photoshop quiz

On 1/11/06 4:33 PM, woods commented:

if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well.

And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING!

http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php

Before I try it, how much of it is about versions higher than 6?

"iehsmith" wrote in message
| On 1/11/06 4:33 PM, woods commented:
|
| > if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well. | >
| > And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING! | >
| > http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php
|
|
| Before I try it, how much of it is about versions higher than 6? |

There’s at least a few CS2 *specific* questions, so I’d say most of it.

I didn’t do so well, but then, I don’t deal with alot of the issues in the questions (the quiz is much more photography oriented).

In article <5Bjxf.400$>,
"fungusamungus" wrote:

"iehsmith" wrote in message
| On 1/11/06 4:33 PM, woods commented:
|
| > if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well. | >
| > And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING! | >
| > http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php
|
|
| Before I try it, how much of it is about versions higher than 6? |

There’s at least a few CS2 *specific* questions, so I’d say most of it.
I didn’t do so well, but then, I don’t deal with alot of the issues in the questions (the quiz is much more photography oriented).

that’s a far assessment.

there’s a few RAW file questions that i had to guess.

woods wrote:

if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well.

And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING!

http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php

I eat and sleep PhotoShop CS2 and I got 45%! Eep!

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2006
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:29:50 +0000, SpaceGirl
found these unused words floating about:

woods wrote:

if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well.

And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING!

http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php

I eat and sleep PhotoShop CS2 and I got 45%! Eep!

Gee, even staying with the old and cranky 5.5 – I got 40%; mostly missed the peculiarities of CS, drops, working bar, etc..

J. A. Mc. wrote:

On Fri, 13 Jan 2006 23:29:50 +0000, SpaceGirl
found these unused words floating about:

woods wrote:

if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well.

And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING!

http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php

I eat and sleep PhotoShop CS2 and I got 45%! Eep!

Gee, even staying with the old and cranky 5.5 – I got 40%; mostly missed the peculiarities of CS, drops, working bar, etc..

I dont really do much colour correction and that sort of thing!

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2006
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

I eat and sleep PhotoShop CS2 and I got 45%! Eep!

I got 15 right . . . the camera RAW questions really threw me. How many people really use that format anyway??

I do alot of photo-editing and color correction – but really, I got mostly quick-key questions . . . are the questions different each time?

—
Constance Pierce
principal/designer

"you can’t polish a turd."

On 1/11/06 8:58 PM, fungusamungus commented:

"iehsmith" wrote in message
| On 1/11/06 4:33 PM, woods commented:
|
| > if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well. | >
| > And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING! | >
| > http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php
|
|
| Before I try it, how much of it is about versions higher than 6? |

There’s at least a few CS2 *specific* questions, so I’d say most of it.
I didn’t do so well, but then, I don’t deal with alot of the issues in the questions (the quiz is much more photography oriented).

Well, I gave it a shot anyway, but I must have usd ESP;)

Time spent: 13 min. 38 sec.
Score: 14 / 20 (70%)
Grade: Intermediate

I’m a good guesser,
inez

On 1/13/06 10:50 PM, Constance Pierce commented:

In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

I eat and sleep PhotoShop CS2 and I got 45%! Eep!

I got 15 right . . . the camera RAW questions really threw me. How many people really use that format anyway??

I do alot of photo-editing and color correction – but really, I got mostly quick-key questions . . . are the questions different each time?

Yeah, I don’t have a digital and don’t receive RAW files. I missed 3 RAW question, 1 question I should have gotten but couldn’t remember (a 50/50 toss up), one about the healing tool (I’m still using 6.0.2), and one I guessed wrong on thinking it might be different in a higher version (Bicubic/Bicubic Smoother).

Oh well, NAPP, I’m self-taught and still learning my antique version;)

inez

"iehsmith" wrote in message

| > http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php

Well, I gave it a shot anyway, but I must have usd ESP;)
Time spent: 13 min. 38 sec.
Score: 14 / 20 (70%)
Grade: Intermediate

I’m a good guesser,

Are you kidding? There’s nothing wrong with your score. I did it in a little less time, and got 60 percent.

It’s a fun quiz, and I like the way you can see the correct answers at the end.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Constance Pierce wrote:

In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

I eat and sleep PhotoShop CS2 and I got 45%! Eep!

I got 15 right . . . the camera RAW questions really threw me. How many people really use that format anyway??

I do alot of photo-editing and color correction – but really, I got mostly quick-key questions . . . are the questions different each time?

Lots I imagine. I do. Most of the photographers I know shoot in raw (when not using traditional film).

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2006
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

Constance Pierce wrote:

In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

I eat and sleep PhotoShop CS2 and I got 45%! Eep!

I got 15 right . . . the camera RAW questions really threw me. How many people really use that format anyway??

I don’t use anything else.

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

woods wrote:

if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well.

And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING!

http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php

80% in about 7 minutes.

Don’t know jack about RAW.

—
Comic book sketches and artwork:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/edjh.html
Comics art for sale:
http://www.sover.net/~hannigan/batsale.html

In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

I do alot of photo-editing and color correction – but really, I got mostly quick-key questions . . . are the questions different each time?

