[review] "The Adobe Photoshop CS4 Book for Digital Photographers"by Scott Kelby

"Better Info" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 13:47:54 +1000, Troy Piggins
wrote:

Photography instructional books
are written by failed photographers.


Yeah, like Ansel Adams. lol Oh man, you've got me in stitches again!



--
www.mattclara.com

"Better Info" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:33:35 +1000, Troy Piggins
wrote:

* Better Info wrote :
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:08:45 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

Better Info

I have no need to try to pawn off bad photography bounded in an
instructional book to try to make all that wasted time and effort with a
camera worth it. My photography stands on its own merit. I don't have to
trick anyone into buying it.

What if everyone was downloading your photography for free off
binary groups when you were trying to sell it?

Then I stop selling it publicly, just as I have for that very reason.
They're now by private sale only, in limited editions. It's not my loss,
it's everyone else's loss. I could care less if I sell any more of my
photography. I already earned more than I can ever use in a lifetime.

Judging by those photography instructional books, the photography world
would be a much better place if those authors pulled their books
permanently. They're not even worth stealing. If it ain't worth stealing,
it sure as hell ain't worth buying.


Douggie ??

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

On 2009-11-19 15:56:57 -0800, "Atheist Chaplain" said:

"Better Info" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:33:35 +1000, Troy Piggins
wrote:

* Better Info wrote :
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:08:45 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

Better Info

I have no need to try to pawn off bad photography bounded in an
instructional book to try to make all that wasted time and effort with a
camera worth it. My photography stands on its own merit. I don't have to
trick anyone into buying it.

What if everyone was downloading your photography for free off
binary groups when you were trying to sell it?

Then I stop selling it publicly, just as I have for that very reason.
They're now by private sale only, in limited editions. It's not my loss,
it's everyone else's loss. I could care less if I sell any more of my
photography. I already earned more than I can ever use in a lifetime.

Judging by those photography instructional books, the photography world
would be a much better place if those authors pulled their books
permanently. They're not even worth stealing. If it ain't worth stealing,
it sure as hell ain't worth buying.


Douggie ??

Nope! It's the "nameless one" the phantom P&S evangelist..

It seems he thinks he is Warren Buffett.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2009111917112480278-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2009-11-19 15:56:57 -0800, "Atheist Chaplain" said:

"Better Info" wrote in message
...
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 16:33:35 +1000, Troy Piggins
wrote:

* Better Info wrote :
On Thu, 19 Nov 2009 01:08:45 -0500, tony cooper
wrote:

Better Info

I have no need to try to pawn off bad photography bounded in an
instructional book to try to make all that wasted time and effort with
a
camera worth it. My photography stands on its own merit. I don't have
to
trick anyone into buying it.

What if everyone was downloading your photography for free off
binary groups when you were trying to sell it?

Then I stop selling it publicly, just as I have for that very reason.
They're now by private sale only, in limited editions. It's not my loss,
it's everyone else's loss. I could care less if I sell any more of my
photography. I already earned more than I can ever use in a lifetime.

Judging by those photography instructional books, the photography world
would be a much better place if those authors pulled their books
permanently. They're not even worth stealing. If it ain't worth
stealing,
it sure as hell ain't worth buying.


Douggie ??

Nope! It's the "nameless one" the phantom P&S evangelist..

It seems he thinks he is Warren Buffett.


--
Regards,

Savageduck


ahhh IC, the "I've made more than I can ever spend" claim threw me, it has
such a Douggie ring to it :-)

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

* Noons wrote :
On Nov 20, 10:56Â*am, "Atheist Chaplain" wrote:

Douggie ??

Mate: not everyone posting from an unidentified address is Douggie.
In fact, he is usually very easily traceable...
But I must admit: it's got a ring to it!

LOL - you guys miss him so much you're seeing him everywhere, in
the shadows...

--
Troy Piggins

"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
* Noons wrote :
On Nov 20, 10:56 am, "Atheist Chaplain" wrote:

Douggie ??

Mate: not everyone posting from an unidentified address is Douggie.
In fact, he is usually very easily traceable...
But I must admit: it's got a ring to it!

