Camera Raw plug-ins

Zilla wrote:

I see 2 camera raw plug-ins iny PS CS3, one is v4.3.1
the other v4.4, after I manually updated. How come?

Because you didn’t follow instructions when updated?…

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

I did!

I removed the current ..\Camera.8bi file, and copied the latest one in the same folder – how simple can that be?

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Zilla wrote:

I see 2 camera raw plug-ins iny PS CS3, one is v4.3.1
the other v4.4, after I manually updated. How come?

Because you didn’t follow instructions when updated?…

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Sorry (typo), that was the Camera Raw.8bi.

"Zilla" wrote in message

I did!

I removed the current ..\Camera.8bi file, and copied the latest one in the same folder – how simple can that be?

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Zilla wrote:

I see 2 camera raw plug-ins iny PS CS3, one is v4.3.1
the other v4.4, after I manually updated. How come?

Because you didn’t follow instructions when updated?…

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Zilla wrote:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Zilla wrote:

I see 2 camera raw plug-ins iny PS CS3, one is v4.3.1
the other v4.4, after I manually updated. How come?

Because you didn’t follow instructions when updated?…

I did!

I removed the current ..\Camera.8bi file, and copied the latest one in the same folder – how simple can that be?

Please do not top post.

Perhaps you installed version 4.3.1 in the wrong place. Check your plugins folder to see if there is another version there. If so, remove it.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

Why shouldn’t I top post? I prefer it!

Camera Raw.8bi is in CS3’s …\Plug-ins\File Formats folder, and I only have one file with that name there. It’s no big deal, I was just curious why I see two versions. When I use the plug-in I do get version v4.4, the latest I just did install.

Thanks

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Zilla wrote:

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Zilla wrote:

I see 2 camera raw plug-ins iny PS CS3, one is v4.3.1
the other v4.4, after I manually updated. How come?

Because you didn’t follow instructions when updated?…

I did!

I removed the current ..\Camera.8bi file, and copied the latest one in the same folder – how simple can that be?

Please do not top post.

Perhaps you installed version 4.3.1 in the wrong place. Check your plugins folder to see if there is another version there. If so, remove it.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

"Zilla" wrote in message

Why shouldn’t I top post? I prefer it!

Because it interrupts the flow of the message.
Why shouldn’t one top-post?

"Zilla" wrote in message
….

Camera Raw.8bi is in CS3’s …\Plug-ins\File Formats folder, and I only have one file with that name there. It’s no big deal, I was just curious why I see two versions. When I use the plug-in I do get version v4.4, the latest I just did install.

It belongs under a folder called "Common Files", not in CS3’s plugin folder. This arrangement allows Photoshop and Bridge to access the same copy of ACR.

Having two versions visible may work, but it is not a good idea, since there may be other situations where the older, incorrect one is accessed. For example, if you happen to start Bridge, I’ll bet dollars to donuts Bridge will use the old version, causing confusion.

Run AcrChecker to see if you have multiple copies of the 8bi file installed and, as Johan suggests, delete the older ones. AcrChecker is a free download:
http://curvemeister.com/downloads/acrchecker/index.htm
—
Mike Russell – www.mike.russell-home.net

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

"Zilla" wrote in message
…

Camera Raw.8bi is in CS3’s …\Plug-ins\File Formats folder, and I only have one file with that name there. It’s no big deal, I was just curious why I see two versions. When I use the plug-in I do get version v4.4, the latest I just did install.

It belongs under a folder called "Common Files", not in CS3’s plugin folder. This arrangement allows Photoshop and Bridge to access the same copy of ACR.

Having two versions visible may work, but it is not a good idea, since there may be other situations where the older, incorrect one is accessed. For example, if you happen to start Bridge, I’ll bet dollars to donuts Bridge will use the old version, causing confusion.

Run AcrChecker to see if you have multiple copies of the 8bi file installed and, as Johan suggests, delete the older ones. AcrChecker is a free download:
http://curvemeister.com/downloads/acrchecker/index.htm
—
Mike Russell – www.mike.russell-home.net

Acrchecker still does not find ANY copy of Camera Raw on my computer. (CS3.) Camera Raw.8bi is located in F:\program files\common
files\adobe\plug-ins\cs3\file formats on my computer, right where the installer put it and right where bridge and Photoshop can access it. Yes, I just downloaded acrchecker again.