Lots I imagine. I do. Most of the photographers I know shoot in raw (when not using traditional film).

Yeah, but from what I understand, PS’s support of RAW is fairly new (at least Adobe’s been saying that it is – was one of CS2’s selling points – "Now with RAW support!"). And I know cameras capable of RAW are priced (low-end) from $1K + . . . so I guess I meant how many people here at ADG are receiving RAW formats?

Most of the other questions were fairly universal, but as someone who never receives RAW formats, I was completely unprepared for the ?s on it.

The hardest part for me was remembering the quick-keys – I use them all the time, but if you asked me what was the QK for such-and-such and I’ve have to DO it – I coudn’t just tell you what it was . . .

All in all, I’m proud of the score I got – I thought it was going to be waaaay lower than that. I was guessing as I did it, that I’d end up with a score of 5 or something. ( :

—
Constance Pierce
principal/designer

On 1/14/06 11:49 AM, Constance Pierce commented:

Yeah, but from what I understand, PS’s support of RAW is fairly new (at least Adobe’s been saying that it is – was one of CS2’s selling points – "Now with RAW support!"). And I know cameras capable of RAW are priced (low-end) from $1K + . . . so I guess I meant how many people here at ADG are receiving RAW formats?

I bet if I were still at the newspaper I’d be getting tons of these for both ads and PR because people don’t want to pay a photographer. I can imagine the headaches. Ouch!… I can imagine some auto dealer ads! But, the last time I had to do cars I had to download jpegs from a web site, so… This is by no means the worst of them, just an example I saved for some discussion on a list: imagessence.com/imageviewer/examplephoto.jpg. Might well have been better to work with the RAW file, but I don’t know since I haven’t done it.

All in all, I’m proud of the score I got – I thought it was going to be waaaay lower than that. I was guessing as I did it, that I’d end up with a score of 5 or something. ( :

ditto for me.

That was a nasty screenshot of the transform bar, huh?! Plus I still use PS
6.0.1 in OS 9.2.2, but I ‘guessed’ right. Jeez! :¬\

I do wish I could take advantage of a NAPP membership though.

inez

In article <BFEEAA2C.45961%>, iehsmith
wrote:

I bet if I were still at the newspaper I’d be getting tons of these for both ads and PR because people don’t want to pay a photographer. I can imagine the headaches. Ouch!… I can imagine some auto dealer ads! But, the last time I had to do cars I had to download jpegs from a web site, so… This is by no means the worst of them, just an example I saved for some discussion on a list: imagessence.com/imageviewer/examplephoto.jpg. Might well have been better to work with the RAW file, but I don’t know since I haven’t done it.

I do wish I could take advantage of a NAPP membership though.
inez

I know that some of us here probabaly get RAW formats, but I personally, have never seen one. My formats are usually JPG, TIFF and PSD and the ocassional PDF. RAW is like some sort of exotic animal to me and my clients.

When I do ads, I’m lucky (honestly) if I get 300ppi . . . usually it’s an image that needs to print at 5×7 and is only an inch square, 150 ppi .. . . and more often than that an image that’s been scanned (poorly) from an image that has fingerprints and boogers on it! LOL.

The funniest thing, though, is that’s usually from those who are spending a near mint on the design. No one seems to understand the phrase "garbage in, garbage out" . . . and sometimes it seems that the higher paying clients understand it less than the rest!

Connie

—
Constance Pierce
principal/designer

Constance Pierce wrote:

I know that some of us here probabaly get RAW formats, but I personally, have never seen one. My formats are usually JPG, TIFF and PSD and the ocassional PDF. RAW is like some sort of exotic animal to me and my clients.

When I do ads, I’m lucky (honestly) if I get 300ppi . . . usually it’s an image that needs to print at 5×7 and is only an inch square, 150 ppi . . . and more often than that an image that’s been scanned (poorly) from an image that has fingerprints and boogers on it! LOL.
The funniest thing, though, is that’s usually from those who are spending a near mint on the design. No one seems to understand the phrase "garbage in, garbage out" . . . and sometimes it seems that the higher paying clients understand it less than the rest!

Connie

I dont know any digital cams that save TIFF or PSD. Generally you have RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless. You dont use RAW for production work – RAW is just a copy of exactly what a digital camera "sees" along with some EXIF data (which contains all your camera’s settings, exposure, speed etc). Once you open a RAW file in PhotoShop CS2 you get a special window that reads the EXIF data. PhotoShop "understands" this file and adjusts the image for display and lets you do lots of adjustment before actually getting into PhotoShop proper. After that you can treat the image like any other image inside PhotoShop – you save the file as a regular PSD. RAW, by its very nature, cannot contain anything other than image data – no layers, masks, text – just the data the camera captured on its CCD.

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2006
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

SpaceGirl wrote:

I dont know any digital cams that save TIFF or PSD. Generally you have RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless. You dont use RAW for production work – RAW is just a copy of exactly what a digital camera "sees" along with some EXIF data (which contains all your camera’s settings, exposure, speed etc). Once you open a RAW file in PhotoShop CS2 you get a special window that reads the EXIF data. PhotoShop "understands" this file and adjusts the image for display and lets you do lots of adjustment before actually getting into PhotoShop proper.

