Velocity Reviews - Computer Hardware Reviews

Velocity Reviews > Newsgroups > Computing > Digital Photography > Re: PS CC update

Reply
Thread Tools

Re: PS CC update

 
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2014
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:

>> I use Photoshop on a daily basis, by the way. Added features aren't
>> announced inside the program, so if they're added, they're pretty *easy*
>> to miss unless you're looking for them, or know to lock for them.

>
> I'm not even a Photoshop user, and I remember the Usual Suspects discussing
> the "RAW as a filter" feature some time ago in this very newsgroup (or r.p.d,
> which all of us read just as regularly). If you missed that, you just weren't
> paying attention.


Bingo


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2014
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens wrote:

> > I'm not even a Photoshop user, and I remember the Usual Suspects
> > discussing the "RAW as a filter" feature some time ago in this
> > very newsgroup (or r.p.d, which all of us read just as regularly).
> > If you missed that, you just weren't paying attention.

>
> Something else Sandman seems to have missed: I posted an example of
> the effect of the anti-shake filter on 20 November 2013.


> Before:
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3-original.jpg


> ... and after.
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-antishake.jpg


I rarely read your posts, Eric.

--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2014
On 1/21/2014 1:49 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Eric Stevens wrote:
>
>>> I'm not even a Photoshop user, and I remember the Usual Suspects
>>> discussing the "RAW as a filter" feature some time ago in this
>>> very newsgroup (or r.p.d, which all of us read just as regularly).
>>> If you missed that, you just weren't paying attention.

>>
>> Something else Sandman seems to have missed: I posted an example of
>> the effect of the anti-shake filter on 20 November 2013.

>
>> Before:
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3-original.jpg

>
>> ... and after.
>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-antishake.jpg

>
> I rarely read your posts, Eric.
>


So your original comment had no factual basis, and you just spouted. I
guess my comment states the obvious, and reinforces my belief in your
credibility.


--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2014
On 1/21/2014 1:48 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, Robert Coe <(E-Mail Removed)> wrote:
>
>>> I use Photoshop on a daily basis, by the way. Added features aren't
>>> announced inside the program, so if they're added, they're pretty *easy*
>>> to miss unless you're looking for them, or know to lock for them.

>>
>> I'm not even a Photoshop user, and I remember the Usual Suspects discussing
>> the "RAW as a filter" feature some time ago in this very newsgroup (or r.p.d,
>> which all of us read just as regularly). If you missed that, you just weren't
>> paying attention.

>
> Bingo
>
>


Leading ne to wonder how much attention you pay to the facts, before
spouting.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2014
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterN wrote:

> > > > Robert Coe:
> > > > I'm not even a Photoshop user, and I remember the Usual
> > > > Suspects discussing the "RAW as a filter" feature some time
> > > > ago in this very newsgroup (or r.p.d, which all of us read
> > > > just as regularly). If you missed that, you just weren't
> > > > paying attention.
> > >
> > > Eric Stevens:
> > > Something else Sandman seems to have missed: I posted an example
> > > of the effect of the anti-shake filter on 20 November 2013.

> >
> > > Before:
> > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3-original.jpg

> >
> > > ... and after.
> > > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-antishake.jpg

> >
> > Sandman:
> > I rarely read your posts, Eric.

>
> So your original comment had no factual basis


What original comment, Peter? The one where I said I had waited for the
fatures announced in this thread? It was very much factual.

> and you just spouted.


That's your job, isn't it? I mean, this post from yours is a good example.
No content, no point.

> I guess my comment states the obvious, and reinforces my belief in
> your credibility.


Best endorsement I could ever get.