Rudy

Thanks!

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

"Zilla" wrote in message
…

Camera Raw.8bi is in CS3’s …\Plug-ins\File Formats folder, and I only have one file with that name there. It’s no big deal, I was just curious why I see two versions. When I use the plug-in I do get version v4.4, the latest I just did install.

It belongs under a folder called "Common Files", not in CS3’s plugin folder. This arrangement allows Photoshop and Bridge to access the same copy of ACR.

Having two versions visible may work, but it is not a good idea, since there may be other situations where the older, incorrect one is accessed. For example, if you happen to start Bridge, I’ll bet dollars to donuts Bridge will use the old version, causing confusion.

Run AcrChecker to see if you have multiple copies of the 8bi file installed and, as Johan suggests, delete the older ones. AcrChecker is a free download:
http://curvemeister.com/downloads/acrchecker/index.htm
—
Mike Russell – www.mike.russell-home.net

"Rudy Benner" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

"Zilla" wrote in message
…

Camera Raw.8bi is in CS3’s …\Plug-ins\File Formats folder, and I only have one file with that name there. It’s no big deal, I was just curious why I see two versions. When I use the plug-in I do get version v4.4, the latest I just did install.

It belongs under a folder called "Common Files", not in CS3’s plugin folder. This arrangement allows Photoshop and Bridge to access the same copy of ACR.

Having two versions visible may work, but it is not a good idea, since there may be other situations where the older, incorrect one is accessed. For example, if you happen to start Bridge, I’ll bet dollars to donuts Bridge will use the old version, causing confusion.

Run AcrChecker to see if you have multiple copies of the 8bi file installed and, as Johan suggests, delete the older ones. AcrChecker is a free download:
http://curvemeister.com/downloads/acrchecker/index.htm
—
Mike Russell – www.mike.russell-home.net

Acrchecker still does not find ANY copy of Camera Raw on my computer. (CS3.)
Camera Raw.8bi is located in F:\program files\common
files\adobe\plug-ins\cs3\file formats on my computer, right where the installer put it and right where bridge and Photoshop can access it. Yes, I just downloaded acrchecker again.

Hi Rudy,

AcrChecker needs an update, though generally the problem is that it will scan the same folder more than once for some situations with CS3. I was not aware (or if I was, I have forgotten!) that there was a situation where it missed ACR entirely. If you could email me the output from your run, I’d appreciate it.

Mike

Rudy – just a quick follow-up, I found your original email referring to this problem, and will let you know when the new AcrChecker is available.

Thanks for reminding me.

Mike

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

"Rudy Benner" wrote in message

"Mike Russell" wrote in message

"Zilla" wrote in message
…

Camera Raw.8bi is in CS3’s …\Plug-ins\File Formats folder, and I only have one file with that name there. It’s no big deal, I was just curious why I see two versions. When I use the plug-in I do get version v4.4, the latest I just did install.

It belongs under a folder called "Common Files", not in CS3’s plugin folder. This arrangement allows Photoshop and Bridge to access the same copy of ACR.

Having two versions visible may work, but it is not a good idea, since there may be other situations where the older, incorrect one is accessed. For example, if you happen to start Bridge, I’ll bet dollars to donuts Bridge will use the old version, causing confusion.
Run AcrChecker to see if you have multiple copies of the 8bi file installed and, as Johan suggests, delete the older ones. AcrChecker is a free download:
http://curvemeister.com/downloads/acrchecker/index.htm
—
Mike Russell – www.mike.russell-home.net

Acrchecker still does not find ANY copy of Camera Raw on my computer. (CS3.)
Camera Raw.8bi is located in F:\program files\common
files\adobe\plug-ins\cs3\file formats on my computer, right where the installer put it and right where bridge and Photoshop can access it. Yes, I just downloaded acrchecker again.

Hi Rudy,

AcrChecker needs an update, though generally the problem is that it will scan the same folder more than once for some situations with CS3. I was not aware (or if I was, I have forgotten!) that there was a situation where it missed ACR entirely. If you could email me the output from your run, I’d appreciate it.

Mike

Done. It finds all the other plugin files.