That couldn’t be further from the truth. Photoshop only reads the white balance data, and sets the intitial white balance as such. Any other data in the EXIF headers about camera settings are ignored. It’s *you* who have to do the work, and that is exactly why so many professional photographers like to use RAW. We don’t want our camera or photoshop to decide for us, we want to decide how the image should look.

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

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

I dont know any digital cams that save TIFF or PSD. Generally you have RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless. You dont use RAW for production work – RAW is just a copy of exactly what a digital camera "sees" along with some EXIF data (which contains all your camera’s settings, exposure, speed etc). Once you open a RAW file in PhotoShop CS2 you get a special window that reads the EXIF data. PhotoShop "understands" this file and adjusts the image for display and lets you do lots of adjustment before actually getting into PhotoShop proper.

That couldn’t be further from the truth. Photoshop only reads the white balance data, and sets the intitial white balance as such. Any other

Which means I was half right, rather than "further from the truth". I’m not sure the process PS does.

data in the EXIF headers about camera settings are ignored. It’s *you* who have to do the work, and that is exactly why so many professional photographers like to use RAW. We don’t want our camera or photoshop to decide for us, we want to decide how the image should look.

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2006
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

SpaceGirl wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

I dont know any digital cams that save TIFF or PSD. Generally you have RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless. You dont use RAW for production work – RAW is just a copy of exactly what a digital camera "sees" along with some EXIF data (which contains all your camera’s settings, exposure, speed etc). Once you open a RAW file in PhotoShop CS2 you get a special window that reads the EXIF data. PhotoShop "understands" this file and adjusts the image for display and lets you do lots of adjustment before actually getting into PhotoShop proper.

That couldn’t be further from the truth. Photoshop only reads the white balance data, and sets the intitial white balance as such. Any other data in the EXIF headers about camera settings are ignored. It’s *you* who have to do the work, and that is exactly why so many professional photographers like to use RAW. We don’t want our camera or photoshop to decide for us, we want to decide how the image should look.

Which means I was half right, rather than "further from the truth". I’m not sure the process PS does.

Not by half a mile. You suggested that Photoshop reads the EXIF data and "understands" this and adjusts the image. The whole purpose of using RAW is that Photoshop does *NOT* adjust the image. You do.

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

In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

I dont know any digital cams that save TIFF or PSD.

I know . . . I was only talking about the formats I see most often from clients – not implying that I know of any cameras that save to TIFF or PSD.

Generally you have
RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless. You dont use RAW for production work – RAW is just a copy of exactly what a digital camera "sees" along with some EXIF data (which contains all your camera’s settings, exposure, speed etc). Once you open a RAW file in PhotoShop CS2 you get a special window that reads the EXIF data. PhotoShop "understands" this file and adjusts the image for display and lets you do lots of adjustment before actually getting into PhotoShop proper. After that you can treat the image like any other image inside PhotoShop – you save the file as a regular PSD. RAW, by its very nature, cannot contain anything other than image data – no layers, masks, text – just the data the camera captured on its CCD.

No, I knew all that – again, I was just giving an example of the formats I routinely get from clients . . . I do three fairly big magazines and each of them receive JPGs (even though they’re using, from what I understand, digital SLRs) from their photogs. I was just saying that I’ve never (despite my continued requests) gotten any images in RAW format.

I’d really like to play with RAW, but I’ve not come across it in my real world workaday life. I think it would be pretty interesting to take for a test drive! ( :

—
Constance Pierce
principal/designer

Mike Russell wrote:

"iehsmith" wrote in message

| > http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php

Well, I gave it a shot anyway, but I must have usd ESP;)
Time spent: 13 min. 38 sec.
Score: 14 / 20 (70%)
Grade: Intermediate

I’m a good guesser,

Are you kidding? There’s nothing wrong with your score. I did it in a little less time, and got 60 percent.

It’s a fun quiz, and I like the way you can see the correct answers at the end.

Oh really, well I feel a lot better now then. I am new to Photoshop really, I have always used ‘alternative’ software. My results were as follows:

Time spent: 9 min. 36 sec.
Score: 12 / 20 (60%)
Grade: Intermediate

Give me a few months and I reckon I will be right up there 🙂

Regards,
Brian.

SpaceGirl wrote:

woods wrote:

if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well.

And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING!

http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php

I eat and sleep PhotoShop CS2 and I got 45%! Eep!

You know what it is Spacegirl? You do things in PS instinctively without actually taking any notice of what you are clicking or selecting. Put on the spot and asked a question, you probably got wrong some of the things you would do correctly in PS if you were sitting there working.

Brian.

Constance Pierce wrote:

Generally you have
RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless. You dont use RAW for production work – RAW is just a copy of exactly what a digital camera "sees" along with some EXIF data (which contains all your camera’s settings, exposure, speed etc). Once you open a RAW file in PhotoShop CS2 you get a special window that reads the EXIF data. PhotoShop "understands" this file and adjusts the image for display and lets you do lots of adjustment before actually getting into PhotoShop proper. After that you can treat the image like any other image inside PhotoShop – you save the file as a regular PSD. RAW, by its very nature, cannot contain anything other than image data – no layers, masks, text – just the data the camera captured on its CCD.

