Calumet files Chapter 7

On 2014-04-05 02:42:29 +0000, Savageduck said:

On 2014-04-05 01:52:59 +0000, Tony Cooper said:

On Fri, 4 Apr 2014 08:39:45 -0700, Savageduck
wrote:


...but why do we have to revisit this again and again when the issue
has been beaten to death several times?

Because there's no talk of photography. Here, I'll get the ball
rolling with some recent shots.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Babe-R...-02-051-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...-29-121-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...-29-122-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...-29-123-XL.jpg

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Curren...3-16-12-XL.jpg

Nice

stuff.

How

do you like your D300?
It should have a different heft to your D60, and the burst-CL/CH mode
can be useful for action shots. Also for those action shots using CL/CH
it is worth setting the focus mode from "S" to "C".
I have my D300S set up with the Custom Shooting & Setting banks set for
"Standard/normal", "Landscape", "Action", & "B&W". For B&W I shoot
RAW+JPEG with the RAW going to the CF card and the JPEGs going to the
SDHC.


For "Action" my shooting bank is set as follows:
Primary Slot: CF
Secondary slot function: overflow
RAW
WB: Auto
Set picture control: NL
High ISO NR: Normal
Auto ISO: On; Max 1600, Min shutter speed 1/320. This is one I tweak
depending on event and lighting situation, and will sometimes turn off.
It works for me for motor sports where there are lighting variations
due to movement in and out of shadows.

My Actions setting bank:
a1: Release & Focus
a2: Focus
a3: 51 point(3D-tracking)
a8: AF51
c1: off
d5: Whatever you are comfortable with I have the MB-D10 so I use &

....er that should have been "...I have the MB-D10 so I use 7".

--
Regards,

Savageduck

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 07:03:15 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"'

And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other
people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to
describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'.

once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a
photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of companies
do.

Ever heard of protecting a trademark?

calling something a photoshop plug-in is not infringing. it is, after
all, a photoshop plug-in. it does not in any way mean it was authored
by adobe.

Hmm. The same plugins will often run with Paint Shop Pro, Gimp, Irfan
VIew etc. Does that make them Paint Shop Pro, Gimp, Irfan View
plugins?

You should see
http://www.thepluginsite.com/knowhow...troduction.htm
which will give you some idea of why, when and how Adobe may restrict
the use of Photoshop as part of the name of plugins.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 4 Apr 2014 05:41:29 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Tony Cooper:
And, I do catch my errors the first time.

Sandman:
Haha, best joke of the day, Mr Clown Dictionary. You still don't
know the meaning of words such as "protocol", "requirement" or
what a "Photoshop Plug-In" is. Remember such fantastic quotes such
as:

Tony Cooper 03/17/2014 01:29:18 PM


'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"'

And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other
people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to
describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'.

Haha!

Tony Cooper:
But, no, I don't think your error was "unforgiving"[sic]. Nor
is it unforgivable. (Funny how "Ironic" comes and bites you in
the ass.)

Sandman:
How so? I am not posting spelling and grammar flames, and I am
fully aware that I make such mistakes,

You could have fooled me. :-)

By what posts where I posted grammar and spelling flames, Eric?

There is a mistake: your claim that you are "fully aware that I make
such mistakes". :-)
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 4 Apr 2014 05:39:17 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens wrote:

Savageduck:
Perhaps a virtual inundation of substantiations
was meant to imply a metaphoric onslaught. ...maybe a flood,
or even a plethora of substantiations might end up described
so?

Sandman:
Or maybe just a large quantity of substantiations
that Tony has had a hard time coping with? I.e. what actually
has happened everytime I've used the word.

PeterN:
Only the times when you use an inappropriate word.

Sandman:
You are free to point to any such time, Peter. Be my guest. I am
happy to be corrected when I make mistakes. Be sure to point to
the post of my inappropiate usage and substantiation for how and
why it was inappropriate.

Isn't that what the present argument is about?

