Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by sid, Sep 2, 2012.

  1. sid

    sid Guest

    Savageduck wrote:

    > On 2012-08-29 15:46:38 -0700, "Russell D." <> said:
    >
    >> On 08/28/2012 05:43 PM, Alan Browne wrote:
    >>> I received an advert via e-mail that Elements 10 is $40 off.
    >>>
    >>> Code is: ELEMENTSDEAL (online or call center).
    >>>
    >>> US and Canada (except Quebec for reasons that escape me).
    >>>
    >>> Sorry this is so late - just opened my mail;
    >>>

    >>
    >> GIMP is still free. :)

    >
    > Free, and after making the comparison with PS, it still sits unused on
    > my computer.
    > GIMP does a reasonable job for those who deny the functionality of
    > CS5/6, or those who insist of "free". You do get what you pay for.
    > After making the basic comparison and saying that they are both capable
    > of editing and adjusting image files, there is no contest. CS3/4/5/6
    > are all far superior to GIMP.
    >
    > ...but GIMP is "free".


    righto then, I'll ask the specific question. What, can you achieve with your
    ps/cs whatever that I cannot with my gimp. I haven't used ps since version 6
    10 or 12 years ago and I don't see any of you avid ps users posting any pics
    that could not be processed using gimp.


    --
    sid
    RLU 300284
    2010.2
     
    sid, Sep 2, 2012
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. sid

    Pablo Guest

    Savageduck escribió:

    > Ryan, you might not have noticed, but both "sid" and "Pablo" have
    > changed the "Follow-up To" headers in some of their responses without
    > advising they had done so. I find it somewhat disruptive.


    You are somewhat tiring, you know.

    Personally, I don't care what you find disruptive, and you know from a
    previous conversation on the subject, that I have to manually tell my
    newsreader not to set follw-ups. I try to remember to annoy everyone else
    for your sake, but sometimes I forget.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
    for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
    Follow the link at your peril.
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Sep 2, 2012
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. sid

    sid Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:

    > On 2012.09.02 11:51 , sid wrote:
    >
    >> righto then, I'll ask the specific question. What, can you achieve with
    >> your ps/cs whatever that I cannot with my gimp. I haven't used ps since
    >> version 6 10 or 12 years ago and I don't see any of you avid ps users
    >> posting any pics that could not be processed using gimp.

    >
    > I personally can't point directly to that, but even in my most recent
    > tests of the Gimp, here are four reasons why it is not preferred for me:
    >
    > First off, when I open a raw file in GIMP v. PS CS5, it takes 2X as long
    > for UFraw to open the file and then about 4X longer for the GIMP to open
    > it after UFraw. That is tedious when you have dozens of photos to
    > evaluate and process. Time matters to me. I'll eventually upgrade my
    > computer and it will improve. Moreso for PS.


    Ok, opening a raw file from gimp took somewhere between 2 and 3 seconds for
    ufraw to display the file and a further may be 6 or 7 seconds to open the
    converted file into gimp. Not that these points reflect on gimp at all as we
    are talking raw conversion not editing which was the initial point of
    discussion. I don't use ufraw BTW, all my raw conversion is done using
    bibble 5 which imo is a far better tool.
    >
    > Secondly, except for HDR (which I don't do much) I do most of my
    > exposure, brightness, blackpoint and colour adjustment in PS raw. The
    > facilities for this in UFraw are crude and not very intuitive - and
    > poorly laid out (IMO). (Note my copy of Ufraw is long in the tooth,
    > 0.16, maybe it's been improved).


    Again you've picked raw conversion which is not the point of discussion.

    >
    > Thirdly, I can't seem to open more that one file into Gimp's raw engine
    > at a time. So while I have a set of similarly subject matter under the
    > same lighting, I can't set them in raw concurrently (it does keep the
    > recent setting for the next photo but my setting decisions may be
    > aggregated in PS raw with all the photos present at any time. eg: I
    > examine and fine tune one setting for many photos at a time). So I can
    > go into finder and select any number of images to open raw, but UFraw
    > does them serially. PS raw import opens them all at once. This is
    > important to work flow (which is faster on PS in any case).


    As above

    > Fourthly, USM preview in photoshop allows me to preview evaluate the
    > effect on the whole image, not just a tiny preview screen. This is
    > important because edge contrast is different in different parts of the
    > image and what may be just right in one area is too much elsewhere.


    I don't know about you but I'm able to have that little box about half the
    area of my screen. It does have that image at 100% so the whole image is not
    visible completely but scrolling around it is no bother. I'm not going to
    search for it but I know you have made a point in the past the sharpening
    should be previewed at 100% else how can you possibly see the true effect
    before committing to the image.

