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 |
#21
|
|||
|
|||
Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:15:22 +1000, "Trevor" wrote: "Eric Stevens" wrote in message . .. If you wanted to respond to Alan Browne you should not have responded to my article. You should have responded directly to Alan. I responded to the thread, I don't respond to the authors personally. It's not the thread that writes articles. It's the individual authors to whom you say you don't respond. Just who do you think wrote the article to which you have tagged on your response? I wasn't responding to that post, and thus included *NO* part of your reply. One thing I didn't decide is that the thread belonged to you alone. Not sure why you did. The thread doesn't belong to me but the position in the thread to which you were responding does belong to me. Hence the confusion. Only for you, I'm sure others can read what is written without making incorrect assumptions. How easy would it be for you to follow this thread if instead of writing this article I tagged my response to you on to an article written by another person? If you think that's what I did, you are more stupid than I thought, downright dishonest, or both. Trevor. |
#22
|
|||
|
|||
Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 11:48:35 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message .. . On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:15:22 +1000, "Trevor" wrote: "Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... If you wanted to respond to Alan Browne you should not have responded to my article. You should have responded directly to Alan. I responded to the thread, I don't respond to the authors personally. It's not the thread that writes articles. It's the individual authors to whom you say you don't respond. Just who do you think wrote the article to which you have tagged on your response? I wasn't responding to that post, and thus included *NO* part of your reply. One thing I didn't decide is that the thread belonged to you alone. Not sure why you did. The thread doesn't belong to me but the position in the thread to which you were responding does belong to me. Hence the confusion. Only for you, I'm sure others can read what is written without making incorrect assumptions. How easy would it be for you to follow this thread if instead of writing this article I tagged my response to you on to an article written by another person? If you think that's what I did, you are more stupid than I thought, downright dishonest, or both. That's exactly what you did, and you should climb off your high horse before you fall and hurt yourself. If you go back up the thread and have a look at the headers you will see: Bruce started the thread with his Message-ID: Alan Browne responded to Bruce's Message-ID: with his Message-ID: I responded to Alan Browne with my Message-ID: and cited References: which you will see are the message IDs of the two preceding messages in the thread in chronological order. You then responded with your Message-ID: and cited References: which, as in the preceding case are the message IDs of the (now) three preceding messages. It is clear from their order that no matter what your intention, belief or understanding may be, your message ID was in response to my Message-ID: which was, in turn, in response to Alan Browne. The full sequence of the thread todate is shown in your latest Message-ID: in which you cite the list of prior References: -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#23
|
|||
|
|||
Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview
On Fri, 07 Sep 2012 21:32:31 -0400, PeterN
wrote: On 9/7/2012 7:30 PM, Eric Stevens wrote: On Thu, 06 Sep 2012 20:35:51 -0700, nospam wrote: In article , Mayayana wrote: | But with "features" | like the PS ability to "predictively fill-in" background after | an item is removed from a photo (like filling in trees when | a barn is removed from a landscape), while an interesting | feature that might sometimes be useful, especially for | commercial work in a hurry, I wouldn't count that in judging | a program as an overall graphic editor. | | why not? it's part of the package and can easily make you more | productive. Maybe so. But I'm not likely to need such a function. And I'm as wary of "feature creep" as I am of inadequate software. So I'm wondering about the basic functionality (post-raw). just because they add features you might not use does not mean the ones you do use are neglected. What do you mean that the old way of adjusting brightness was linear? I was under the impression that it's mainly a formula applied to up the numeric color values of each pixel. http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/brightness-contrast-photoshop-cs3.html Increasing Brightness with any version of Photoshop prior to CS3 simply adds whatever you set the control at to every pixel in the image, shifting everything towards the right in the histogram. ... Rather than operating equally, in a linear fashion, on all pixels in an image, the new Brightness/Contrast algorithm operates proportionally, much as Levels and Curves do. Pixels more in need of adjustment receive more of the effects of any change you make. I don't know Photo Shop but Paint Shop Pro, Photo Paint and Nikon Capture NX2 all enable the same functionality through histogram adjustments. I would expect Photo Shop to incorporate the same functionality. IIRC You can download a trial. There is no point. I am not going to pay their exhorbitant price. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#24
|
|||
|
|||
Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview
| IIRC You can download a trial.