No, not that I'm aware of. Tony incorrectly thought I had used the word
"onslaught" inappropriately, but failed to show how, and I have since
substantiated that I was using it correctly - which is when he quietly left
the thread to lick his wounds.

You may have convinced yourself but you didn't convince me.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On 4 Apr 2014 15:27:18 GMT, Sandman wrote:

In article , Tony Cooper wrote:

Sandman:
No, not that I'm aware of. Tony incorrectly thought I had used the
word "onslaught" inappropriately, but failed to show how, and I
have since substantiated that I was using it correctly - which is
when he quietly left the thread to lick his wounds.

You used the word in a way that is not idiomatic in English.

This is an incorrect claim from you, as I have shown.

.... shown, only to yourself.

The usage would not have been written by anyone who understands how the
word is used.

Incorrect. And ironic to be coming from you.

He is correct.

There is a difference that you don't seem to grasp between
"inappropriate" and "incorrect". This is part of the reason you
come out with these clangers in usage.

Ironic.

And correct.

An inappropriate usage can be a usage where the word just doesn't
fit. It's wrong for the application. An incorrect usage is when the
word is not just wrong for the application, but wrong enough to make
the usage not understandable or misleading.

Luckily, I used the word appropriately, which I showed in my
substantiation, which you snipped and ignored since you can't counter it.

Anyone familiar with English can tell that you are not a native
English speaker. Not in a big way: your English is generally very
good. What gives you away are the subtleties of word usage.

It's a subtle difference, but one that people who seek to improve
their language skills take heed of.

An ironic claim to come from you.

I left the thread because I recognized that you have no interest in
improving your English in this area. You would rather insist that
your usage was appropriate than learn.

I am very interested in improving my English. Your mistake is thinking
you're proficient enough to teach anyone anything. You're the one that has
made such hilarious comment such as:

Tony Cooper
11/27/2013 04:03:26 PM

"A requirement is what you want to do."

You're not seriously considering yourself in a position to teach anyone
something about the usage of English words, now are you? This is just your
attempt at being funny, right?

I am not wounded by your intractability. I'm not even mildly
distressed. If it's OK with you to continue to look foolish by
insisting that the inappropriate is appropriate, that's your choice.

Again, I am not the one looking foolish when I can support my argument and
you can only snip it. But I understand your need for this to be the case,
given the humiliation you've endured.
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

nospam:
once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a
photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of
companies do.

To paraphrase one of your favorite terms: no one has said that any
approval is required to write a plug-in to used with an Adobe
product.

Only to "use with" Photoshop:

Tony Cooper
03/15/2014 03:13:30 PM

"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."

Only - you have never been able to provide any support for the approval
process from Adobe for plugins to be "used with" Photoshop.

See https://www.adobeexchange.com/producer

You pointed to a process wherein Adobe approves to include the plug-in on
their market place (titled "Photoshop Plug-ins" while none are authored by
Adobe), but that failed to provide support for the claim that they approve
the plugins "for use with Photoshop".

I think the process begins here http://www.adobe.com/misc/terms.html
and the information you are after may be downstream of section 9.5

it doesn't.

all you need to do is download the photoshop sdk, write whatever
plug-in you want and offer it for sale. adobe doesn't even have to know
about it.

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

'Only Adobe can call a plug-in a "Photoshop Plug-in"'

And quite right too. Once Adobe has called it that, so too can other
people. If you haven't got Adobe's approval, the proper way to
describe it is as a 'plug-in for Photoshop'.

once again, there is no approval necessary to write and sell a
photoshop plug-in and call it that, which is what a lot of companies
do.

Ever heard of protecting a trademark?

calling something a photoshop plug-in is not infringing. it is, after
all, a photoshop plug-in. it does not in any way mean it was authored
by adobe.

Hmm. The same plugins will often run with Paint Shop Pro, Gimp, Irfan
VIew etc. Does that make them Paint Shop Pro, Gimp, Irfan View
plugins?

no, because those apps are pretending to be photoshop to run the
photoshop plug-ins (and usually do an incomplete job of it too).