    >
    > As a nit, The Gimp (running under X11) doesn't follow the keyboard
    > shortcut conventions of OS X - that too slows me down.


    I find it quite hard to edit/keyboard shortcuts too

    >
    > If I used the Gimp more I'm sure I'd find other things that just
    > indicate further its 2nd ratedness.


    OK

    > BTW, next time you set FU for a thread that hasn't drastically changed
    > scope you'll be transferred to my KF.


    wow but are you a scary man, as has been brought up in these groups before
    that's a function of properly written usenet client. Cross posting
    habitually and continually is not how things should be done. We all know
    that but whatever...

    fwiw I didn't even look at where follow ups were set, as a rule one doesn't
    need to, the post replied to should go to the group it was read in. I'm not
    in the habit of deliberate disruption but no amount badgering by you or
    'duck will change how I believe usenet should be used.

    If every post contains three groups in the groups header what is the point
    in having three groups?

    upon pressing send for this article with no follow up to set this is the
    message I'm presented with


    WARNING
    You are crossposting to more than two newsgroups.
    Please use the "Followup-To" header to direct the replies to your article
    into one group.
    Do you want to re-edit the article or send it anyway?

    --
    sid
    RLU 300284
    2010.2
     
    sid, Sep 2, 2012
    #3
  4. "Pablo" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > Personally, I don't care what you find disruptive, and you know from a
    > previous conversation on the subject, that I have to manually tell my
    > newsreader not to set follw-ups. I try to remember to annoy everyone else
    > for your sake, but sometimes I forget.


    Actually, I'm slightly ticked off you trimmed the newsgroup headers without
    notification and the fact you don't care that anyone else cares pretty much
    kills any further involvement with you dead in its tracks.

    (All things being equal people don't buy things from people they don't like
    so your peddling Gimp just got a lot harder.)

    --
    Charles E. Hardwidge
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Sep 2, 2012
    #4
  5. sid

    Pablo Guest

    Charles E. Hardwidge escribió:

    > "Pablo" <> wrote in message
    > news:...
    >
    >> Personally, I don't care what you find disruptive, and you know from a
    >> previous conversation on the subject, that I have to manually tell my
    >> newsreader not to set follw-ups. I try to remember to annoy everyone else
    >> for your sake, but sometimes I forget.

    >
    > Actually, I'm slightly ticked off you trimmed the newsgroup headers
    > without notification and the fact you don't care that anyone else cares
    > pretty much kills any further involvement with you dead in its tracks.


    Can you read? I didn't trim anything. Disruptive. What a patronising word.

    > (All things being equal people don't buy things from people they don't
    > like so your peddling Gimp just got a lot harder.)
    >


    Oh, please buy my hard peddling Gimp!! Please, please!!

    No hope for some people.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
    for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
    Follow the link at your peril.
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Sep 2, 2012
    #5
  6. sid

    sid Guest

    Savageduck wrote:

    > Ryan, you might not have noticed, but both "sid" and "Pablo" have
    > changed the "Follow-up To" headers in some of their responses without
    > advising they had done so. I find it somewhat disruptive.


    See the response to Alan for more on that

    > There certainly seems to be a "Cult of GIMP" developing here.


    What's the point of that comment? The simple fact that someone uses a
    different set of tools to you does not necessarily mean they are at any
    disadvantage to you and definitely does not reduce them to cultist.

    --
    sid
    RLU 300284
    2010.2
     
    sid, Sep 2, 2012
    #6
  7. Say "hello" to perma-killfile.

    --
    Charles E. Hardwidge
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Sep 2, 2012
    #7
  8. sid

    sid Guest

    Savageduck wrote:

    >>> ...but GIMP is "free".

    >>
    >> righto then, I'll ask the specific question. What, can you achieve with
    >> your ps/cs whatever that I cannot with my gimp. I haven't used ps since
    >> version 6 10 or 12 years ago and I don't see any of you avid ps users
    >> posting any pics that could not be processed using gimp.

    >


    > Certainly PS-6 was in the distant past and CS6 has moved way beyond
    > what PS-6 offered.


    I should hope so for the money that you have spent to get to that point

    > Regarding differences between the two regarding what you might need to
    > produce the images you do, you will probably get by without being
    > limited by RGB & Gray Scale as color space choices.


    Yep that's fine for me and yourself I should think

    > You will probably
    > manage without content aware fill/correction.


    Ok, automatic cloning could be handy on occasion but does not stop me
    cloning manually, which was how you had to do it until cs5

    > You will probably never
    > miss adjustment layers,


    you're right there, what do they do that I cannot achieve?

    > or "Smart Objects".


