A Photography forum. PhotoBanter.com

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.

Go Back   Home » PhotoBanter.com forum » Digital Photography » Digital Photography
Site Map Home Register Authors List Search Today's Posts Mark Forums Read Web Partners

post processing



 
 
Thread Tools Display Modes
  #71  
Old March 14th 14, 03:53 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default post processing

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins.


Sandman:
Well, don't you feel stupid now...


No, not at all. All of the plug-ins I have for PS work in LR and
didn't require any difference in installation.


In fact, none of your PS plugins work in LR. Only LR plugins work in LR.

In fact, I didn't specify PS or LR or PS and LR when I installed
them.


Whatever that has to do with anything.



--
Sandman[.net]
  #72  
Old March 14th 14, 04:07 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default post processing

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

adobe put an enormous amount of engineering resources in designing and
refining the interface of photoshop and other adobe products,


You do realise that you've got engineers spinning in their graves all over
the
world now, do you ?

No engineer would be caught dead designing an interface. That's a designer's
"thing". :-)

Even putting words like design and interface in the same phrase with
engineer has some of my collegues comming up with severe rashes....


I don't know why that would be. The guys with engineering degrees who
used to stand in front of drafting tables in places where they created
cars and airplanes and space shuttles and the like were always called
"designers" or "design engineers".


the issue is designing a user interface.

engineers suck at that which is why there are people whose job is to
design user interfaces. adobe has the resources to hire the best. the
gimp ignores it entirely.
  #73  
Old March 14th 14, 04:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default post processing

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

"The competent LR5 user is going to be able to survive quite well
without invoking PS."

even for not so competent users.

the number of tasks for which photoshop (any version) is needed that
can't be done in lightroom grows smaller all the time.


Tony, I am about to agree with nospam!


I would agree with it, too. The statement, however, doesn't imply
that PS will no longer be needed by all. It's also getting to the
point where for which the full version of Photoshop is not needed
because so much can be done in Elements.


which goes back to what i said a month ago.

Yet, you and I just signed up for CC just for those extra features
that are not included in LR or Elements.

Frankly, I am somewhat puzzled about why people like nospam, and even
you, try so hard to convince everyone that Lightroom is the panacea of
photo editing. I get why you like it, but I don't get why you
continually imply - if not aver - that those of us who are aren't on
the bandwagon are doing something wrong.


panacea is another one of your twisty words.

lightroom is *extremely* useful and fits the needs of a huge number of
users, which is why it's so popular and should be the first app to
start with unless there's specific needs otherwise.

based on your description of how you use lightroom, you're using it
wrong, so you don't see just how capable it really is.

We are doing what we feel comfortable in doing, whether it's
continuing to use a CS version or Gimp, and most of us are turning out
some pretty decent stuff in doing so. Any failings in output are more
failings in input from when we push the shutter button.


in other words, 'we don't want to look at alternatives'.

Nospam's positions about effort and productivity are patently
bull****. The issue isn't about a production shop where there are
deadlines and cost issues. It's about individuals pursuing a hobby.


it's not bull**** at all.

a hobby is far more enjoyable when one is more productive. why make
more work for oneself when the computer can do it for you?
  #74  
Old March 14th 14, 04:08 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
nospam
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 24,165
Default post processing

In article , J. Clarke
wrote:

I thought that one of the benefits of an Intel Mac was that it could run
anything a PC could run as well as all the Mac software.

Obviously your are not aware of the fact the binaries depends of the
operating system !


Hey, Mac users keep telling me that a Mac can run anything Windows can.


and they're absolutely correct. however, nobody said it would be free.
you almost certainly need to buy windows itself and possibly parallels
or vmware.

it's possible to use crossover but that's more of a crapshoot. a few
apps work, but most don't.

Are you saying that they are lying?


nobody is lying, other than you, that is.

But yes, an Intel mac can run any current operating
system you like. Then the system can execute the executable.

So use the
Windows version.