No, I knew all that – again, I was just giving an example of the formats I routinely get from clients . . . I do three fairly big magazines and each of them receive JPGs (even though they’re using, from what I understand, digital SLRs) from their photogs. I was just saying that I’ve never (despite my continued requests) gotten any images in RAW format.

That is only logical. RAW is the ‘digital negative’ that still needs to be ‘developed’. Just like in the old days, the photographer does his own developing, dodging, burning and sends you the final result. I shoot everything in RAW, but I would never send a RAW file to a client, even if he asks for it.

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

"Johan W. Elzenga" wrote in message

….

That is only logical. RAW is the ‘digital negative’ that still needs to be ‘developed’. Just like in the old days, the photographer does his own developing, dodging, burning and sends you the final result. I shoot everything in RAW, but I would never send a RAW file to a client, even if he asks for it.

This is an accurate analogy. Handing a raw file to a service bureau is very risky because you are surrendering too much control. Not everyone even uses the same raw converter software, and the end result can be very different depending on which converter is used.
—

Mike Russell
www.curvemeister.com

Brian wrote:

You know what it is Spacegirl? You do things in PS instinctively without actually taking any notice of what you are clicking or selecting. Put on the spot and asked a question, you probably got wrong some of the things you would do correctly in PS if you were sitting there working.
Brian.

I think so. It’s like telling someone how to do something on the computer over the phone. 😐

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2006
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

On Sun, 15 Jan 2006 01:05:52 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

Johan W. Elzenga wrote:

SpaceGirl wrote:

I dont know any digital cams that save TIFF or PSD. Generally you have RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless. You dont use RAW for production work – RAW is just a copy of exactly what a digital camera "sees" along with some EXIF data (which contains all your camera’s settings, exposure, speed etc). Once you open a RAW file in PhotoShop CS2 you get a special window that reads the EXIF data. PhotoShop "understands" this file and adjusts the image for display and lets you do lots of adjustment before actually getting into PhotoShop proper.

That couldn’t be further from the truth. Photoshop only reads the white balance data, and sets the intitial white balance as such. Any other data in the EXIF headers about camera settings are ignored. It’s *you* who have to do the work, and that is exactly why so many professional photographers like to use RAW. We don’t want our camera or photoshop to decide for us, we want to decide how the image should look.

Which means I was half right, rather than "further from the truth". I’m not sure the process PS does.

Not by half a mile. You suggested that Photoshop reads the EXIF data and "understands" this and adjusts the image. The whole purpose of using RAW is that Photoshop does *NOT* adjust the image. You do.

Also, this part of what she said was wrong too:
"Generally you have RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless."

There are lossless forms of JPEG encoding.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

On Sat, 14 Jan 2006 15:34:52 +0100, (Johan W.
Elzenga) wrote:

Constance Pierce wrote:

In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

I eat and sleep PhotoShop CS2 and I got 45%! Eep!

I got 15 right . . . the camera RAW questions really threw me. How many people really use that format anyway??

I don’t use anything else.

….dum, dum, dum, dum, dum, dum…oh sorry, carry on.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:33:50 +1100, woods wrote:

if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well.

And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING!

http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php

When I click the "Get Started" button…nothing happens. It just sits there forever trying to load:
http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/register.php

*shrugs*

Given the "graphic design" presented on that site though I can’t imagine that their lil test means much. It’s sorta like, yeah, you can memorize the entire encyclopedia…but that doesn’t make you intelligent or creative, it just makes you a walking encyclopedia of someone else’s knowledge and understanding. I’m sure the people who made that test memorized their favorite lil Photoshop reference manual, but that and 50 cents won’t get them much more than a few ass raped filters in their default settings.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

"Constance Pierce" wrote in message

In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

I dont know any digital cams that save TIFF or PSD.

I know . . . I was only talking about the formats I see most often from clients – not implying that I know of any cameras that save to TIFF or PSD.

Generally you have
RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless. You dont use RAW for production work – RAW is just a copy of exactly what a digital camera "sees" along with some EXIF data (which contains all your camera’s settings, exposure, speed etc). Once you open a RAW file in PhotoShop CS2 you get a special window that reads the EXIF data. PhotoShop "understands" this file and adjusts the image for display and lets you do lots of adjustment before actually getting into PhotoShop proper. After that you can treat the image like any other image inside PhotoShop – you save the file as a regular PSD. RAW, by its very nature, cannot contain anything other than image data – no layers, masks, text – just the data the camera captured on its CCD.

No, I knew all that – again, I was just giving an example of the formats I routinely get from clients . . . I do three fairly big magazines and each of them receive JPGs (even though they’re using, from what I understand, digital SLRs) from their photogs. I was just saying that I’ve never (despite my continued requests) gotten any images in RAW format.

