bad Kama. You’ll get really bad reputation out of doing this. Convention says: Cross posting to more than 2 groups is spam.

On Tue, 17 Jan 2006 10:27:59 GMT, Roger Whitehead
claimed the following :

IMHO, 3 was a significant improvement on 2, whereas 4 is only a slight one on
3. Given the low price of 3 these days, I feel that will give you best value
for money of all Adobe’s products.

V4 (CD only) can be had on eBay for AUD75+…..

"Douglas" wrote in message

"corks" wrote in message

How curious…
You use "nospam" in your Email address and spam the whole of Usenet with your message. Very bad Kama. You’ll get really bad reputation out of doing this. Convention says: Cross posting to more than 2 groups is spam.

Ummm i wasnt sure on this, but figured the post was on topical to all newsgroup i posted, i apologised beforehand just in case, i didnt think anybody would be that anal about it and please sure me the law in a lawbook

Ummm i wasnt sure on this, but figured the post was on topical to all newsgroup i posted, i apologised beforehand just in case, i didnt think anybody would be that anal about it and please sure me the law in a lawbook

With an attitude like yours, you’ll go a long way *NOT*.

least im not a not a net-cop

"Douglas" wrote in message

Ummm i wasnt sure on this, but figured the post was on topical to all newsgroup i posted, i apologised beforehand just in case, i didnt think anybody would be that anal about it and please sure me the law in a lawbook

With an attitude like yours, you’ll go a long way *NOT*.

corks wrote:

least im not a not a net-cop

"Douglas" wrote in message

Ummm i wasnt sure on this, but figured the post was on topical to all newsgroup i posted, i apologised beforehand just in case, i didnt think anybody would be that anal about it and please sure me the law in a lawbook

With an attitude like yours, you’ll go a long way *NOT*.

in this same ideal warm and fuzzy world… people would only overtake in the right lane too !!!! 😉

"corks" wrote in message

least im not a not a net-cop

"Douglas" wrote in message

Ummm i wasnt sure on this, but figured the post was on topical to all newsgroup i posted, i apologised beforehand just in case, i didnt think anybody would be that anal about it and please sure me the law in a lawbook

With an attitude like yours, you’ll go a long way *NOT*.

We are witnessing 2 unarmed men in a battle of wits.

"Douglas" wrote in message

"corks" wrote in message

How curious…
You use "nospam" in your Email address and spam the whole of Usenet with your message. Very bad Kama. You’ll get really bad reputation out of doing this. Convention says: Cross posting to more than 2 groups is spam.

I thought spam is when you cross-post to many groups trying to sell or advertise something. This gentleman is asking a logical question which is on-topic with all the groups he’s crossposting. To me, that;s not spam – that’s trying to get as many suggestions as possible.

Steve

pt1028 wrote:

"Douglas" wrote in message

"corks" wrote in message

How curious…
You use "nospam" in your Email address and spam the whole of Usenet with your message. Very bad Kama. You’ll get really bad reputation out of doing this. Convention says: Cross posting to more than 2 groups is spam.

I thought spam is when you cross-post to many groups trying to sell or advertise something. This gentleman is asking a logical question which is on-topic with all the groups he’s crossposting. To me, that;s not spam – that’s trying to get as many suggestions as possible.

There are lots of ‘takes’ on what SPAM is. Pretty much what folks don’t want to see in their mailbox or newsgroup.

—
John McWilliams

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:

There are lots of ‘takes’ on what SPAM is. Pretty much what folks don’t want to see in their mailbox or newsgroup.

That is wrong. SPAM is unsoliticed advertising or a Hormel alternative to food that comes in a can.

—
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 —

I think… I think it’s in my basement… Let me go upstairs and check. — Escher

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:

There are lots of ‘takes’ on what SPAM is. Pretty much what folks don’t want to see in their mailbox or newsgroup.

That is wrong. SPAM is unsoliticed advertising or a Hormel alternative to food that comes in a can.

No, Thomas, it’s you who’s wrong on both counts. SPAM is both a food, beloved in some societies, and it can be flooding Newsgroups with rants, garbage, missions, etc. as well as advertising in Mail or News.

—
John McWilliams

On 02 Mar 2006 13:49:20 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote:

…or a Hormel alternative
to food that comes in a can.

ROTFL !!!