You can either use parallels ( you have to pay for it) to have different
system at at the same time, or bootcamp that is free, to alternate.
In any case, you have to buy a Windows licence, and they are not cheap.


In other words a Mac can't run anything Windows can? Do tell.


of course it can. a mac can run mac, windows and unix software, all
simultaneously, sharing data between all of the apps. no other computer
can do that.
  #75  
Old March 14th 14, 04:51 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default post processing

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
It's a pretty important distinction when one makes an absolute
claim such as this one:


Tony Cooper post processing 03/13/2014


"Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."


Which, as it turns out, was false.


What is the distinction? Actually, you are using a term that
doesn't apply when you use "PS plug-ins" to mean OnOne and NIK.
These companies don't claim to be "PS plug-ins" or "LR plug-ins".
Nowhere on there sites does it claim that.


I never said they claimed it, either. But you do use plugins to extend the
functions of Photoshop, regardless if you want to call it a "companion" or
"cheese cake".

OnOne states that their program is a "companion" to Lightroom and
"works seamlessly" with Photoshop. They say they offer presets for
PS and LR.


That's really cool to hear, Tony. I'll be sure to write down that totally
irrelevant tidbit somewhere.

Nik says they offer "powerful plug-ins for Photoshop and Lightroom".


But Tony said just above that Nik doesn't claim to be plug-ins! He'll be
****ed at you now.

You won't find "A Photoshop plug-in" or "a Lightroom plug-in"
anywhere on their sites.


Nor will you find them talking about a "binary file", but their download
comes with one either way. Plugins are how they show up in the Photoshop CC
and Lightroom menues, it's the method of interaction, and Tony once said
this:

"Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."

Which was false. I'm just letting him know this.

They both tell you that their program works with the Adobe products,
and they do.


By supplying two different versions of the program, one for Photoshop, one
for Lightroom. Well, two different plugins anyway, they both probably
launch the same software (I haven't used onOne).

If you want to make up a claim, like "OnOne is not a PS plug-in",
that the company itself does not claim otherwise, then there is no
"true" or "false" because the claim is bogus.


I'll be sure to remember that if I ever feel the need to make such a stupid
claim. Sounds more like something you'd say, though.

That said, and you know how I really like to shove your ignorance down your
throat, here's a link for you:

http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite8/

"Perfect Photo Suite works as a plug-in and is a perfect companion to Adobe
Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, and Apple Aperture."

So not even that was something you could get right. It may be time for you
to quietly vanish from this thread now.

--
Sandman[.net]
  #76  
Old March 14th 14, 06:14 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Nab[_2_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 2
Default post processing

In article ,
Sandman wrote:
[ ... ]
Nothing Floyd ever said her has any credibility in any capacity.


Oh really? That's not even remotely true as far as
I'm concerned. I have a great respect for Floyd.

Nab
  #77  
Old March 14th 14, 06:41 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default post processing

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
Nik says they offer "powerful plug-ins for Photoshop and
Lightroom".


Sandman:
But Tony said just above that Nik doesn't claim to be plug-ins!
He'll be ****ed at you now.


I knowing you sometimes struggle with the language, but you should
be able to understand the difference between "a Photoshop plug-in"
and "a plug-in for Photoshop". That word "for" in there should be
simple to understand.


Ah - of course. Which one is it that's the "accepted" one, now again? :-D

A "Photoshop plug-in" would be a plug-in authored by, and offered
by, Adobe. A "Plug-in for Photoshop" is a plug-in that is authored
by some other organization and offered as something that will work
with Photoshop. Nik is offering a plug-in, a plug-in that will work
with Photoshop, but not a Photoshop plug-in.


Haha! Tony digs himself even deeper. He now claims that the order of words
defines the author of the software. You can't call Alien Skin's Snap Art! a
"Photoshop plug-in" becuase it wasn't made by Adobe!! Only Adobe can make
Photoshop plug-ins!