LOL - you guys miss him so much you're seeing him everywhere, in
the shadows...

--
Troy Piggins

yeah but in my defence that "I made so much I don't know what to do with it"
comment was like a laser beam shining out from the shadows saying "Here I
am" :-)

--
[This comment is no longer available due to a copyright claim by Church of
Scientology International]
"I like your Christ. I do not like your Christians. They are so unlike your
Christ." Gandhi

* Atheist Chaplain wrote :
"Troy Piggins" wrote in message
...
[---=| Quote block shrinked by t-prot: 9 lines snipped |=---]
LOL - you guys miss him so much you're seeing him everywhere, in
the shadows...

yeah but in my defence that "I made so much I don't know what to do with it"
comment was like a laser beam shining out from the shadows saying "Here I
am" :-)

True dat

I just consider it kinda like saying "Candyman" 3 times in a
mirror, or "Beetlejuice" etc. Don't talk about him in case he
does appear.

--
Troy Piggins

On 11/18/2009 08:47 PM, Troy Piggins wrote:
After a little deliberation,

snip good stuff

Are you bagging GIMP?


IMWTK,

Russell

* Russell D. wrote :
On 11/18/2009 08:47 PM, Troy Piggins wrote:
After a little deliberation,

snip good stuff

Are you bagging GIMP?

IMWTK,

Russell

Not at all. Reason I switched to PS was purely because of this
astrophotography I've taken up. The images I end up with after
the pre-processing steps are, as you can imagine, still very
dark. All the information is bunched way up at the dark/shadow
end of the histogram. Have to do a lot, lot, lot of
teasing/stretching of the histogram using many iterations of
levels and curves to get that data out of that end.

Can do all that with GIMP, but the 8 bits per channel kills it.
You lose a lot of data when stretching so much. Wish I had some
screenshots or something to show you what I mean, but can't at
the moment. The shots get a bit posterised.

PS's 16 bits per channel is almost a necessity for doing that
magnitude of stretching. I hate saying it, but it's true.

I've never been one to bag PS or whatever, but have always
maintained that GIMP can do practically everything PS can do.
I had always said that unless I was a professional photographer,
I'd be happy with GIMP as it does everything a digital
photographer needs, whether by the base package or with the
plethora of plugins/scripts available.

I still stand by that, except for the astrophotographer.

But for "normal" dynamic ranges and photography, I'd recommend
the free but extremely powerful GIMP. If you have the money you
have another choice, I'd recommend both PS or GIMP.

--
Troy Piggins

On 11/20/2009 12:41 PM, Troy Piggins wrote:
* Russell D. wrote :
On 11/18/2009 08:47 PM, Troy Piggins wrote:
After a little deliberation,

snip good stuff

Are you bagging GIMP?

IMWTK,

Russell

Not at all. Reason I switched to PS was purely because of this
astrophotography I've taken up. The images I end up with after
the pre-processing steps are, as you can imagine, still very
dark. All the information is bunched way up at the dark/shadow
end of the histogram. Have to do a lot, lot, lot of
teasing/stretching of the histogram using many iterations of
levels and curves to get that data out of that end.

Can do all that with GIMP, but the 8 bits per channel kills it.
You lose a lot of data when stretching so much. Wish I had some
screenshots or something to show you what I mean, but can't at
the moment. The shots get a bit posterised.

PS's 16 bits per channel is almost a necessity for doing that
magnitude of stretching. I hate saying it, but it's true.

I've never been one to bag PS or whatever, but have always
maintained that GIMP can do practically everything PS can do.
I had always said that unless I was a professional photographer,
I'd be happy with GIMP as it does everything a digital
photographer needs, whether by the base package or with the
plethora of plugins/scripts available.

I still stand by that, except for the astrophotographer.

But for "normal" dynamic ranges and photography, I'd recommend
the free but extremely powerful GIMP. If you have the money you
have another choice, I'd recommend both PS or GIMP.


Thanks for that explanation. Makes perfect sense. I use GIMP because it
is free and PS has a tough time on Linux which I use 99% of the time. I
just knew you had used GIMP in the past.

Russell