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2014
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterN wrote:

> > > > Sandman:
> > > > I use Photoshop on a daily basis, by the way. Added features
> > > > aren't announced inside the program, so if they're added,
> > > > they're pretty *easy* to miss unless you're looking for them,
> > > > or know to lock for them.
> > >
> > > Robert Coe:
> > > I'm not even a Photoshop user, and I remember the Usual Suspects
> > > discussing the "RAW as a filter" feature some time ago in this
> > > very newsgroup (or r.p.d, which all of us read just as
> > > regularly). If you missed that, you just weren't paying
> > > attention.

> >
> > Sandman:
> > Bingo

>
> Leading ne to wonder how much attention you pay to the facts, before
> spouting.


What facts, Peter? This is the supposed "spouting" I did:

Sandman
Re: PS CC update
01/17/2014 <(E-Mail Removed)>

"That's some really neat features. I've been waiting for them
to include the Shaky blur reduction thing, and having Camera
Raw as a filter, nice!"

This was in response to a post by Savageduck that contained a link to the
Adobe blog, posted on january 15th, that talked about new features in
Photoshop. I responded to that in approval of those features, just to learn
that apparently all of them weren't as new as the facts made them appear
(i.e. the date on the blog).

And thus we have Peter the troll. Trying to make it seem I have "spouted"
something that he wants to claim wasn't based on the facts evident in the
thread. He was even stupid enough to make this idiotic claim:

PeterN
Re: PS CC update
01/19/2014 <(E-Mail Removed)>

"The features were hard to miss, if you actually used the
product."

Without, you know, actually explaining just HOW they were supposedly "hard
to miss" when using the program. There is no information when launching the
application that new features were added (like there, ironically, is in
Adobe Illustrator), but still he wanted to make it seem like it was
actually *hard* to miss them - by just using the application. Another lie
from Peter, as usual.

Full circle, now run away little boy.

--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2014
On 1/21/2014 6:23 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterN wrote:
>
>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>> I use Photoshop on a daily basis, by the way. Added features
>>>>> aren't announced inside the program, so if they're added,
>>>>> they're pretty *easy* to miss unless you're looking for them,
>>>>> or know to lock for them.
>>>>
>>>> Robert Coe:
>>>> I'm not even a Photoshop user, and I remember the Usual Suspects
>>>> discussing the "RAW as a filter" feature some time ago in this
>>>> very newsgroup (or r.p.d, which all of us read just as
>>>> regularly). If you missed that, you just weren't paying
>>>> attention.
>>>
>>> Sandman:
>>> Bingo

>>
>> Leading ne to wonder how much attention you pay to the facts, before
>> spouting.

>
> What facts, Peter? This is the supposed "spouting" I did:
>
> Sandman
> Re: PS CC update
> 01/17/2014 <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> "That's some really neat features. I've been waiting for them
> to include the Shaky blur reduction thing, and having Camera
> Raw as a filter, nice!"
>
> This was in response to a post by Savageduck that contained a link to the
> Adobe blog, posted on january 15th, that talked about new features in
> Photoshop. I responded to that in approval of those features, just to learn
> that apparently all of them weren't as new as the facts made them appear
> (i.e. the date on the blog).
>
> And thus we have Peter the troll. Trying to make it seem I have "spouted"
> something that he wants to claim wasn't based on the facts evident in the
> thread. He was even stupid enough to make this idiotic claim:
>
> PeterN
> Re: PS CC update
> 01/19/2014 <(E-Mail Removed)>
>
> "The features were hard to miss, if you actually used the
> product."
>
> Without, you know, actually explaining just HOW they were supposedly "hard
> to miss" when using the program. There is no information when launching the
> application that new features were added (like there, ironically, is in
> Adobe Illustrator), but still he wanted to make it seem like it was
> actually *hard* to miss them - by just using the application. Another lie
> from Peter, as usual.
>
> Full circle, now run away little boy.
>



You got caught, and am embarrassed. Oh Poor Jonas, can't wiggle out from
his bullshit. Of course he calls me a troll for pointing that the newly
discovered features would have been obvious to anyone who actually used
CC on a daily basis, as claimed. Now that you got caught in a red handed
lie, you try to crawl out. Poor Jonas. Crawl back under your bridge in
the Western Baltic.