I’d really like to play with RAW, but I’ve not come across it in my real world workaday life. I think it would be pretty interesting to take for a test drive! ( :

—
Constance Pierce
principal/designer

well if you are the AD we Don’t want you to see the RAW photos!! we want you to see them how we want to present them, properly exposed and what we intended.
So many times I have given photos "as is" downloaded jpg straight in AD comps and gotten awful looking repros because they don’t understand photography. They are good at layout and design, so many have no clue about levels and curves etc.
We can send you some RAW to play with?

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:33:50 +1100, woods wrote:

if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well.

And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING!

http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php

When I click the "Get Started" button…nothing happens. It just sits there forever trying to load:
http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/register.php

*shrugs*

Given the "graphic design" presented on that site though I can’t imagine that their lil test means much. It’s sorta like, yeah, you can memorize the entire encyclopedia…but that doesn’t make you intelligent or creative, it just makes you a walking encyclopedia of someone else’s knowledge and understanding. I’m sure the people who made that test memorized their favorite lil Photoshop reference manual, but that and 50 cents won’t get them much more than a few ass raped filters in their default settings.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:33:50 +1100, woods wrote:

if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well.

And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING!

http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php

When I click the "Get Started" button…nothing happens. It just sits there forever trying to load:
http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/register.php

*shrugs*

Given the "graphic design" presented on that site though I can’t imagine that their lil test means much. It’s sorta like, yeah, you can memorize the entire encyclopedia…but that doesn’t make you intelligent or creative, it just makes you a walking encyclopedia of someone else’s knowledge and understanding. I’m sure the people who made that test memorized their favorite lil Photoshop reference manual, but that and 50 cents won’t get them much more than a few ass raped filters in their default settings.

another stupid question
hold down Option (PC: Alt) and use the Move tool to click on the guide
hold down Shift and use the Move tool to click on the guide hold down Command (PC: Control) and use the Move tool to click on the guide
use View>Guides>Vertical

who does this?
drag a new guide from the ruler

FWIW

Time spent: 9 min. 40 sec.
Score: 12 / 20 (60%)
Grade: Intermediate

test was not about the most relevant uses of PS,

I didn’t think the test was very designed very well.

"Onideus Mad Hatter" wrote in message

On Thu, 12 Jan 2006 09:33:50 +1100, woods wrote:

if you get more than 50% correct you’re doing well.

And remember, keep photoshop closed and NO CHEATING!

http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/test.php

When I click the "Get Started" button…nothing happens. It just sits there forever trying to load:
http://www.photoshopuser.com/quiz/register.php

*shrugs*

Given the "graphic design" presented on that site though I can’t imagine that their lil test means much. It’s sorta like, yeah, you can memorize the entire encyclopedia…but that doesn’t make you intelligent or creative, it just makes you a walking encyclopedia of someone else’s knowledge and understanding. I’m sure the people who made that test memorized their favorite lil Photoshop reference manual, but that and 50 cents won’t get them much more than a few ass raped filters in their default settings.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm

Onideus Mad Hatter wrote:

Also, this part of what she said was wrong too:
"Generally you have RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless."
Also, this part of what she said was wrong too:

"Generally you have RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless."

Supported by what? Saved from what? Maybe there are but I’ve not come across them in any program, or from any digital camera yet. While I wont argue with the professional photographer in this thread (he certainly knows WAY more about photo editing than I’ll ever know) I know what programs save out and can view.

I cant think of any program that does lossless JPEG off hand. PSP doesn’t as far as I know (but you know PSP better than I). PhotoShop doesn’t. None of the tree digital cams we have save lossless JPEG (one is a Canon DSLR).

I think my "generally" was accurate…

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2006
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

KatWoman wrote:

well if you are the AD we Don’t want you to see the RAW photos!! we want you to see them how we want to present them, properly exposed and what we intended.
So many times I have given photos "as is" downloaded jpg straight in AD comps and gotten awful looking repros because they don’t understand photography. They are good at layout and design, so many have no clue about levels and curves etc.
We can send you some RAW to play with?

I prefer not to have them too! But sometimes I get such BAD photos back from gigs and events they need serious editing – and we only want crops of photos for web pages generally. Rather than some awful low-rez mess I like to just get a DVDR of the originals. It’s for web, so colour profile is not as critical as the photos "looking right in context" 🙂 PhotoShop CS2 and Bridge have made it a LOT easier for me to achieve that without hassling our poor photographers for "better" photos on DVDR, or me having to worry too much when shooting gigs myself! (I’m so not a pro, but it’s SO much fun shooting gigs… pure luck usually accounts for any good shots that end up being used! However, you can pry my press pass from my cold dead hands!!!!)

—

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2006
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.

In article , SpaceGirl
wrote:

Supported by what? Saved from what? Maybe there are but I’ve not come across them in any program, or from any digital camera yet. While I wont argue with the professional photographer in this thread (he certainly knows WAY more about photo editing than I’ll ever know) I know what programs save out and can view.

I cant think of any program that does lossless JPEG off hand. PSP doesn’t as far as I know (but you know PSP better than I). PhotoShop doesn’t. None of the tree digital cams we have save lossless JPEG (one is a Canon DSLR).