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:

That is wrong. SPAM is unsoliticed advertising or a Hormel alternative to food that comes in a can.

No, Thomas, it’s you who’s wrong on both counts. SPAM is both a food, beloved in some societies, and it can be flooding Newsgroups with rants, garbage, missions, etc. as well as advertising in Mail or News.

While you may not like rants, rants ARE not spam. If you don’t like rants, consider ammending a group charter if you don’t like it … or use your filters and killfiles appropriately. But redifining SPAM to suite your needs is crazy.

—
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 —

FORTUNE’S FUN FACTS TO KNOW AND TELL: #44
Zebra’s are colored with dark stripes on a light background.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:

That is wrong. SPAM is unsoliticed advertising or a Hormel alternative to food that comes in a can.

No, Thomas, it’s you who’s wrong on both counts. SPAM is both a food, beloved in some societies, and it can be flooding Newsgroups with rants, garbage, missions, etc. as well as advertising in Mail or News.

While you may not like rants, rants ARE not spam.

It most certainly can be: Original posts to many ng’s with nothing but ranting is SPAM in my book and that of many/some/lots/a few/ others. If you don’t like

rants, consider ammending a group charter if you don’t like it …

Surely you jest. Can you point out one single case, short of moderation, where group charter has modified what I referred to?
or

use your filters and killfiles appropriately. But redifining SPAM to suite your needs is crazy.

You needn’t worry nor pontificate on my usage of that suite of tools. Your limited definition of SPAM isn’t crazy, but it’s your definition.

But thanks for speaking on behalf of all of usenet!

—

John McWilliams

I know that you believe you understood what you think I said, but I’m not sure you realize that what you heard is not what I meant.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:

While you may not like rants, rants ARE not spam.

It most certainly can be: Original posts to many ng’s with nothing but ranting is SPAM in my book and that of many/some/lots/a few/ others.

That’s your book of which you are the author. The rest of the world does not define ranting as spam. You are conveniently labeling something that you find annoying as spam so that you have a perceived solid justification for attacking it. Instead, just indicate you are annoyed by it and attack on those grounds.

If you don’t like

rants, consider ammending a group charter if you don’t like it …

Surely you jest. Can you point out one single case, short of moderation, where group charter has modified what I referred to?

Yes. mn.general. Politics were banned. However, the charter forbids it, but enforcement is another issue which has not been the subject of this discussion up until now.

or

use your filters and killfiles appropriately. But redifining SPAM to suite your needs is crazy.

You needn’t worry nor pontificate on my usage of that suite of tools. Your limited definition of SPAM isn’t crazy, but it’s your definition.

That it is not.

How are these?

http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html
http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(e-mail)

It seems YOUR definition, which considers ranting as SPAM is YOUR PRIVATE definition.

But thanks for speaking on behalf of all of usenet!

I think the above links speak on behalf of all.

—
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 —

Q: Why is Christmas just like a day at the office?
A: You do all of the work and the fat guy in the suit
gets all the credit.

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams
wrote:

That is wrong. SPAM is unsoliticed advertising or a Hormel alternative to food that comes in a can.

No, Thomas, it’s you who’s wrong on both counts. SPAM is both a food,
beloved in some societies, and it can be flooding Newsgroups with rants, garbage, missions, etc. as well as advertising in Mail or News.

While you may not like rants, rants ARE not spam. If you don’t like rants, consider ammending a group charter if you don’t like it … or
use your filters and killfiles appropriately. But redifining SPAM to
suite your needs is crazy.

No more repulsive than redifining (sic) common language use, especially punctuation and spelling. (for e.g.zample, the radio announcer in a Southern capitol city who wanted us to visit a store where we were free to choose a bedroom soot)

There are as many definitions of SPAM as there are people who care. I seem to remember a definition from the International Society For Stabilization Of We Mean What We Say And Say What We Mean Rules that included the number of targets as part of the Basic SPAM description.

I’ll go along with the Hon. McW. to this extent: if I don’t want it in my inbox, it’s Spam; if i don’t want it and it’s for commerce unrelated to the theme, and it’s multi-targeted, it’s SPAM.

I don’t know much about SPAM, but I know it when I see it.

—
Frank ess
"All of philosophy consists of unlocking, exhuming, and recanting what’s been said before,
and then getting riled up about it."
—V.S. Ramachandran—

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:

While you may not like rants, rants ARE not spam.