| | There is no point. I am not going to pay their exhorbitant price. | -- How refreshing. Given the large number of MS Office and PhotoShop/CS customers I know, I thought I must be the only person in the world who sees something odd in a software program that costs twice the price of the computer, despite being sold in vast numbers. I guess it's not really odd, though. It's just the skewing that happens with software used commercially. They can charge almost any price they like and most people who use it for business will still buy it... Or rather, they'll tell their boss that they can't work without it. I suppose I should be grateful that my frying pan, my power drill, and my pants are not all similarly priced on the basis of how useful they are to me, rather than on the basis of what they cost to produce. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to get dressed in the morning, much less eat breakfast and go to work. |
#25
|
|||
|
|||
Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview
On 9/8/2012 8:45 AM, Mayayana wrote:
| IIRC You can download a trial. | | There is no point. I am not going to pay their exhorbitant price. | -- How refreshing. Given the large number of MS Office and PhotoShop/CS customers I know, I thought I must be the only person in the world who sees something odd in a software program that costs twice the price of the computer, despite being sold in vast numbers. I guess it's not really odd, though. It's just the skewing that happens with software used commercially. They can charge almost any price they like and most people who use it for business will still buy it... Or rather, they'll tell their boss that they can't work without it. I suppose I should be grateful that my frying pan, my power drill, and my pants are not all similarly priced on the basis of how useful they are to me, rather than on the basis of what they cost to produce. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to get dressed in the morning, much less eat breakfast and go to work. Razor blades cost more than a razor. A piece of copper wire is not very expensive. Neither is a glob of silicone. Both are components of the cheap computer. The cloth for your pants costs much less than your pants. Last time I looked, chickens aren't paid for their eggs. -- Peter |
#26
|
|||
|
|||
Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview
On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:45:42 -0400, "Mayayana"
wrote: | IIRC You can download a trial. | | There is no point. I am not going to pay their exhorbitant price. | -- How refreshing. Given the large number of MS Office and PhotoShop/CS customers I know, I thought I must be the only person in the world who sees something odd in a software program that costs twice the price of the computer, despite being sold in vast numbers. I guess it's not really odd, though. It's just the skewing that happens with software used commercially. They can charge almost any price they like and most people who use it for business will still buy it... Or rather, they'll tell their boss that they can't work without it. I suppose I should be grateful that my frying pan, my power drill, and my pants are not all similarly priced on the basis of how useful they are to me, rather than on the basis of what they cost to produce. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to get dressed in the morning, much less eat breakfast and go to work. I don't mind them asking me to pay what they think its worth to me. The problem is that they seem to think it's worth twice as much to most of the world as it is to residents of the US. I object to having to pay (sometimes much) more that US$1000 when I know that if I lived in the US I could buy it from Amazon for between US$500 and US$600. I know they are ripping me off and I resent that. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#27
|
|||
|
|||
Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview
"tony cooper" wrote:
in message ... On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 11:31:48 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: I don't mind them asking me to pay what they think its worth to me. The problem is that they seem to think it's worth twice as much to most of the world as it is to residents of the US. I object to having to pay (sometimes much) more that US$1000 when I know that if I lived in the US I could buy it from Amazon for between US$500 and US$600. I know they are ripping me off and I resent that. I'll preface this by emphasizing that I know absolutely nothing about how prices are set for Adobe products in other countries. I do wonder, though, if this is an Adobe policy or an Amazon policy. Neither outfit would want to discourage sales to someone just because the person does not live in the US. It doesn't make sense business-wise, and both organizations are very savvy business operations. Adobe and Microsoft and Apple all run local operations in each country as independent companies responsible for local sales and service. And their head offices only service the US market. And Amazon won't ship software, cars, or breakfast cereals to Japan (or other countries). So if you want to by a Ford car (oops, software package) you have to buy it from a dealer in the country you are living in. Some of that is due