Tech Support?

On 2013-10-16 05:34:52 -0700, Whisky-dave said:


******** of certain types are a delicacy in some countries but not in
native English speaking countries that I know of.

Try "Rocky Mountain oysters"/"prairie oysters" or deep fried "turkey nuts".
http://whatscookingamerica.net/Histo...yMtnOyster.htm


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/16/2013 12:40 AM, Tony Cooper wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 17:12:43 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:


You have to be aware of the limitations of each of the "content-aware"
features, "fill", "move" & "heal". Do that and you can get some
surprising results.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_320.jpg

The question is do they behave the same in CS, CC and PE?

That's a tough question to answer. Where the same tool exists in each
program, they behave the same. Each program has a similar tool, but
Elements may not have the exact same tool.

If you are wondering if the tools in Elements are crippled in some
way, I would say the answer is "No" to that.

Also, what you can expect is that Adobe will add functions and tools
and improvements to the functions and tools in the CC version. You
don't know what, or when, but Adobe isn't going to sit back and not
offer improvements. You can also pretty much expect Adobe to add
things to Elements as new versions come out.

CS6, as an owned version, is at the end of the road, though. It's not
unlikely that plug-in providers will add functions and tools to be
used with an owned version of CS6.

You mentioned some book you read that has encouraged you to add
Photoshop. There are probably certain functions that were discussed
in that book that are of interest to you. Those of us who have PS
and/or Elements can tell you if those functions are available in PS or
Elements.

Not each of us will be able to give you good information on all of the
tools/functions we have. I know that I have Content Aware Move in
CS6, but I have never had an image where I had any interest in using
that function.

Most of what I do in PS involves using the tools and functions that
have been in PS for yonks. I do use some of the new features, but the
bulk of my post work is very simple using basic tools. It's that
special case that justifies my moving up to CS6.

Concerning Elements as a viable choice, when they added Layer Mask
capabilities, they became a very viable alternate to PS as far as I'm
concerned. Some say, though, without a Curves adjustment layer that
Elements is not adequate. Personally, I find Levels works as well but
there are die-hard Curves fans.


I upgraded to CS6 from CS5 primarily because of the better content aware
features. I also like to use LAB mode, for sharpening on the lightness
channel. I Have also played with Apply Image on the a & b channels. But,
that's me.



--
PeterN

On 10/16/2013 5:08 AM, Eric Stevens wrote:
On Wed, 16 Oct 2013 00:40:56 -0400, Tony Cooper


snipo


Concerning Elements as a viable choice, when they added Layer Mask
capabilities, they became a very viable alternate to PS as far as I'm
concerned. Some say, though, without a Curves adjustment layer that
Elements is not adequate. Personally, I find Levels works as well but
there are die-hard Curves fans.

And I am one too. Thanks for the info. That's what I need.


Yes if you know how to use curves, the adjustments can be more subtle
then with Levels. Having said that, You can also make some wild
adjustments in LAB,
On the same test image I used apply image on the a channel, using the
"linear blend" mode.
Again not that I like the image, it's simply one of my many play images.

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/97242118/test3.jpg




--
PeterN

On 10/16/2013 1:43 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
wrote:

It has been said that anything you can do with a plugin, you can do
directly in PS.

who said that?

there are plugins that do stuff that *can't* be done in photoshop.

For example????

i already mentioned something that can't be done in photoshop. do try
to keep up.

and why don't you answer my question - who said anything that can be
done in a plugin can be done in photoshop directly?

I do apologize for not reading postings that follow the one to which I
am responding. Please have mercy on me for that.

you snipped the part where i gave an example of what could be done.
other people have given other examples.

so not only do you not read the posts to which you are replying but you
don't read much of the other ones either.

Oh! yes! also do try to understand enough English to recognize that when
someone says they have heard...., they are not making a definitive
statement of opinion. Therefore who said whatever... is unimportant. Do
sotp asking meaningless questions, in an attempt to avoid a direct
answer. I also note that you agree that it all can be done in PS. And we
do agree it is not as efficient as using a plugin.

if you want to tweak each pixel after doing the relevant math on a four
function calculator, by all means, fee free.

when you get right down to it, you can do anything in photoshop,
without any plugins at all, and you can even create photos without a
camera.

amazing program, really.

Do stop arguing, just to argue.

i'm not arguing at all. i'm telling you what can and cannot be done.