But hey, even though semantics have nothing to do with this, you know how I
love shoving your ignorance down your throat (sound familliar), let's see
what Adobe has to say about it:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?l=6&s=4&o=desc&exc=16&cat=193&event=prod ucthome&scat=253

"Photoshop Plug-ins"

Is it your claim now that the plug-ins listed on that page were all written
by Adobe, Tony?

And when you said this:

Tony Cooper
03/13/2014

"Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."

You were clearly saying "Photoshop plug-ins", so you must have meant that
all the plugin-ins made by Adobe for Photoshop CC is "accepted" by
Lightroom. And why did you even mention onOne or Nik then if it's not even
covered by that comment, since - according to you - it's not a
"Photoshop plug-in"

You still want to play the semantics game?

Sandman:
Nor will you find them talking about a "binary file", but their
download comes with one either way. Plugins are how they show up
in the Photoshop CC and Lightroom menues, it's the method of
interaction, and Tony once said this:


"Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."


Which was false. I'm just letting him know this.


It was an incomplete statement designed to work at your level of
understanding of English, but - you are right - it should have been
written "Lightroom accepts some plug-ins that also work in
Photoshop".


Which would have been equally false.

"Some authors make software and provide a Photoshop plug-in for Photoshop
and a Lightroom plug-in for Lightroom" is the correct way to say it.

Sandman:
That said, and you know how I really like to shove your ignorance
down your throat, here's a link for you:


http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite8/


"Perfect Photo Suite works as a plug-in and is a perfect companion
to Adobe Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, and Apple
Aperture."


So not even that was something you could get right.


What was wrong about my statement?


"These companies don't claim to be "PS plug-ins" or "LR plug-ins"."

In fact, they do.



--
Sandman[.net]
  #78  
Old March 14th 14, 06:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Sandman
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 5,467
Default post processing

In article , Nab wrote:

[ ... ] Nothing Floyd ever said her has any credibility in any
capacity.


Oh really? That's not even remotely true as far as I'm concerned.
I have a great respect for Floyd.


That's really weird.



--
Sandman[.net]
  #79  
Old March 14th 14, 07:42 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Rikishi42
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 76
Default post processing

On 2014-03-14, Sandman wrote:
In article , Rikishi42 wrote:

Nige Danton:
If it matters I'm shooting with a Nikon D7000 and an 18-105
lens. I shoot in RAW and jpg.

YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle:
Raw developpement for Nikon is at its best with Capture NX 2
(because Nikon raws are non-standard)


Non-standard RAW's? But that implies there would be standard RAW
files.


Where are they defined and since when ????


Adobe is pushing for manufacturers to use DNG as a standard RAW format.
They've been doing that since 2003, but few have adopted it.


I didn't know that format, so I read up on it. The basic idea is very good:
use a subset of a easy and well defined format such as tiff, and add
some meta-data to store photo-specific image information.

Mistake: to have allowed various meta-data formats. They should have gone
with one, full stop. Pick a format, help evolve it within the organisation
that maintains it and keep it simple.

Any time you allow variations in a file format, different sources will
produce different outputs. Not standard, not clean, not good.


Notably Hasselblad, Pentax and Leica have adopted it, but missing are the
big ones; Nikon (NEF), Canon (CRW), Sony (ARW), Panasonic (RW2), Fuji
(RAF) and Olympus (ORF).

(These manufacturers have used several different RAW format extensions, but
I think the above are the current/common ones for each).


It "easier" (but not really) to use one's own format instead of following
even a very simple and clean standard. Save's a knuckle-dragger the pain of
learning to read, I guess.


--
When in doubt, use brute force.
-- Ken Thompson
  #80  
Old March 14th 14, 08:17 PM posted to rec.photo.digital
Savageduck[_3_]
external usenet poster
 
Posts: 16,487
Default post processing

On 2014-03-14 18:45:09 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On 14 Mar 2014 17:41:19 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Tony Cooper:
Nik says they offer "powerful plug-ins for Photoshop and
Lightroom".

Sandman:
But Tony said just above that Nik doesn't claim to be plug-ins!
He'll be ****ed at you now.