It most certainly can be: Original posts to many ng’s with nothing but ranting is SPAM in my book and that of many/some/lots/a few/ others.

That’s your book of which you are the author. The rest of the world does not define ranting as spam. You are conveniently labeling something that you find annoying as spam so that you have a perceived solid justification for attacking it. Instead, just indicate you are annoyed by it and attack on those grounds.

You still don’t get it. I am not talking about someone ranting in a thread, or even in a cross posted thread like this one.

If you don’t like

rants, consider ammending a group charter if you don’t like it …

Surely you jest. Can you point out one single case, short of moderation, where group charter has modified what I referred to?

Yes. mn.general. Politics were banned. However, the charter forbids it, but enforcement is another issue which has not been the subject of this discussion up until now.

Then a reasonable person wouldn’t suggest an unworkable "solution" such as you threw out a few posts ago.

or

use your filters and killfiles appropriately. But redifining SPAM to suite your needs is crazy.

You needn’t worry nor pontificate on my usage of that suite of tools. Your limited definition of SPAM isn’t crazy, but it’s your definition.

How suite it is.

That it is not.

How are these?

http://www.spamhaus.org/definition.html
http://www.monkeys.com/spam-defined/
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Spam_(e-mail)

Very weak! Either dealing with just E-mail, or lacking in credentials to speak for usenet, as are you.

It seems YOUR definition, which considers ranting as SPAM is YOUR PRIVATE definition.

As above, you’ve narrowed what I said to a case that I don’t suggest is SPAM, and that’s ranting, as you are becoming close to doing.

But thanks for speaking on behalf of all of usenet!

I think the above links speak on behalf of all.

You are wrong; they don’t.

In case you haven’t noticed, no one, on any subject, speaks for "all the rest of usenet."

—
John McWilliams

Tom2000 wrote:

On 02 Mar 2006 13:49:20 GMT, "Thomas T. Veldhouse"
wrote:

…or a Hormel alternative
to food that comes in a can.

ROTFL !!!

It’s especially good wth the cheese-like, food-like, edible product, Velveeta.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:

In case you haven’t noticed, no one, on any subject, speaks for "all the rest of usenet."

Nothing speaks for "all the rest of USENET". Common netiquette is all we have. You DID label ranting as SPAM, and that is incorrect, it is just annoying. I have little left to offer you in this discussion.

—
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 —

Advancement in position.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Frank ess wrote:

I’ll go along with the Hon. McW. to this extent: if I don’t want it in my inbox, it’s Spam; if i don’t want it and it’s for commerce unrelated to the theme, and it’s multi-targeted, it’s SPAM.

I agree as far as INBOXes go. However, nobody owns an INBOX on USENET, so one can not claim anything is spam based upon filling "my INBOX" with anything. There are obvious incarnations of SPAM in USENET, but ranting is not one of them.

—
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 —

Advancement in position.

"Thomas T. Veldhouse" wrote in message

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Frank ess wrote:

I’ll go along with the Hon. McW. to this extent: if I don’t want it in my inbox, it’s Spam; if i don’t want it and it’s for commerce unrelated to the theme, and it’s multi-targeted, it’s SPAM.

I agree as far as INBOXes go. However, nobody owns an INBOX on USENET, so one can not claim anything is spam based upon filling "my INBOX" with anything. There are obvious incarnations of SPAM in USENET, but ranting is not one of them.

—
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 —

Advancement in position.

Quite right. This is Usenet. Nobody dies.

Bill

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

I have little left to offer you in this discussion.

Amen, brother, amen.

—
John McWilliams

"Um, his vocabulary, like, uh, really, ah……. sucked."

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:

That is wrong. SPAM is unsoliticed advertising or a Hormel alternative to food that comes in a can.

No, Thomas, it’s you who’s wrong on both counts. SPAM is both a food, beloved in some societies, and it can be flooding Newsgroups with rants, garbage, missions, etc. as well as advertising in Mail or News.

While you may not like rants, rants ARE not spam. If you don’t like rants, consider ammending a group charter if you don’t like it … or use your filters and killfiles appropriately. But redifining SPAM to suite your needs is crazy.

Everyone does. Spam is anything YOU don’t want to see. Until there is an accepted legal definition, everyone is entitled to make up his/her own.