to the problem that countries get to tax local corporations (and all corporations are local and independent of the parent for tax purposes), so each local company has to buy product from the US company (accounted as business expenses) and collect revenue from sales (accounted as taxable income (after expense deductions, of courses)). It can be really irritating to live in a country that's not the head office. Here, the generic English language versions of things (e.g. Microsoft Visual Studio) is way more expensive than the localized (e.g. Japanese) version, which obviously has more work in it than the generic version, which I'd love to buy from Amazon and pay shipping therefor. I would seem to me that this is more of a government thing than a business thing...that there are some taxes or other fees imposed by the government. You may be getting ripped off, but I think you might be blaming the wrong party. In the sense that you can't have a corporation without a government to make that possible, I suppose that's true. But if you want separate countries and companies, you need to put up with taxation to pay for those services. It does not add a nickel to the cost of the product to allow it to be downloaded in New Zealand or New Jersey. A mailed disk would add to the cost, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Adobe's losing a sale. Amazon's losing a sale. Why would either want to do that? Adobe doesn't think they're losing a sale: they think that to sell in NZ they have to not only play by NZ rules, but price things such that profit is maximized. If two sales at a higher price make more money to the local company than three at a lower prices, you picked the wrong country to live in. -- David J. Littleboy Tokyo, Japan |
#28
|
|||
|
|||
Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 11:48:35 +1000, "Trevor" wrote: "Eric Stevens" wrote in message . .. On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:15:22 +1000, "Trevor" wrote: "Eric Stevens" wrote in message m... If you wanted to respond to Alan Browne you should not have responded to my article. You should have responded directly to Alan. I responded to the thread, I don't respond to the authors personally. It's not the thread that writes articles. It's the individual authors to whom you say you don't respond. Just who do you think wrote the article to which you have tagged on your response? I wasn't responding to that post, and thus included *NO* part of your reply. One thing I didn't decide is that the thread belonged to you alone. Not sure why you did. The thread doesn't belong to me but the position in the thread to which you were responding does belong to me. Hence the confusion. Only for you, I'm sure others can read what is written without making incorrect assumptions. How easy would it be for you to follow this thread if instead of writing this article I tagged my response to you on to an article written by another person? If you think that's what I did, you are more stupid than I thought, downright dishonest, or both. That's exactly what you did, and you should climb off your high horse before you fall and hurt yourself. If you go back up the thread and have a look at the headers you will see: Bruce started the thread with his Message-ID: Alan Browne responded to Bruce's Message-ID: with his Message-ID: I responded to Alan Browne with my Message-ID: and cited References: which you will see are the message IDs of the two preceding messages in the thread in chronological order. You then responded with your Message-ID: and cited References: which, as in the preceding case are the message IDs of the (now) three preceding messages. It is clear from their order that no matter what your intention, belief or understanding may be, your message ID was in response to my Message-ID: which was, in turn, in response to Alan Browne. The full sequence of the thread todate is shown in your latest Message-ID: in which you cite the list of prior References: So you don't actually read what is written, only the headers? I guess that explains it then. Seems like a very weird passtime though! Trevor. |
#29
|
|||
|
|||
Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview
On Sun, 9 Sep 2012 15:56:04 +1000, "Trevor" wrote:
"Eric Stevens" wrote in message .. . On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 11:48:35 +1000, "Trevor" wrote: "Eric Stevens" wrote in message ... On Fri, 7 Sep 2012 17:15:22 +1000, "Trevor" wrote: "Eric Stevens" wrote in message om... If you wanted to respond to Alan Browne you should not have responded to my article. You should have responded directly to Alan. I responded to the thread, I don't respond to the authors personally. It's not the thread that writes articles. It's the individual authors to whom you say you don't respond. Just who do you think wrote the article to which you have tagged on your response? I wasn't responding to that post, and thus included *NO* part of your reply. One thing I didn't decide is that the thread belonged to you alone. Not sure why you did. The thread doesn't belong to me but the position in the thread to which you were responding does belong to me. Hence the confusion. Only for you, I'm sure others can read what is written without making incorrect assumptions. How easy would it be for you to follow this thread