post processing

On 2014-03-15 08:13:46 +0000, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle
said:

Le 14/03/14 06:54, Savageduck a écrit :

Personally I find PSE lacking in many ways, even though the PR says it
can do almost all PS can. That is not exactly true. I also have PSE9,
and while I can use it, it just doesn't cut the mustard for me. That is
one of my reasons for making other recommendations for those who can't
afford full versions of PS

I just downloaded PSE 12 trial, to see by myself. (Had one old version
bundled with a scanner, once upon the times)

First thing it has automation but no scripts you can edit. Blah !!!

The more crippling feature for me is the fact it works only on 8 bits;
so there is little point in using 14 bits raws.

That, and the fewer features available to process RAW files in the
version of ACR it uses, fortunately for you, you still have NX2.
The current version of ACR, and RAW process engine in PS CS6/CC and LR5
is very different to what was available in CS3.

It has layers, sort of, but not the most useful colors curves layer,
and not the NB ajustement layer I have grown to like.
I use a lot named and grouped layers (specially when the work involve
variants and texts).
I was not able to locate the alpha layers palette, despite the fact the
images show selection and you can memorise them. But no direct
selection editing mode ? I tried to paint my selection, without
success. May be this exist but the interface is different.
Sharpening tool seems to have moved somewhere else than in filters.
I am confident it is there.
And it lacks the color preview capabilities (for accurate printing).

I dont say it is a bad tool, it is certainly good. But for me just lack
the features I use in CS,

Agreed. As a CS6/CC user I find PSE odd and a little awkward to work
with, but that is just me and my opinion.

the rest I find in Capture NX2 or Aperture.
In fact I use now photoshop CS3 only when there is no faster way for
something, or no way at all I can think of.

In PSE12 the way the tools are arranged is better than in my CS3.

Again I wonder what is the reason it does not show the Nik collection
somewhere.
Is it because I have installed the Nik collection before this or is it
because it is a trial version ?


Did you run the NIK installer before you installed PSE12, or after?

If before, run the NIK installer again.

If the NIK "Palette" does not show when you restart PSE12, then go to
menu-Filter-NIK Collection. If NIK is still not available it is
probably because it is a trial version, but I doubt that an Adobe trial
is not going allow the use of plugins.

BTW: What version of OSX are you running?
I didn't think think PSE12 was supported on any version of OSX earlier
than OSX 10.7 (Lion).

--
Regards,

Savageduck

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

"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.

But you just said that only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-ins, and that
page lists Photoshop plug-ins. Tricky situation you've gotten yourself
into!

Right. Only Adobe can call plug-in an "Adobe Plugin",

twist twist twist.

but they can
approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for Photoshop.

approval is not required to write photoshop plug-ins. all that's needed
is to download the sdk and start writing.

it does take some intelligence to write a plug-in, so that does rule
you out, however.

The plugins on
that page are evidently plugins that Adobe has approved for use with
Photoshop.

it's a marketing page. there may be an agreement between adobe and the
companies to be listed.

there is no approval.

Strange that some of the most-used plugins are not
listed.

nothing strange about that at all.

Amazing that you can see words there that are not visible to the human
eye. OnOne is clearly avoiding trademark infringement by using
"companion" and stating that what they offer are plugins that work
with the Adobe products.

there is no avoidance of trademark infringement.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

"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.

But you just said that only Adobe can make Photoshop plug-ins, and that
page lists Photoshop plug-ins. Tricky situation you've gotten yourself
into!

Right. Only Adobe can call plug-in an "Adobe Plugin",

twist twist twist.

but they can
approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for Photoshop.

approval is not required to write photoshop plug-ins. all that's needed
is to download the sdk and start writing.

Are you disagreeing, then, that Adobe can approve vendors as suppliers
of plugins for Photoshop? Adding your comment to disagree with mine?
That "can" is not possible?

there is no approval needed to write photoshop plug-ins. period. end.
of. story.

once again, since you're so ****ing thick and didn't get it all of the
other times i said it: if someone wants to write a photoshop plug-in,
all they need to do is download the photoshop sdk and start writing.

adobe doesn't give a flying **** what the plug-in does or how well it
does it. if it sucks, nobody will care anyway.

it does take some intelligence to write a plug-in, so that does rule
you out, however.

The plugins on
that page are evidently plugins that Adobe has approved for use with
Photoshop.

it's a marketing page. there may be an agreement between adobe and the
companies to be listed.

Is that not "approval"?

only for inclusion on that particular page, which has nothing to do
with writing and publishing a plug-in.

most photoshop plug-ins are *not* listed there.

that list is basically 'plug-ins that might make you want to buy
photoshop'.