I think my "generally" was accurate…

Now, the last time I really read the definition of "JPEG" was years and years ago, but back then (the nineties) it defined JPG as a "lossy" format. The benefit to using JPG (why would anyone use a lossy format otherwise – for print, anyway?) was that it offered varying degrees of "lossiness" (i.e., the "low" to "maximum" slider in the JPG save dialog). If you went "maximum" then you kept as much data as possible, still having some loss, but in turn gave you a larger file size than if you choose "low," but yet, smaller than if you saved to another format.

So unless they changed the definition of JPEG, SpaceGirl is correct. JPEG is, in fact, lossy.

Here’s an excerpt from a great site discussing the JPEG format:

JPEG is "lossy," meaning that the decompressed image isn’t quite the same as the one you started with. (There are lossless image compression algorithms, but JPEG achieves much greater compression than is possible with lossless methods.) JPEG is designed to exploit known limitations of the human eye, notably the fact that small color changes are perceived less accurately than small changes in brightness. Thus, JPEG is intended for compressing images that will be looked at by humans. If you plan to machine-analyze your images, the small errors introduced by JPEG may be a problem for you, even if they are invisible to the eye.

A useful property of JPEG is that the degree of lossiness can be varied by adjusting compression parameters. This means that the image maker can trade off file size against output image quality. You can make *extremely* small files if you don’t mind poor quality; this is useful for applications such as indexing image archives. Conversely, if you aren’t happy with the output quality at the default compression setting, you can jack up the quality until you are satisfied, and accept lesser compression.

—
C Pierce
Creative Veritas
principal/designer
http://www.creativeveritas.com
*(Coming 1-20-2006)*
850 532 0835

"Constance Pierce" wrote

I was just
saying that I’ve never (despite my continued requests) gotten any images in RAW format.

I work in a pretty closed work flow and either shoot my own shots or work closely with a photographer and do regularly get camera RAW files (NEF files from a Nikon camera). As someone else said in this thread it is pretty much like getting a negative from a photographer. It needs processing and learning how to do that is pretty straight forward for anyone who works with photos regularly. However, as a designer, I’ve been scanning from negs for quite a while now, so having unprinted/processed negs to work from is not new.

I shoots digital photos constantly, using both Nikon and Canon cameras, I wouldn’t shoot in any other format than RAW. You are turning over too much of the image processing to algorithms and set processing values, rather than treating an image individually. I expect that more and more designers will want to get RAW files as they become familiar with them. Of course, at the same time, I expect that photographers will become increasingly resistant to turning the processing over to a designer by handing them the RAW files. It is an age old struggle, and not just related to RAW files.

If you are interested, Adobe just released a beta of a program designed specifically to provide a useful workflow for camera RAW files. It can be found at: http://labs.macromedia.com/technologies/lightroom/ I believe it is meant to be a direct competitor to Apples’s Aperture program which has become very successful in a short time. Both of these programs testify to the increased importance of RAW files as a format, and the conversion of these RAW files as a part of the normal work flow.

—
Fred Doyle

In article <BHZyf.110070$>, Fred Doyle
wrote:

I shoots digital photos constantly, using both Nikon and Canon cameras, I wouldn’t shoot in any other format than RAW. You are turning over too much of the image processing to algorithms and set processing values, rather than treating an image individually. I expect that more and more designers will want to get RAW files as they become familiar with them. Of course, at the same time, I expect that photographers will become increasingly resistant to turning the processing over to a designer by handing them the RAW files. It is an age old struggle, and not just related to RAW files.

To be absolutely honest, I’ve always had a huge nterest in photography (I have my own darkroom, but only for BW – though I’m trying to win an auction on eBay for a color enlarger) and the thought of experimenting with RAW files nearly has me in a tizzy! My own personal dig camera isn’t capable of RAW (and I’m not quite yet in a position to get a camera capable just yet) and each time I read about RAW files and the power of them, I nearly salivate.

I’m not interested in "competing" with photogs – I’m not quite that ambitious. But I would love to learn more about photography (and RAW files).And to be frank, I’ve gotten the idea of asking for them from the photographers I deal with because of the magazines . . . each one says to *demand* them (Layers mag just did an article broaching that subject).

To the photographers in the room: I doubt that most designers have any real desire to delve into photography as a career. But I can say that I personally have always been fascinated by the process (I *love* experimenting with my old 35 mm and my pinhole camera – not to mention sneaking off into my pathetic darkroom). Again, I would love the opportunity to experiment with RAW files and learn more about them and what you do!

Regards —
Connie

—
C Pierce
Creative Veritas
principal/designer
http://www.creativeveritas.com
*(Coming 1-20-2006)*
850 532 0835

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 23:20:31 +0000, SpaceGirl
wrote:

Also, this part of what she said was wrong too:
"Generally you have RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless."

Supported by what? Saved from what?

Pretty much anything these days actually.

Maybe there are but I’ve not come
across them in any program, or from any digital camera yet.

Well maybe you’re just not looking hard enough. ^_^

While I wont
argue with the professional photographer in this thread (he certainly knows WAY more about photo editing than I’ll ever know)

Um…photography doesn’t actually have…well, anything AT ALL to do with photo editing, they’re two entirely separate fields…not to mention there are separate fields within editing (digital vs manual). I wouldn’t ever expect any sort of knowledge out of anyone though just because they go around flashing a title (pun intended). Most "professionals" that I’ve seen, in any area, tend to actually be very much…lacking for the most part. That’s why I often label myself as an artist rather than as a professional, I want to try and keep a distinction between myself and all the posers.

