«

On Jan 14, 3:05*am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> It seems Adobe has relented a bit and added CS3 & CS4 to the upgrade
> path to CS6.
> <http://www.macworld.com/article/1647...fers_cs6_upgra...
>
>
>
> Rant away Rich!
>
> --
> Regards,
>
> Savageduck

Economic reality. They know that with in-camera correction of JPEGs,
and editing, sales are going to go down.
They can't act like the arrogant fools they were before.

On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:11:50 -0800 (PST), RichA <>
wrote:

>On Jan 14, 3:05*am, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> It seems Adobe has relented a bit and added CS3 & CS4 to the upgrade
>> path to CS6.
>> <http://www.macworld.com/article/1647...fers_cs6_upgra...
>>
>>
>>
>> Rant away Rich!
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
>
>Economic reality. They know that with in-camera correction of JPEGs,
>and editing, sales are going to go down.
>They can't act like the arrogant fools they were before.

Would we all be such arrogant fools and develop the most consistently
popular and widely used program of its type in the world.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 1/14/2012 1:11 PM, RichA wrote:
> On Jan 14, 3:05 am, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>> It seems Adobe has relented a bit and added CS3& CS4 to the upgrade
>> path to CS6.
>> <http://www.macworld.com/article/1647...fers_cs6_upgra...
>>
>>
>>
>> Rant away Rich!
>>
>> --
>> Regards,
>>
>> Savageduck
>
> Economic reality. They know that with in-camera correction of JPEGs,
> and editing, sales are going to go down.
> They can't act like the arrogant fools they were before.

Of course the in camera editing is equal to the editing that the CS
users do.

Sheesh!

--
Peter

On 1/15/2012 11:37 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
> On 2012-01-14 15:03 , tony cooper wrote:
>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:11:50 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
>> wrote:
>>
>>> On Jan 14, 3:05 am, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>> It seems Adobe has relented a bit and added CS3& CS4 to the upgrade
>>>> path to CS6.
>>>> <http://www.macworld.com/article/1647...fers_cs6_upgra...
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>>
>>>> Rant away Rich!
>>>>
>>>> --
>>>> Regards,
>>>>
>>>> Savageduck
>>>
>>> Economic reality. They know that with in-camera correction of JPEGs,
>>> and editing, sales are going to go down.
>>> They can't act like the arrogant fools they were before.
>>
>> Would we all be such arrogant fools and develop the most consistently
>> popular and widely used program of its type in the world.
>
> He got the arrogant part absolutely right.
>
>

A company develops a product for which there is a high demand. I don't
see maximizing the profits as arrogance.

If you don't use layers, why not just use PS Essentials.
If you don't really need the ACR engine, why not use PSP.

--
Peter

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:57:12 -0500, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 1/15/2012 11:37 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>> On 2012-01-14 15:03 , tony cooper wrote:
>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:11:50 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
>>> wrote:
>>>
>>>> On Jan 14, 3:05 am, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>> It seems Adobe has relented a bit and added CS3& CS4 to the upgrade
>>>>> path to CS6.
>>>>> <http://www.macworld.com/article/1647...fers_cs6_upgra...
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>>
>>>>> Rant away Rich!
>>>>>
>>>>> --
>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>
>>>>> Savageduck
>>>>
>>>> Economic reality. They know that with in-camera correction of JPEGs,
>>>> and editing, sales are going to go down.
>>>> They can't act like the arrogant fools they were before.
>>>
>>> Would we all be such arrogant fools and develop the most consistently
>>> popular and widely used program of its type in the world.
>>
>> He got the arrogant part absolutely right.
>>
>>
>
>A company develops a product for which there is a high demand. I don't
>see maximizing the profits as arrogance.
>
>If you don't use layers, why not just use PS Essentials.

Elements, not Essentials. Adobe's Elements 9.0 (I haven't seen 10.0)
has just about all the essentials found in Photoshop, but they call it
"Elements". Elements has had Adjustment Layers for several versions,
but recently added the Layer Mask feature as found in the full version
of Photoshop. 9.0 opens RAW files the same way CS4 does.

I have CS4 and Elements 9.0, and could process 99% of my images in
Elements. But, I use CS4 most of the time because I'm used to it and
the interface. I don't use the bundled "Organizer", so I don't like
adding images there (it's automatic).