On 3/15/2014 12:29 AM, nospam wrote:
In article , PeterN
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.

respect for you would be weird, troll. In the past I have gotten into
some real disagreements with Floyd, but I have not lost respect for him.

As for you, WTF would it matter if LR uses a different file than PS. PS
for Apple machines is a different file than PS for Windows, although the
function is the same. The only purpose for your question was to troll a
fight.

photoshop for mac and windows use the exact same file format.

the app itself may be different but that doesn't matter.


Did I say otherwise?

--
PeterN

On 3/15/2014 11:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-03-15 08:13:46 +0000, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle
said:

Le 14/03/14 06:54, Savageduck a écrit :

Personally I find PSE lacking in many ways, even though the PR says it
can do almost all PS can. That is not exactly true. I also have PSE9,
and while I can use it, it just doesn't cut the mustard for me. That is
one of my reasons for making other recommendations for those who can't
afford full versions of PS

I just downloaded PSE 12 trial, to see by myself. (Had one old version
bundled with a scanner, once upon the times)

First thing it has automation but no scripts you can edit. Blah !!!

The more crippling feature for me is the fact it works only on 8 bits;
so there is little point in using 14 bits raws.

That, and the fewer features available to process RAW files in the
version of ACR it uses, fortunately for you, you still have NX2.
The current version of ACR, and RAW process engine in PS CS6/CC and LR5
is very different to what was available in CS3.

It has layers, sort of, but not the most useful colors curves layer,
and not the NB ajustement layer I have grown to like.
I use a lot named and grouped layers (specially when the work involve
variants and texts).
I was not able to locate the alpha layers palette, despite the fact
the images show selection and you can memorise them. But no direct
selection editing mode ? I tried to paint my selection, without
success. May be this exist but the interface is different.
Sharpening tool seems to have moved somewhere else than in filters.
I am confident it is there.
And it lacks the color preview capabilities (for accurate printing).

I dont say it is a bad tool, it is certainly good. But for me just
lack the features I use in CS,

Agreed. As a CS6/CC user I find PSE odd and a little awkward to work
with, but that is just me and my opinion.

There are mony who agree with you.


the rest I find in Capture NX2 or Aperture.
In fact I use now photoshop CS3 only when there is no faster way for
something, or no way at all I can think of.

In PSE12 the way the tools are arranged is better than in my CS3.

Again I wonder what is the reason it does not show the Nik collection
somewhere.
Is it because I have installed the Nik collection before this or is it
because it is a trial version ?


Did you run the NIK installer before you installed PSE12, or after?

If before, run the NIK installer again.

If the NIK "Palette" does not show when you restart PSE12, then go to
menu-Filter-NIK Collection. If NIK is still not available it is
probably because it is a trial version, but I doubt that an Adobe trial
is not going allow the use of plugins.

BTW: What version of OSX are you running?
I didn't think think PSE12 was supported on any version of OSX earlier
than OSX 10.7 (Lion).



--
PeterN

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

there is no approval needed to write photoshop plug-ins. period. end.
of. story.

I didn't say there is any approval needed to *write* a plugin. Don't
lie. You're evading the question or, as you say, "twisting".

you said this:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:
Right. Only Adobe can call plug-in an "Adobe Plugin", but they can
approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for Photoshop. The plugins on
that page are evidently plugins that Adobe has approved for use with
Photoshop. Strange that some of the most-used plugins are not
listed.

adobe does not need to approve a damned thing.

they might want to help market some plug-ins, particularly if the
plug-in helps market photoshop itself, but that has nothing to do with
being approved as a 'supplier of plugins for photoshop.'

I'm saying that Adobe can approve a vendor's plugins. Do you
understand the difference?

once again, adobe doesn't need to approve anything.

download the sdk, write a plug-in and sell it.

been there done that, more than once.

getting the word out is not that simple for smaller companies, but not
impossible.

showcasing the plug-in on adobe's web site is *not* required to sell a
plug-in. that's something entirely separate.

On 2014-03-15 20:48:52 +0000, PeterN said:

On 3/15/2014 11:37 AM, Savageduck wrote:
On 2014-03-15 08:13:46 +0000, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle
said:

Le 14/03/14 06:54, Savageduck a écrit :

Personally I find PSE lacking in many ways, even though the PR says it
can do almost all PS can. That is not exactly true. I also have PSE9,
and while I can use it, it just doesn't cut the mustard for me. That is
one of my reasons for making other recommendations for those who can't
afford full versions of PS

I just downloaded PSE 12 trial, to see by myself. (Had one old version
bundled with a scanner, once upon the times)

First thing it has automation but no scripts you can edit. Blah !!!

The more crippling feature for me is the fact it works only on 8 bits;
so there is little point in using 14 bits raws.