if instead of writing this article I tagged my response to you on to an article written by another person? If you think that's what I did, you are more stupid than I thought, downright dishonest, or both. That's exactly what you did, and you should climb off your high horse before you fall and hurt yourself. If you go back up the thread and have a look at the headers you will see: Bruce started the thread with his Message-ID: Alan Browne responded to Bruce's Message-ID: with his Message-ID: I responded to Alan Browne with my Message-ID: and cited References: which you will see are the message IDs of the two preceding messages in the thread in chronological order. You then responded with your Message-ID: and cited References: which, as in the preceding case are the message IDs of the (now) three preceding messages. It is clear from their order that no matter what your intention, belief or understanding may be, your message ID was in response to my Message-ID: which was, in turn, in response to Alan Browne. The full sequence of the thread todate is shown in your latest Message-ID: in which you cite the list of prior References: So you don't actually read what is written, only the headers? I guess that explains it then. Seems like a very weird passtime though! You are flanneling. The evidence of the headers is that you responded to the wrong article and now you are trying to say that the postman should ignore the address and pay attention only to the presumed intent of the author. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
#30
|
|||
|
|||
Corel announces PaintShop Pro X5 - DPReview
On Sat, 08 Sep 2012 20:16:06 -0400, tony cooper
wrote: On Sun, 09 Sep 2012 11:31:48 +1200, Eric Stevens wrote: On Sat, 8 Sep 2012 08:45:42 -0400, "Mayayana" wrote: | IIRC You can download a trial. | | There is no point. I am not going to pay their exhorbitant price. | -- How refreshing. Given the large number of MS Office and PhotoShop/CS customers I know, I thought I must be the only person in the world who sees something odd in a software program that costs twice the price of the computer, despite being sold in vast numbers. I guess it's not really odd, though. It's just the skewing that happens with software used commercially. They can charge almost any price they like and most people who use it for business will still buy it... Or rather, they'll tell their boss that they can't work without it. I suppose I should be grateful that my frying pan, my power drill, and my pants are not all similarly priced on the basis of how useful they are to me, rather than on the basis of what they cost to produce. Otherwise I wouldn't be able to get dressed in the morning, much less eat breakfast and go to work. I don't mind them asking me to pay what they think its worth to me. The problem is that they seem to think it's worth twice as much to most of the world as it is to residents of the US. I object to having to pay (sometimes much) more that US$1000 when I know that if I lived in the US I could buy it from Amazon for between US$500 and US$600. I know they are ripping me off and I resent that. I'll preface this by emphasizing that I know absolutely nothing about how prices are set for Adobe products in other countries. That's a good start. :-) I do wonder, though, if this is an Adobe policy or an Amazon policy. It can only be Adobe. Amazon has no control over Adobe prices in the world outside the US. Neither outfit would want to discourage sales to someone just because the person does not live in the US. It doesn't make sense business-wise, and both organizations are very savvy business operations. I'm sure there is a reason. I don't really care what it is. I only know how it affects me. I would seem to me that this is more of a government thing than a business thing...that there are some taxes or other fees imposed by the government. It's just like DVDs. There are different price policies in different parts of the world and these are all under the control of the DVD manufacturers or Adobe. Amazon sells what it does at the prices that it does under the control of the original manufacturers (Adobe, Sony, Microsoft, Autocad, Apple, Uncle Tom Cobbley and all ... ). You may be getting ripped off, but I think you might be blaming the wrong party. True, but you could be entirely wrong. Governments don't generally interfere with market prices. It does not add a nickel to the cost of the product to allow it to be downloaded in New Zealand or New Jersey. A mailed disk would add to the cost, but that doesn't seem to be the case. Adobe's losing a sale. Amazon's losing a sale. Why would either want to do that? Complex marketing economics. -- Regards, Eric Stevens |
Thread Tools | |
Display Modes | |
|
|
Similar Threads | ||||
Thread | Thread Starter | Forum | Replies | Last Post |
Corel Snapfire and PaintShop Pro, and Power Retouche competitionreminders | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital Photography | 0 | January 29th 07 01:46 AM |
Corel PSP XI and Snapfire Competitions | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital ZLR Cameras | 0 | January 7th 07 02:37 AM |
Corel PSP XI and Snapfire Competitions | Wayne J. Cosshall | Digital SLR Cameras | 0 | January 7th 07 02:36 AM |
Corel | Designori. | Digital Photography | 0 | April 9th 05 06:21 PM |