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
PeterN
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2014
On 1/21/2014 6:13 AM, Sandman wrote:
> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterN wrote:
>
>>>>> Robert Coe:
>>>>> I'm not even a Photoshop user, and I remember the Usual
>>>>> Suspects discussing the "RAW as a filter" feature some time
>>>>> ago in this very newsgroup (or r.p.d, which all of us read
>>>>> just as regularly). If you missed that, you just weren't
>>>>> paying attention.
>>>>
>>>> Eric Stevens:
>>>> Something else Sandman seems to have missed: I posted an example
>>>> of the effect of the anti-shake filter on 20 November 2013.
>>>
>>>> Before:
>>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...3-original.jpg
>>>
>>>> ... and after.
>>>> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/...-antishake.jpg
>>>
>>> Sandman:
>>> I rarely read your posts, Eric.

>>
>> So your original comment had no factual basis

>
> What original comment, Peter? The one where I said I had waited for the
> fatures announced in this thread? It was very much factual.
>


Is a facture a Swedish broken bone?


>> and you just spouted.

>
> That's your job, isn't it? I mean, this post from yours is a good example.
> No content, no point.
>


I guess you took over my job.

>> I guess my comment states the obvious, and reinforces my belief in
>> your credibility.

>
> Best endorsement I could ever get.
>
>

Yup!

--
PeterN
 
Reply With Quote
 
Noons
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2014
On 21/01/2014 10:47 PM, PeterN wrote:
> On 1/21/2014 6:23 AM, Sandman wrote:
>> In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterN wrote:
>>
>>>>>> Sandman:
>>>>>> I use Photoshop on a daily basis, by the way. Added features
>>>>>> aren't announced inside the program, so if they're added,
>>>>>> they're pretty *easy* to miss unless you're looking for them,
>>>>>> or know to lock for them.
>>>>>
>>>>> Robert Coe:
>>>>> I'm not even a Photoshop user, and I remember the Usual Suspects
>>>>> discussing the "RAW as a filter" feature some time ago in this
>>>>> very newsgroup (or r.p.d, which all of us read just as
>>>>> regularly). If you missed that, you just weren't paying
>>>>> attention.
>>>>
>>>> Sandman:
>>>> Bingo
>>>
>>> Leading ne to wonder how much attention you pay to the facts, before
>>> spouting.

>>
>> What facts, Peter? This is the supposed "spouting" I did:
>>
>> Sandman
>> Re: PS CC update
>> 01/17/2014 <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>
>> "That's some really neat features. I've been waiting for them
>> to include the Shaky blur reduction thing, and having Camera
>> Raw as a filter, nice!"
>>
>> This was in response to a post by Savageduck that contained a link to the
>> Adobe blog, posted on january 15th, that talked about new features in
>> Photoshop. I responded to that in approval of those features, just to
>> learn
>> that apparently all of them weren't as new as the facts made them appear
>> (i.e. the date on the blog).
>>
>> And thus we have Peter the troll. Trying to make it seem I have "spouted"
>> something that he wants to claim wasn't based on the facts evident in the
>> thread. He was even stupid enough to make this idiotic claim:
>>
>> PeterN
>> Re: PS CC update
>> 01/19/2014 <(E-Mail Removed)>
>>
>> "The features were hard to miss, if you actually used the
>> product."
>>
>> Without, you know, actually explaining just HOW they were supposedly
>> "hard
>> to miss" when using the program. There is no information when
>> launching the
>> application that new features were added (like there, ironically, is in
>> Adobe Illustrator), but still he wanted to make it seem like it was
>> actually *hard* to miss them - by just using the application. Another lie
>> from Peter, as usual.
>>
>> Full circle, now run away little boy.
>>

>
>
> You got caught, and am embarrassed. Oh Poor Jonas, can't wiggle out from
> his bullshit. Of course he calls me a troll for pointing that the newly
> discovered features would have been obvious to anyone who actually used
> CC on a daily basis, as claimed. Now that you got caught in a red handed
> lie, you try to crawl out. Poor Jonas. Crawl back under your bridge in
> the Western Baltic.
>





Faaaaaaaark!
Is there ONE post about photography in these crap newsgroups that does
not end in trolling and insulting off-topic remarks?