I won't be upgrading to CS5 even though I'd like to have the content
aware feature. It's just too much to pay for the one feature I want.
With my Wacom tablet and Layer Masks, I can do the same thing even if
a bit slower.




--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 1/16/2012 10:14 AM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:57:12 -0500, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 1/15/2012 11:37 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>> On 2012-01-14 15:03 , tony cooper wrote:
>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:11:50 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
>>>> wrote:
>>>>
>>>>> On Jan 14, 3:05 am, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>>> It seems Adobe has relented a bit and added CS3& CS4 to the upgrade
>>>>>> path to CS6.
>>>>>> <http://www.macworld.com/article/1647...fers_cs6_upgra...
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Rant away Rich!
>>>>>>
>>>>>> --
>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Savageduck
>>>>>
>>>>> Economic reality. They know that with in-camera correction of JPEGs,
>>>>> and editing, sales are going to go down.
>>>>> They can't act like the arrogant fools they were before.
>>>>
>>>> Would we all be such arrogant fools and develop the most consistently
>>>> popular and widely used program of its type in the world.
>>>
>>> He got the arrogant part absolutely right.
>>>
>>>
>>
>> A company develops a product for which there is a high demand. I don't
>> see maximizing the profits as arrogance.
>>
>> If you don't use layers, why not just use PS Essentials.
>
> Elements, not Essentials.


Oops!

> Adobe's Elements 9.0 (I haven't seen 10.0)
> has just about all the essentials found in Photoshop, but they call it
> "Elements". Elements has had Adjustment Layers for several versions,
> but recently added the Layer Mask feature as found in the full version
> of Photoshop. 9.0 opens RAW files the same way CS4 does.
>
> I have CS4 and Elements 9.0, and could process 99% of my images in
> Elements. But, I use CS4 most of the time because I'm used to it and
> the interface. I don't use the bundled "Organizer", so I don't like
> adding images there (it's automatic).
>
> I won't be upgrading to CS5 even though I'd like to have the content
> aware feature. It's just too much to pay for the one feature I want.
> With my Wacom tablet and Layer Masks, I can do the same thing even if
> a bit slower.
>


Horses for courses.


BTW The osprey at Blue Cypress Lake were almost as common as pigeons and
increasing daily. I know you would rather shoot people than birds, but
the trip from Orlando is well worth it, even if you don't want to shoot.
it was a really nice boat tour, suitable for young children too. We
charted our own.

--
Peter

On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 11:19:43 -0500, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 1/16/2012 10:14 AM, tony cooper wrote:
>> On Mon, 16 Jan 2012 09:57:12 -0500, PeterN
>> <> wrote:
>>
>>> On 1/15/2012 11:37 AM, Alan Browne wrote:
>>>> On 2012-01-14 15:03 , tony cooper wrote:
>>>>> On Sat, 14 Jan 2012 10:11:50 -0800 (PST), RichA<>
>>>>> wrote:
>>>>>
>>>>>> On Jan 14, 3:05 am, Savageduck<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>>>>> It seems Adobe has relented a bit and added CS3& CS4 to the upgrade
>>>>>>> path to CS6.
>>>>>>> <http://www.macworld.com/article/1647...fers_cs6_upgra...
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Rant away Rich!
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> --
>>>>>>> Regards,
>>>>>>>
>>>>>>> Savageduck
>>>>>>
>>>>>> Economic reality. They know that with in-camera correction of JPEGs,
>>>>>> and editing, sales are going to go down.
>>>>>> They can't act like the arrogant fools they were before.
>>>>>
>>>>> Would we all be such arrogant fools and develop the most consistently
>>>>> popular and widely used program of its type in the world.
>>>>
>>>> He got the arrogant part absolutely right.
>>>>
>>>>
>>>
>>> A company develops a product for which there is a high demand. I don't
>>> see maximizing the profits as arrogance.
>>>
>>> If you don't use layers, why not just use PS Essentials.
>>
>> Elements, not Essentials.
>
>
>Oops!
>
>> Adobe's Elements 9.0 (I haven't seen 10.0)
>> has just about all the essentials found in Photoshop, but they call it
>> "Elements". Elements has had Adjustment Layers for several versions,
>> but recently added the Layer Mask feature as found in the full version
>> of Photoshop. 9.0 opens RAW files the same way CS4 does.
>>
>> I have CS4 and Elements 9.0, and could process 99% of my images in
>> Elements. But, I use CS4 most of the time because I'm used to it and
>> the interface. I don't use the bundled "Organizer", so I don't like
>> adding images there (it's automatic).
>>
>> I won't be upgrading to CS5 even though I'd like to have the content
>> aware feature. It's just too much to pay for the one feature I want.
>> With my Wacom tablet and Layer Masks, I can do the same thing even if
>> a bit slower.
>>
>
>
>Horses for courses.
>
>
>BTW The osprey at Blue Cypress Lake were almost as common as pigeons and
>increasing daily. I know you would rather shoot people than birds, but
>the trip from Orlando is well worth it, even if you don't want to shoot.
>it was a really nice boat tour, suitable for young children too. We
>charted our own.