That, and the fewer features available to process RAW files in the
version of ACR it uses, fortunately for you, you still have NX2.
The current version of ACR, and RAW process engine in PS CS6/CC and LR5
is very different to what was available in CS3.

It has layers, sort of, but not the most useful colors curves layer,
and not the NB ajustement layer I have grown to like.
I use a lot named and grouped layers (specially when the work involve
variants and texts).
I was not able to locate the alpha layers palette, despite the fact
the images show selection and you can memorise them. But no direct
selection editing mode ? I tried to paint my selection, without
success. May be this exist but the interface is different.
Sharpening tool seems to have moved somewhere else than in filters.
I am confident it is there.
And it lacks the color preview capabilities (for accurate printing).

I dont say it is a bad tool, it is certainly good. But for me just
lack the features I use in CS,

Agreed. As a CS6/CC user I find PSE odd and a little awkward to work
with, but that is just me and my opinion.

There are mony who agree with you.

On which point do they agree with me; that as a PS CS6/CC user I find
PSE odd and a little awkward to work with, or that it is just my
opinion??
....or perhaps both? ;-)

Le Snip

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 2014-03-15 20:53:44 +0000, nospam said:

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:

there is no approval needed to write photoshop plug-ins. period. end.
of. story.

I didn't say there is any approval needed to *write* a plugin. Don't
lie. You're evading the question or, as you say, "twisting".

you said this:
In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:
Right. Only Adobe can call plug-in an "Adobe Plugin", but they can
approve vendors as suppliers of plugins for Photoshop. The plugins on
that page are evidently plugins that Adobe has approved for use with
Photoshop. Strange that some of the most-used plugins are not
listed.

adobe does not need to approve a damned thing.

they might want to help market some plug-ins, particularly if the
plug-in helps market photoshop itself, but that has nothing to do with
being approved as a 'supplier of plugins for photoshop.'

I'm saying that Adobe can approve a vendor's plugins. Do you
understand the difference?

once again, adobe doesn't need to approve anything.

download the sdk, write a plug-in and sell it.

been there done that, more than once.

getting the word out is not that simple for smaller companies, but not
impossible.

showcasing the plug-in on adobe's web site is *not* required to sell a
plug-in. that's something entirely separate.

What is interesting is that there are plugins which are OS specific,
some will only run on Windows versions of Adobe products, and some will
only run on OSX versions. Interesting in that Adobe places no demand on
those developers to produce cross platform plugins.

For example Mac users have access to the quite powerful "Intensify Pro"
stand alone & plugin, and Windows users are denied even a test drive.
I have tested it and find its potential quite intriguing at a reasonable price.
http://macphun.com/intensify

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 3/15/2014 8:34 AM, YouDontNeedToKnowButItsNoëlle wrote:
Le 13/03/14 23:07, PeterN a écrit :

I very rarely take RAW, preferring to get the exposure right in the
camera.

Each one his own way.

That was not me who said that. Or, if I did, I had a finger fawlt and
meant to say that I vry rarely don't shoot RAW.



But, I want to say that raw is not only about "getting exposure right"
(most modern camera give correct exposure in most situation anyway).
It is more about "getting colors and dynanic range right".
14 bits vs 8 bits.

For wildlife I use 12 bit RAW. For landscape and macro, I switch to 14
bit RAW, ;when I remember to do so.

It is about allowing further post traitement ; exposure, dynamic range,
tone ajustements.

In low-light + high contrast situation, you add 2 steps to your sensor
dynamic by using raw.


At least.

In mixed light situation, you can ajust the WB to a compromise, or
assemble different tiff with masks to give an effet you like.

And if you are digging into the expressive power of color (I am very
sensitive to color) raw give you choice. Infinite choices.
In any case, if you are about to alter the histogram in any way, better
make your image 16 bit deep to avoid "holes" (ie, the dreaded comb
histogram) in your color range.
Of course you can do jpg 8 bits - tiff 16 bits before any processing.
I recommend this if you have only jpgs.
But if you intend to process a bit or more, it makes a lot more sense to
start with 12 bits or 14 bits deep image (raw) to make what you want on
16 bits tiffs.
And this is true even and more if you want to make BW from your files,
because you'll want to ajust each color curve.

Noëlle Adam


Somehow, I may have missed a word, when replying to, I think is was
DavidTaylor, who stated that he never shoots RAW.


--
PeterN

In article 2014031514260759761-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom,
Savageduck wrote:


What is interesting is that there are plugins which are OS specific,
some will only run on Windows versions of Adobe products, and some will
only run on OSX versions. Interesting in that Adobe places no demand on
those developers to produce cross platform plugins.

it's entirely up to the developer what a plug-in does, what versions of
photoshop it supports and on what platforms.

adobe does not impose any requirements whatsoever.

writing a cross-platform plug-in is also very easy. almost the entire
code is the same for both.