I know what programs save out and can view.

….no, no you really don’t actually.

I cant think of any program that does lossless JPEG off hand. PSP doesn’t as far as I know (but you know PSP better than I).

Uh, it sure does.

PhotoShop doesn’t.

Uh, it sure does actually.

None of the tree digital cams we have save lossless JPEG (one is a Canon DSLR).

….how do you know? I mean, no really…did you do benchmarking or did you just start making ASSumptions? I mean, just because it doesn’t have a great big flashing button that says "LOSSLESS" doesn’t mean that it can’t save lossless JPEGs…I think maybe you don’t quite understand what those "quality" settings are for…I’d suggest PSP for ya, cause it labels "Baseline Optimized" as "Lossless encoding". Hold yer mouse over that "Baseline Optimized" option is Photoshop CS2, a lil sticker will come up, says "Standard format with optimized Huffman encoding". Now then, go Google yerself up "Huffman encoding" and realize you made a mistake. Oh, also, thanks for pointing out yet ANOTHER area where PaintShop is vastly superior to Photoshop, when it comes to saving JPEGs PaintShop has like 5 times the functionality that Photoshop has. So much so that you can actually alter the chroma subsampling of JPEGs in PaintShop

I think my "generally" was accurate…

….actually your "generally" had nothing to do with it. You said: "Generally you have RAW or JPEG, and only RAW is lossless."

Now I’m not quite sure what poverty of a public education system spat you out of their doors after no doubt <strike>flunking</strike> passing you through all yer classes, but this is like remedial English right here.

The "generally" in your sentence refers only to this: "you have RAW or JPEG"; the part about RAW being lossless is completely separate…oh and that comma really should be a semicolon, but let’s not nitpick or anything.

Oh, btw, how come you never responded to that one post I made to you? Even if you couldn’t counter any of my arguments you could have at least put up some of yer green screened source clips so I could show ya how to do yer alpha transparent video up proper.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 19:27:44 -0600, Connie Pierce
wrote:

Now, the last time I really read the definition of "JPEG" was years and years ago, but back then (the nineties) it defined JPG as a "lossy" format.

….on a very generic and basic level that’s accurate, at least, that’s how I would describe it lay people, but even a first year graphic art student should know that, that’s not an accurate label.

The benefit to using JPG (why would anyone use a lossy format otherwise – for print, anyway?)

Your question makes no sense.

was that it offered varying degrees of
"lossiness" (i.e., the "low" to "maximum" slider in the JPG save dialog). If you went "maximum" then you kept as much data as possible, still having some loss,

WRONG! Plus you’ve left out the type of
encoding…standard…progressive…lossless…

but in turn gave you a larger file size than if
you choose "low," but yet, smaller than if you saved to another format.

….that depends on a variety of things actually. Also you should try and be specific about what formats you’re talking about.

So unless they changed the definition of JPEG, SpaceGirl is correct. JPEG is, in fact, lossy.

First of all kiddie, what do you mean by "lossy"…because there are in fact two definitions for "lossy" (well it goes even deeper than that but I’ll try to keep this basic)…one has to do with reduction of elements that can’t be seen or heard by the human senses…for example compressing audio by cutting out anything in frequencies that can’t normally be heard by human ears, or in pictures reducing color information that human eyes can’t normally differentiate between, like nyah:
http://www.backwater-productions.net/_images/_Usenet/Two_Col ors.png Can you tell? There are two colors there. Even with superb vision (which very few people have) you’d be hard pressed to see a difference…especially if we’re talking about two pixels, instead of two large areas, at that point it really does become impossible to differentiate, compounded by the fact that if we’re talking about video you may only be seeing those two pixels for 1/30th of a second.

Here’s an excerpt from a great site discussing the JPEG format:

<snip – contradictory by accident article that in fact supports my position>

The JPEG format in and of itself is more of just a container really, no different from AVI. You can save video as an AVI using lossless Huffyuv or lossy Xvid, but that doesn’t have anything to do with the container itself. The JPEG format is capable of all sorts of things, most of which aren’t even touched on by many programs (who want to provide a more simple interface). There are several forms of ENCODING, JPEG Standard is certainly lossy, but other forms like entropy encoding are lossless.

Overall, it’s not so much that you’re wrong so much as you just didn’t quite understand what you read…which I blame partially on the guy who wrote it.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

On Mon, 16 Jan 2006 16:49:55 -0500, "KatWoman" wrote:

To move a layer down in the stacking order in the Layers palette, you could…

use Layer>Arrange>Move Down
use the Layers palette pop-up menu and choose Send Backwards Command-[ (left bracket) (PC: Control-[)
Option-] (right bracket) (PC: Alt-])

example of stupid question
answer is drag it with the mouse button held down
answer is not included

Indeed. It’s like, even if there is a keyboard command or menu option for that…why would you use it when using the mouse is so much more intuitive and quicker (keyboard commands aren’t shortcuts if you have to spend forever and a day memorizing them and practicing them). Generally the only good keyboard commands are the ones that are universal, like Ctrl+c and Ctrl+v, but even then often times simply right clicking and choosing "copy" and "paste" is just as effective speed wise.