It's easy to find osprey up here, but they are always up high.
Shooting up, you never get really good images like Brett does. He
shoots down on them from an area higher than the nest in many of his
pix. (He's also better at it than I am, and has a better lens).

As an example, I saw a Great Horned Owl yesterday afternoon, but he
was high up in the tree and I couldn't get his "face". His nesting
mate was in a nearby tree, but I couldn't see her at all.

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...1-15-01-XL.jpg

Just for shits and giggles, I used Elements 9 instead of CS4 to
process this.


--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 1/16/2012 1:14 PM, tony cooper wrote:


> It's easy to find osprey up here, but they are always up high.
> Shooting up, you never get really good images like Brett does. He
> shoots down on them from an area higher than the nest in many of his
> pix. (He's also better at it than I am, and has a better lens).
>
> As an example, I saw a Great Horned Owl yesterday afternoon, but he
> was high up in the tree and I couldn't get his "face". His nesting
> mate was in a nearby tree, but I couldn't see her at all.
>
> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...1-15-01-XL.jpg
>
> Just for shits and giggles, I used Elements 9 instead of CS4 to
> process this.
>
>
This image was taken at Blue Cyprus Lake. And yes, I know it's not an
osprey.

<http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Other/General/21271802_fPfFsL#!i=1693675296&k=SKwMFBp>

--
Peter

On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:57:48 -0500, PeterN
<> wrote:

>On 1/16/2012 1:14 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>
>
>> It's easy to find osprey up here, but they are always up high.
>> Shooting up, you never get really good images like Brett does. He
>> shoots down on them from an area higher than the nest in many of his
>> pix. (He's also better at it than I am, and has a better lens).
>>
>> As an example, I saw a Great Horned Owl yesterday afternoon, but he
>> was high up in the tree and I couldn't get his "face". His nesting
>> mate was in a nearby tree, but I couldn't see her at all.
>>
>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...1-15-01-XL.jpg
>>
>> Just for shits and giggles, I used Elements 9 instead of CS4 to
>> process this.
>>
>>
>This image was taken at Blue Cyprus Lake. And yes, I know it's not an
>osprey.
>
><http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Other/General/21271802_fPfFsL#!i=1693675296&k=SKwMFBp>

Good catch, but why ISO 800 and 1/4000th?
--
Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida

On 1/31/2012 6:16 PM, tony cooper wrote:
> On Tue, 31 Jan 2012 17:57:48 -0500, PeterN
> <> wrote:
>
>> On 1/16/2012 1:14 PM, tony cooper wrote:
>>
>>
>>> It's easy to find osprey up here, but they are always up high.
>>> Shooting up, you never get really good images like Brett does. He
>>> shoots down on them from an area higher than the nest in many of his
>>> pix. (He's also better at it than I am, and has a better lens).
>>>
>>> As an example, I saw a Great Horned Owl yesterday afternoon, but he
>>> was high up in the tree and I couldn't get his "face". His nesting
>>> mate was in a nearby tree, but I couldn't see her at all.
>>>
>>> http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...1-15-01-XL.jpg
>>>
>>> Just for shits and giggles, I used Elements 9 instead of CS4 to
>>> process this.
>>>
>>>
>> This image was taken at Blue Cyprus Lake. And yes, I know it's not an
>> osprey.
>>
>> <http://peternewman.smugmug.com/Other/General/21271802_fPfFsL#!i=1693675296&k=SKwMFBp>
>
> Good catch, but why ISO 800 and 1/4000th?

Thanks.

I often shoot birds at 800 & higher. It freezes the action at f16, or
higher, and there is little perceptible noise

--
Peter