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ron Hunter wrote:

Everyone does. Spam is anything YOU don’t want to see. Until there is an accepted legal definition, everyone is entitled to make up his/her own.

That is the most ludicrous statement that I have heard this week.

—
Thomas T. Veldhouse
Key Fingerprint: 2DB9 813F F510 82C2 E1AE 34D0 D69D 1EDC D5EC AED1 —

A pessimist is a man who has been compelled to live with an optimist. — Elbert Hubbard

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:27:10 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:

There are lots of ‘takes’ on what SPAM is. Pretty much what folks don’t want to see in their mailbox or newsgroup.

That is wrong. SPAM is unsoliticed advertising or a Hormel alternative to food that comes in a can.

No, Thomas, it’s you who’s wrong on both counts. SPAM is both a food, beloved in some societies, and it can be flooding Newsgroups with rants, garbage, missions, etc. as well as advertising in Mail or News.

I think you’re confusing trolling with SPAM. Posting a rant in a newsgroup with the express purpose of eliciting follow-up comments is trolling. Like the fishing practice of dangling bait to attract bites, trolling is an attempt to lure people into a discussion.

SPAM is not intended to elicit comments. It’s intended to sell something or get people to go to a link or website where something is offered.

The SPAMmer wants your money. The Troll wants your attention.

—

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems Ron Hunter wrote:

Everyone does. Spam is anything YOU don’t want to see. Until there is an accepted legal definition, everyone is entitled to make up his/her own.

That is the most ludicrous statement that I have heard this week.

Glad I could make your day.

Tony Cooper wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:27:10 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:

There are lots of ‘takes’ on what SPAM is. Pretty much what folks don’t want to see in their mailbox or newsgroup.

That is wrong. SPAM is unsoliticed advertising or a Hormel alternative to food that comes in a can.

No, Thomas, it’s you who’s wrong on both counts. SPAM is both a food, beloved in some societies, and it can be flooding Newsgroups with rants, garbage, missions, etc. as well as advertising in Mail or News.

I think you’re confusing trolling with SPAM. Posting a rant in a newsgroup with the express purpose of eliciting follow-up comments is trolling.

By your statement you exclude rants that are posted in bulk, de novo, in to multiple NGs whose main purpose is to spout off or annoy. Same omission as another poster.

SPAM is not intended to elicit comments. It’s intended to sell something or get people to go to a link or website where something is offered.

Your limited definition. Yes, I know, shared by many, estimated at 34%.

The SPAMmer wants your money. The Troll wants your attention.

Narrow; not innacurate as a generality, but excludes what others consider as also SPAM.

—
John McWilliams

On Sat, 04 Mar 2006 07:32:37 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Tony Cooper wrote:

On Thu, 02 Mar 2006 08:27:10 -0800, John McWilliams
wrote:

Thomas T. Veldhouse wrote:

In rec.photo.digital.slr-systems John McWilliams wrote:

There are lots of ‘takes’ on what SPAM is. Pretty much what folks don’t want to see in their mailbox or newsgroup.

That is wrong. SPAM is unsoliticed advertising or a Hormel alternative to food that comes in a can.

No, Thomas, it’s you who’s wrong on both counts. SPAM is both a food, beloved in some societies, and it can be flooding Newsgroups with rants, garbage, missions, etc. as well as advertising in Mail or News.

I think you’re confusing trolling with SPAM. Posting a rant in a newsgroup with the express purpose of eliciting follow-up comments is trolling.

By your statement you exclude rants that are posted in bulk, de novo, in to multiple NGs whose main purpose is to spout off or annoy. Same omission as another poster.

A troll is no more or no less a troll based on the volume of appearances. Some people post trolls to read the responses, and some post trolls without intent to read the responses. The latter group is just trolling because they can.

SPAM is not intended to elicit comments. It’s intended to sell something or get people to go to a link or website where something is offered.

Your limited definition. Yes, I know, shared by many, estimated at 34%.

Your cite of 34% is what I’d call a troll. It’s a fabricated figure inserted in your post for no other purpose than to elicit comment.

The SPAMmer wants your money. The Troll wants your attention.

Narrow; not innacurate as a generality, but excludes what others consider as also SPAM.

—

Tony Cooper
Orlando, FL