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

Oh, btw, how come you never responded to that one post I made to you? Even if you couldn’t counter any of my arguments you could have at least put up some of yer green screened source clips so I could show ya how to do yer alpha transparent video up proper.

Mainly because I think you are a prickless wonder and it’s not worth my time or effort. I dont NEED to defend myself, and I dont have anything to prove — unlike the sad, arrogant little twat that you appear to be who always has something to prove 🙂

Clear enough honey?

Anyway now you’ve brought me down to your level… blah.

*kisses*

On 17 Jan 2006 05:43:14 -0800, "SpaceGirl"
wrote:

Oh, btw, how come you never responded to that one post I made to you? Even if you couldn’t counter any of my arguments you could have at least put up some of yer green screened source clips so I could show ya how to do yer alpha transparent video up proper.

Mainly because I think you are a prickless wonder and it’s not worth my time or effort.

Now, now, don’t post angry. ^_^

I dont NEED to defend myself,

Of course you do, don’t be absurd. Yeesh, just what sort of non human do you think you are, Child?

and I dont have anything to prove

….well you certainly seem to have a need to prove that you have nothing to prove. `, )

— unlike the sad, arrogant little twat that you appear to be who always has something to prove 🙂

You’re forgetting something…I always do…prove it that is.

Clear enough honey?

You don’t like the fact that someone who acts like an arrogant bastage is better than you’ll ever be. Yup, perfectly clear. It’s expected, I mean its tolerable and even somewhat amusing when you have someone who acts like an asshole when they simply don’t know what they’re talking about, but when faced with someone who is a master in more fields than you can ever hope to grasp at and acts that way…REALLY rubs you the wrong way, doesn’t it? Coincidentally, my ability level is directly related to my attitude, you might want to keep that in mind, Kiddo.

Anyway now you’ve brought me down to your level… blah.

My level is actually in the upward direction from your base perspective, I’m afraid you’ve made a mistake that has largely to do with confusing the Inet for the real world….which suffice it to say is your problem, not mine.

*kisses*

What, no tongue?

—

Onideus Mad Hatter
mhm ¹ x ¹
http://www.backwater-productions.net
http://www.backwater-productions.net/hatter-blog

Hatter Quotes
————-
"I’m not a professional, I’m an artist."

"The more I learn the more I’m killing my idols."

"Is it wrong to incur and then use the hate ridden, vengeful stupidity of complete strangers in random Usenet froups to further my art?"

"Freedom is only a concept, like race it’s merely a social construct that doesn’t really exist outside of your ability to convince others of its relevancy."

"Next time slow up a lil, then maybe you won’t jump the gun and start creamin yer panties before it’s time to pop the champagne proper."

"Reality is directly proportionate to how creative you are."

"People are pretty fucking high on themselves if they think that they’re just born with a soul. *snicker*…yeah, like they’re just givin em out for free."

"Quible, quible said the Hare. Quite a lot of quibling…everywhere. So the Hare took a long stare and decided at best, to leave the rest, to their merry little mess."

"There’s a difference between ‘bad’ and ‘so earth shatteringly horrible it makes the angels scream in terror as they violently rip their heads off, their blood spraying into the faces of a thousand sweet innocent horrified children, who will forever have the terrible images burned into their tiny little minds’."

"How sad that you’re such a poor judge of style that you can’t even properly gauge the artistic worth of your own efforts."

"Those who record history are those who control history."

"Is my .sig delimiter broken? Really? You’re sure? Awww, gee…that’s too bad…for YOU!" `, )

"SpaceGirl" wrote in message

KatWoman wrote:

well if you are the AD we Don’t want you to see the RAW photos!! we want you to see them how we want to present them, properly exposed and what we intended.
So many times I have given photos "as is" downloaded jpg straight in AD comps and gotten awful looking repros because they don’t understand photography. They are good at layout and design, so many have no clue about levels and curves etc.
We can send you some RAW to play with?

I prefer not to have them too! But sometimes I get such BAD photos back from gigs and events they need serious editing – and we only want crops of photos for web pages generally. Rather than some awful low-rez mess I like to just get a DVDR of the originals. It’s for web, so colour profile is not as critical as the photos "looking right in context" 🙂 PhotoShop CS2 and Bridge have made it a LOT easier for me to achieve that without hassling our poor photographers for "better" photos on DVDR, or me having to worry too much when shooting gigs myself! (I’m so not a pro, but it’s SO much fun shooting gigs… pure luck usually accounts for any good shots that end up being used! However, you can pry my press pass from my cold dead hands!!!!)

pretty website design spacegirl

x theSpaceGirl (miranda)

# lead designer @ http://www.dhnewmedia.com #
# remove NO SPAM to email, or use form on website #
# this post (c) Miranda Thomas 2006
# explicitly no permission given to Forum4Designers
# to duplicate this post.