****in GROW UP, you band of TWERPS!!!!!!

Or else stay home and watch tv, like all the other stoopid in your joke
of a country!

Nuff is nuff!!!!!
 
Reply With Quote
 
Sandman
Guest
Posts: n/a
 
      01-21-2014
In article <(E-Mail Removed)>, PeterN wrote:

> > PeterN Re: PS CC update 01/19/2014 <(E-Mail Removed)>

>
> > "The features were hard to miss, if you actually used the
> > product."

>
> > Without, you know, actually explaining just HOW they were
> > supposedly "hard to miss" when using the program. There is no
> > information when launching the application that new features were
> > added (like there, ironically, is in Adobe Illustrator), but still
> > he wanted to make it seem like it was actually *hard* to miss them
> > - by just using the application. Another lie from Peter, as usual.

>
> > Full circle, now run away little boy.

>
> You got caught, and am embarrassed.


Wtf? About what? That I didn't know about these features? Why would that
embarass me? While you may have your self esteem tied to knwoing about
features in software applications, I do not. I was pleasantly surprised to
find out that they existed and my "embarassement" musy have been me gladly
admitting to having missed them as such:

"Which I, obviously, have missed. Or rather, that's how I
found out about them - here in this thread."

Yeah, I sure sound embarrassed there, Peter. The shame, the shame!

> Oh Poor Jonas, can't wiggle out from his bullshit.


Haha, what supposed "bullshit" is that, Peter? You're just here to make as
many ad hominem's as possible without actually supporting any of them. You
keep crying "spouting" and "bullshit" without even quoting anything! You're
one of the most underachieving trolls I've yet to meet.

> Of course he calls me a troll for pointing that the newly discovered
> features would have been obvious to anyone who actually used CC on a
> daily basis, as claimed.


Indeed - since you can't form a coherent post where you actually point out
HOW they would have been obvious - you're way too busy trolling than
actually supporting your claims.

> Now that you got caught in a red handed lie, you try to crawl out. Poor
> Jonas. Crawl back under your bridge in the Western Baltic.


You see, when I call you a liar - I actually point to the actual
misinformation you have posted, explaining what you lied about. You use it
when you can't come up with an actual argument. You do it to attack, I do
it to expose your misinformation and lack of credibility. Trust me - I
would much prefer it if you weren't a lying troll.

Here's a challenge for you - in your next post; outline how these features
are exposed *in the program* in a way where they are *hard to miss*.

For instance, new features in Illustrator are seen as videos in a splash
screen when you start the application. That's a great example of new
features being hard to miss.

Or... run away as usual. It's not like you have the wits to participate in
anything resembling a discussion containing arguments and debate.


--
Sandman[.net]
 
Reply With Quote
 
 
 
Reply

Thread Tools

Posting Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are Off


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Update On The Windows Phone 7 Update Update Lawrence D'Oliveiro NZ Computing 2 02-25-2011 08:03 AM
[BUG?] (2) Update database using stored procedure and OleDbDataAdapter.Update joun ASP .Net 5 11-30-2004 06:51 PM
[BUG?] Update database using stored procedure and OleDbDataAdapter.Update joun ASP .Net 9 11-30-2004 04:57 AM
[Vb.net question] how to apply online update function into program (the effect just like Norton system work live update) chan ASP .Net 1 03-04-2004 02:58 PM
Datalist: update a datasource without using select/edit/update Hartmut Schroth ASP .Net 3 12-01-2003 09:54 AM



Advertisments