1. I did not snip anything.

you did.

2. I am well acquainted with Fractilus, which is great for certain
effects. Like anything else, if all I did was adjust in Fractilius, I
would get bored.

i did not mention fractilus, but in any event, let's see you do what it
does directly in photoshop, without using the plugin.

you did say it could be done:
It has been said that anything you can do with a plugin, you can do
directly in PS.

3. We agree it is a lot easier to use plugins, than do everything in PS.
IIRC you even said as much.

nope.

what i said was that there are a lot of things that can be done in a
plugin that *cannot* be done directly in photoshop.

i also said that you could do the math by hand and adjust each pixel
individually, but anyone with a clue would realize why i said that.

4. There s a world of difference between what cannot be done, and what
cannot EASILY be done.

which means your original statement is bogus, exactly as i said.


If you have any reasonable comprehension of English, or was not arguing
for the sake of arguing, you would realize that my original statement
was what other people have said. I admit that I don't know enough about
PS to do all those adjustments, that can be done with plugins.


--
PeterN

In article ,
Whisky-dave wrote:

Both "********" and "dog's ********" have inherent positive and negative
value.

depending on how they are used and by whom they have only one meaning by
those that use them as native english speakers would.

That's what I just said.

Please include the enitre quote
"It's ********" and "The dogs ********"

******** of certain types are a delicacy in some countries but not in native
English speaking countries that I know of.

Nothing you have said so far has had any relation to the phrase being
"discussed".



--
Sandman[.net]

On 10/16/2013 5:14 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
Eric Stevens wrote:

He did answer: "same as always," which could mean a nym other than the
one to which you replied.

Such as?

Whatever else you use.

Which implies that I use something else, which is why I am asking for
examples.



Wrong again. It means you could use another nym. Frankly I was only
comment on your evasive language.



--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

He did answer: "same as always," which could mean a nym other than the
one to which you replied.

Such as?

Whatever else you use.

Which implies that I use something else, which is why I am asking for
examples.



Wrong again. It means you could use another nym. Frankly I was only
comment on your evasive language.

"Same as always" is "evasive" to you? I use "Sandman" now, and "now" is
included in the "always" part of my claim, so if I say "Same as always"
it can't be anything but "Sandman".

For being a native English speaker, you have severe problems either
understanding it or expressing yourself using it.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 10/16/2013 9:33 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

He did answer: "same as always," which could mean a nym other than the
one to which you replied.

Such as?

Whatever else you use.

Which implies that I use something else, which is why I am asking for
examples.



Wrong again. It means you could use another nym. Frankly I was only
comment on your evasive language.

"Same as always" is "evasive" to you? I use "Sandman" now, and "now" is
included in the "always" part of my claim, so if I say "Same as always"
it can't be anything but "Sandman".

For being a native English speaker, you have severe problems either
understanding it or expressing yourself using it.



Keep digging. The clear and unambiguous statement would be; "I only post
under the name sandman, and always have."
Since you have failed to specifically exclude the use of other nyms,
your response was ambiguous.

--
PeterN

In article ,
PeterN wrote:

"Same as always" is "evasive" to you? I use "Sandman" now, and "now" is
included in the "always" part of my claim, so if I say "Same as always"
it can't be anything but "Sandman".

For being a native English speaker, you have severe problems either
understanding it or expressing yourself using it.

Keep digging. The clear and unambiguous statement would be; "I only post
under the name sandman, and always have."

You're way out of your league here, Peter.

Since you have failed to specifically exclude the use of other nyms,
your response was ambiguous.

Incorrect.


--
Sandman[.net]

On 10/16/2013 9:46 AM, Sandman wrote:
In article ,
PeterN wrote:

"Same as always" is "evasive" to you? I use "Sandman" now, and "now" is
included in the "always" part of my claim, so if I say "Same as always"
it can't be anything but "Sandman".

For being a native English speaker, you have severe problems either
understanding it or expressing yourself using it.

Keep digging. The clear and unambiguous statement would be; "I only post
under the name sandman, and always have."

You're way out of your league here, Peter.

Yup! I should not have stepped down.

Once again your response to being proven wrong, is an attempted personal
attack.

You sure have a fragile ego. You are pathetic.


Since you have failed to specifically exclude the use of other nyms,
your response was ambiguous.

Incorrect.




--
PeterN