I knowing you sometimes struggle with the language, but you should
be able to understand the difference between "a Photoshop plug-in"
and "a plug-in for Photoshop". That word "for" in there should be
simple to understand.


Ah - of course. Which one is it that's the "accepted" one, now again? :-D

A "Photoshop plug-in" would be a plug-in authored by, and offered
by, Adobe. A "Plug-in for Photoshop" is a plug-in that is authored
by some other organization and offered as something that will work
with Photoshop. Nik is offering a plug-in, a plug-in that will work
with Photoshop, but not a Photoshop plug-in.


Haha! Tony digs himself even deeper. He now claims that the order of words
defines the author of the software. You can't call Alien Skin's Snap Art! a
"Photoshop plug-in" becuase it wasn't made by Adobe!!


I would not. Not the order, but the words included.

Only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-ins!


Correct.

But hey, even though semantics have nothing to do with this, you know how I
love shoving your ignorance down your throat (sound familliar), let's see
what Adobe has to say about it:

http://www.adobe.com/cfusion/exchange/index.cfm?l=6&s=4&o=desc&exc=16&cat=193&event=prod ucthome&scat=253


"Photoshop

Plug-ins"

Is it your claim now that the plug-ins listed on that page were all written
by Adobe, Tony?


No, each plug-in listing tells you who developed the plug-in. Adobe
is specifying that they didn't develop them.

Adobe is careful to specify on that page "A new way to discover and
install plug-ins, extensions, and content for the Creative Suite".

Note the use of "for".


"Lightroom accepts PS plug-ins."

Which was false. I'm just letting him know this.

It was an incomplete statement designed to work at your level of
understanding of English, but - you are right - it should have been
written "Lightroom accepts some plug-ins that also work in
Photoshop".


Which would have been equally false.

"Some authors make software and provide a Photoshop plug-in for Photoshop
and a Lightroom plug-in for Lightroom" is the correct way to say it.


It's a different statement that does not describe the same thing.


Sandman:
That said, and you know how I really like to shove your ignorance
down your throat, here's a link for you:

http://www.ononesoftware.com/products/suite8/

"Perfect Photo Suite works as a plug-in and is a perfect companion
to Adobe Photoshop, Photoshop Elements, Lightroom, and Apple
Aperture."

So not even that was something you could get right.

What was wrong about my statement?


"These companies don't claim to be "PS plug-ins" or "LR plug-ins"."

In fact, they do.


Where?


Just to clarify, Lightroom plugins are Lightroom specific and have the
following format (x).lrpugin.

OnOne supplies two separate plugins with its installer, one for
Photoshop and one for Lightroom.
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_625.jpg

NIK does things a little differently, it installs PS plugins (x.plugin)
in Photoshop for the entire collection.
In Lightroom only HDR Efex Pro2 is installed as a Lightroom plugin,
(HDREfexPro2.lrplugin).
https://dl.dropbox.com/u/1295663/Fil...enshot_623.jpg

The other modules are not installed as plugins, the installed stand
alone versions are assigned as external editor applications.

--
Regards,

Savageduck

 




Thread Tools
Display Modes

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

vB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is Off
HTML code is Off
Forum Jump

Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Does anyone know how much post processing goes on at DPreview? Alien Jones Digital SLR Cameras 59 October 7th 08 01:18 PM
Filters vs Post processing M[_2_] Digital SLR Cameras 7 January 3rd 08 05:57 AM
Post Processing Challenge Ken Tough Digital SLR Cameras 53 May 30th 05 02:18 PM
Post-Processing RAW vs Post-Processing TIFF Mike Henley Digital Photography 54 January 30th 05 09:26 AM
Post Processing & Printing [email protected] Digital Photography 0 December 23rd 04 03:12 PM


All times are GMT +1. The time now is 12:47 PM.


Powered by vBulletin® Version 3.6.4
Copyright ©2000 - 2024, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Copyright ©2004-2024 PhotoBanter.com.
The comments are property of their posters.