If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below. |
|
|
Thread Tools | Display Modes |
#581
|
|||
|
|||
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 |
#582
|
|||
|
|||
Tech Support?
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 |
#583
|
|||
|
|||
Tech Support?
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 |
#584
|
|||
|
|||
Plugins, Was ( Tech Support?
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 |
#585
|
|||
|
|||
Tech Support?
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] |
#586
|
|||
|
|||
Tech Support?
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 |
#587
|
|||
|
|||
Tech Support?
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] |
#588
|
|||
|
|||
Tech Support?
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 |
#589
|
|||
|
|||
Tech Support?
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] |
#590
|
|||
|
|||
Tech Support?
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 |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Tech support | Jean Nohain | Digital Photography | 7 | November 17th 04 11:38 AM |