Zilla wrote:

Why shouldn’t I top post? I prefer it!

Because it’s stupid to read an answer before you’ve read the question Why shouldn’t I toppost?

Remember that you are not the only person on Usenet. The reason to quote in the first place, is to make the discussion readable for everyone, also those people who may not have read the previous post yet.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 20:33:53 -0400, "Zilla"
wrote:

Why shouldn’t I top post? I prefer it!

bloody stupid question for somebody hard up for an answer on a question. Why shouldn’t you top post? Because you can be ignored if you do. As simple as that:-(

Dave

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 20:33:53 -0400, "Zilla"
wrote:

Why shouldn’t I top post? I prefer it!

—
A: Yes.
Q: Does that happen with short messages too?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?

Still alive and not paying higher taxes because someone top-posted?

Windows Mail, which I use to read news groups, puts the response on top.

I stagger the posts so they look this way in the headers panel Original post
Re: response1
Re: response2

So when I read the posts, I read the original post first, scroll down to the Re: response1, then Re: response2, etc. If response1 and response2 were bottom-posted, I’d have to move my cursor to the message panel, scroll down, read response1, then go back to the header panel, click response2, go to the message panel, scroll down, then read response2.

With top-posts, I just leave my cursor in the header section, and keep scrolling down to read the responses.

I know, Windows Mail may suck, and I’ve used other mail/news apps in other PCs, but for MS Vista, I just want to leave the PC alone

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Zilla wrote:

Why shouldn’t I top post? I prefer it!

Because it’s stupid to read an answer before you’ve read the question Why shouldn’t I toppost?

Remember that you are not the only person on Usenet. The reason to quote in the first place, is to make the discussion readable for everyone, also those people who may not have read the previous post yet.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

"Zilla" wrote in message

Still alive and not paying higher taxes because someone top-posted?
Windows Mail, which I use to read news groups, puts the response on top.

I stagger the posts so they look this way in the headers panel Original post
Re: response1
Re: response2

so you DEFEND YOUR RUDENESS?? AND TELL US YOU INTEND TO BE RUDE IN THE FUTURE.. AFTER HAVING BEEN REPEATEDLY ASKED NOT TO TOP POST, whatever prog you use have SCROLL

HOMEY DON’T PLAY DAT
you are
PLONKED

So when I read the posts, I read the original post first, scroll down to the Re: response1, then Re: response2, etc. If response1 and response2 were bottom-posted, I’d have to move my cursor to the message panel, scroll down, read response1, then go back to the header panel, click response2, go to the message panel, scroll down, then read response2.
With top-posts, I just leave my cursor in the header section, and keep scrolling down to read the responses.

I know, Windows Mail may suck, and I’ve used other mail/news apps in other PCs, but for MS Vista, I just want to leave the PC alone
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Zilla wrote:

Why shouldn’t I top post? I prefer it!

Because it’s stupid to read an answer before you’ve read the question Why shouldn’t I toppost?

Remember that you are not the only person on Usenet. The reason to quote in the first place, is to make the discussion readable for everyone, also those people who may not have read the previous post yet.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

On Thu, 10 Apr 2008 15:25:35 -0400, "KatWoman" wrote:

"Zilla" wrote in message

Still alive and not paying higher taxes because someone top-posted?

so you DEFEND YOUR RUDENESS?? AND TELL US YOU INTEND TO BE RUDE IN THE FUTURE.. AFTER HAVING BEEN REPEATEDLY ASKED NOT TO TOP POST, whatever prog you use have SCROLL

HOMEY DON’T PLAY DAT
you are
PLONKED

You’ve been warned, twit. Go beg another group for advice.

Dave

What’s rude is people that think they are etiquette police and have to but their big nose in to everyone’s business and then they have the right to tell others what is right and what is wrong. That is rude. If you don’t like top posting here is an idea. Don’t read the fucking posts.

Like there is any smart enough of this shit hole group that is capable of giving useful advice.

"Caesar Romano" wrote in message

On Sun, 6 Apr 2008 20:33:53 -0400, "Zilla"
wrote:

Why shouldn’t I top post? I prefer it!

—
A: Yes.
Q: Does that happen with short messages too?
A: Because it messes up the order in which people normally read text. Q: Why is it such a bad thing?
A: Top-posting.
Q: What is the most annoying thing on Usenet and in e-mail?