You should see
http://www.thepluginsite.com/knowhow...troduction.htm
which will give you some idea of why, when and how Adobe may restrict
the use of Photoshop as part of the name of plugins.

adobe doesn't care if you sell something called a photoshop plug-in or
a plug-in for photoshop. anyone with a clue can see that's two ways to
say the same thing.

On Fri, 04 Apr 2014 22:34:46 -0400, nospam
wrote:

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

no one but Apple (or it's very small number of authorized
resellers, who are tightly price-controlled) sells Apple products.

so what?

So there is no real competition between Apple sales outlets, at least
not to the extent that there is between independent camera stores.

nonsense. of course there is.

You don't get much competition when no one but Apple (or it's very
small number of authorized resellers, who are tightly
price-controlled) sells Apple products.

plenty of places sell apple products, including best buy and walmart,
two huge retail outlets in the usa. there are other stores in other
countries that sell apple products. heck there are even vending
machines that sell apple products.

as for the price controls, what the stores often do is include other
stuff, like gift cards, printers, carrying case, etc., to spice up the
deal.

and of course, there are all the non-apple products being sold.

there is *plenty* of competition.

There is a lot more competition when you are subjected to an onslaught
of choices from a plethora of competing products. Acer vs Apple vs
Asus vs Compac vs Dell vs HP vs Lenovo vs MSI vs Samsung vs Toshiba vs
Vaio plus a whole lot more. All of these can be obtained in
conjunction with other stuff such as gift cards, printers, carrying
case, etc., to spice up the deal. Now THAT's competition.

apple is subject to a ****load of competition.

Read above:

"So there is no real competition between Apple sales outlets, at
least not to the extent that there is between independent camera
stores."
--

Regards,

Eric Stevens

In article , Eric Stevens
wrote:

no one but Apple (or it's very small number of authorized
resellers, who are tightly price-controlled) sells Apple products.

so what?

So there is no real competition between Apple sales outlets, at least
not to the extent that there is between independent camera stores.

nonsense. of course there is.

You don't get much competition when no one but Apple (or it's very
small number of authorized resellers, who are tightly
price-controlled) sells Apple products.

plenty of places sell apple products, including best buy and walmart,
two huge retail outlets in the usa. there are other stores in other
countries that sell apple products. heck there are even vending
machines that sell apple products.

as for the price controls, what the stores often do is include other
stuff, like gift cards, printers, carrying case, etc., to spice up the
deal.

and of course, there are all the non-apple products being sold.

there is *plenty* of competition.

There is a lot more competition when you are subjected to an onslaught
of choices from a plethora of competing products. Acer vs Apple vs
Asus vs Compac vs Dell vs HP vs Lenovo vs MSI vs Samsung vs Toshiba vs
Vaio plus a whole lot more. All of these can be obtained in
conjunction with other stuff such as gift cards, printers, carrying
case, etc., to spice up the deal. Now THAT's competition.

apple is subject to a ****load of competition.

Read above:

"So there is no real competition between Apple sales outlets, at
least not to the extent that there is between independent camera
stores."

there is.

In article , Tony Cooper
wrote:
"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."

Only - you have never been able to provide any support for the approval
process from Adobe for plugins to be "used with" Photoshop.

See https://www.adobeexchange.com/producer

You pointed to a process wherein Adobe approves to include the plug-in on
their market place (titled "Photoshop Plug-ins" while none are authored
by
Adobe), but that failed to provide support for the claim that they
approve
the plugins "for use with Photoshop".

I think the process begins here http://www.adobe.com/misc/terms.html
and the information you are after may be downstream of section 9.5

it doesn't.

all you need to do is download the photoshop sdk, write whatever
plug-in you want and offer it for sale. adobe doesn't even have to know
about it.

I don't know why you keep repeating this point. No one is contesting
it. We all know that anyone can write a plug-in for Photoshop or LR
and make that plug-in available to anyone without Adobe's knowledge or
consent.

What is at question is only what you should call it.

do try to keep up.