Caesar
You’ve just given the perfect reason not to bottom post – you left out all the previous replies. If I had only clicked on your reply I would have no way of knowing the reason for the original post let alone how people responded.
Look and learn from people like Mike Russell and Katwoman. They leave most of the previous replies off their response so you don’t have to scroll forever for the reply.
Which is the opposite of what you espouse.
Why take the risk that by clicking on any reply along the postings you are going to see all the replies.
How many people reading this post didn’t start from the first post and work their way down the entire tree?
I always read all the posts in order of their posting so I am sure not to miss something. Top posting certainly lets you miss all the replies you have already read but the main reason you should bottom post in this newsgroup is because the
people who reply most with helpful information (eg Katwoman, Dave etc) would prefer it for whatever reason. Personally a reply is a reply so long as it is easy to find.
Thank goodness emails aren’t treated this way. Bottom posting emails would be the ultimate nightmare – or perhaps you do that as well 🙂 L&L

I like the top posting. Either that or maybe we can delete posts that are a month old. Since I’ve already read them, don’t see scrolling throw 20 paragraphs of stuff just to read about someone’s car photos. Just a thought, not complaining

—

Dave Jones
The VideoGuy

"Zilla" wrote in message

Still alive and not paying higher taxes because someone top-posted?
Windows Mail, which I use to read news groups, puts the response on top.

I stagger the posts so they look this way in the headers panel Original post
Re: response1
Re: response2

So when I read the posts, I read the original post first, scroll down to the Re: response1, then Re: response2, etc. If response1 and response2 were bottom-posted, I’d have to move my cursor to the message panel, scroll down, read response1, then go back to the header panel, click response2, go to the message panel, scroll down, then read response2.
With top-posts, I just leave my cursor in the header section, and keep scrolling down to read the responses.

I know, Windows Mail may suck, and I’ve used other mail/news apps in other PCs, but for MS Vista, I just want to leave the PC alone
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Zilla wrote:

Why shouldn’t I top post? I prefer it!

Because it’s stupid to read an answer before you’ve read the question Why shouldn’t I toppost?

Remember that you are not the only person on Usenet. The reason to quote in the first place, is to make the discussion readable for everyone, also those people who may not have read the previous post yet.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

I like the top posting. Either that or maybe we can delete posts that are a month old. Since I’ve already read them, don’t see scrolling throw 20 paragraphs of stuff just to read about someone’s car photos. Just a thought, not complaining

—

Dave Jones
The VideoGuy

"Zilla" wrote in message

Still alive and not paying higher taxes because someone top-posted?
Windows Mail, which I use to read news groups, puts the response on top.

I stagger the posts so they look this way in the headers panel Original post
Re: response1
Re: response2

So when I read the posts, I read the original post first, scroll down to the Re: response1, then Re: response2, etc. If response1 and response2 were bottom-posted, I’d have to move my cursor to the message panel, scroll down, read response1, then go back to the header panel, click response2, go to the message panel, scroll down, then read response2.
With top-posts, I just leave my cursor in the header section, and keep scrolling down to read the responses.

I know, Windows Mail may suck, and I’ve used other mail/news apps in other PCs, but for MS Vista, I just want to leave the PC alone
"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

Zilla wrote:

Why shouldn’t I top post? I prefer it!

Because it’s stupid to read an answer before you’ve read the question Why shouldn’t I toppost?

Remember that you are not the only person on Usenet. The reason to quote in the first place, is to make the discussion readable for everyone, also those people who may not have read the previous post yet.

—
Johan W. Elzenga johan<<at>>johanfoto.nl Editor / Photographer http://www.johanfoto.com

On Sat, 12 Apr 2008 14:21:34 -0500, "Dave" wrote:

I like the top posting. Either that or maybe we can delete posts that are a month old. Since I’ve already read them, don’t see scrolling throw 20 paragraphs of stuff just to read about someone’s car photos. Just a thought, not complaining

Do you stammer? Why repeating the same bullshit twice?
If you "like the top posting", nobody can stop you, of course. But, if you want problems solved, you’ll simply be ignored by the most of the experts here. Make your own choice.

Dave