    What do they do that I can't

    > Most importantly there is
    > probably no convincing you that these are just a few of the features
    > available with what I use CS5, which you will find useless, but you
    > have never tried any of them because the are not replicated in any way
    > with your GIMP. CS6 has even more to offer.


    Why do you have to try and be condescending about it? Do you have some sort
    of feeling of superiority because of the software you use?

    >
    > So my suggestion is to actually check out what Adobe has to say about
    > their product & its new features, and download and examine CS6 for
    > yourself:
    > <
    > http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/features._sl_id-

    contentfilter_sl_featuredisplaytypes_sl_new.html

    If adobe produced cross platform software then perhaps I would

    > I
    >
    > also find working with GIMP awkward, but that is a personal issue, as I
    > have said if you are comfortable using GIMP, who am I to criticize you
    > choice, i just feel that CS5/6 is the better, more capable piece of
    > software.


    That still doesn't tell me what you can achieve that I can not. Is finished
    product the reason for all this or is it not?

    --
    sid
    RLU 300284
    2010.2
     
    sid, Sep 2, 2012
    #8
  9. sid

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, sid
    <> wrote:

    > > There certainly seems to be a "Cult of GIMP" developing here.

    >
    > What's the point of that comment? The simple fact that someone uses a
    > different set of tools to you does not necessarily mean they are at any
    > disadvantage to you and definitely does not reduce them to cultist.


    they're definitely at a disadvantage when those tools can't do what the
    other tools can.
     
    nospam, Sep 2, 2012
    #9
  10. sid

    nospam Guest

    In article <>, sid
    <> wrote:

    > > Certainly PS-6 was in the distant past and CS6 has moved way beyond
    > > what PS-6 offered.

    >
    > I should hope so for the money that you have spent to get to that point


    cs6 is spendy (although a drop in the bucket for a pro), but photoshop
    elements for $59, as noted in the subject, is dirt cheap and can do a
    *lot* more than the gimp can. you can even get photoshop elements for
    free bundled with some hardware.

    > > Regarding differences between the two regarding what you might need to
    > > produce the images you do, you will probably get by without being
    > > limited by RGB & Gray Scale as color space choices.

    >
    > Yep that's fine for me and yourself I should think


    for many people it might be, but certainly not for all.

    > > You will probably
    > > manage without content aware fill/correction.

    >
    > Ok, automatic cloning could be handy on occasion but does not stop me
    > cloning manually, which was how you had to do it until cs5


    sure, if you don't mind making more work for yourself.

    each successive version makes things easier than previous versions.
    computers are supposed to do the work for you, not the other way
    around.

    also, cs5 had content aware tools.

    > > You will probably never
    > > miss adjustment layers,

    >
    > you're right there, what do they do that I cannot achieve?


    quite a bit, namely non-destructive editing.

    you can change your adjustments long after you first made them, even
    after closing the file.

    > > or "Smart Objects".

    >
    > What do they do that I can't


    quite a bit, namely non-destructive editing.

    you can go back and un-blur something you blurred long ago, even after
    closing the file.

    > > Most importantly there is
    > > probably no convincing you that these are just a few of the features
    > > available with what I use CS5, which you will find useless, but you
    > > have never tried any of them because the are not replicated in any way
    > > with your GIMP. CS6 has even more to offer.

    >
    > Why do you have to try and be condescending about it? Do you have some sort
    > of feeling of superiority because of the software you use?


    how is what he said condescending?

    your mind is made up and it doesn't sound like you'll ever try cs6 or
    elements or anything else.

    > > So my suggestion is to actually check out what Adobe has to say about
    > > their product & its new features, and download and examine CS6 for
    > > yourself:
    > > <
    > > http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/features._sl_id-

    > contentfilter_sl_featuredisplaytypes_sl_new.html
    >
    > If adobe produced cross platform software then perhaps I would


    they do. just about *all* of adobe's software is cross platform,
    particularly photoshop.

    > > also find working with GIMP awkward, but that is a personal issue, as I
    > > have said if you are comfortable using GIMP, who am I to criticize you
    > > choice, i just feel that CS5/6 is the better, more capable piece of
    > > software.

    >
    > That still doesn't tell me what you can achieve that I can not. Is finished
    > product the reason for all this or is it not?


    if you don't mind doing everything the hard way, then go for it.

    meanwhile, photoshop users will be producing more and better photos in
    less time with fewer headaches.
     
    nospam, Sep 2, 2012
    #10
  11. sid

    sid Guest

    nospam wrote:

    > In article <>, sid
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >> > Certainly PS-6 was in the distant past and CS6 has moved way beyond
    >> > what PS-6 offered.

    >>
    >> I should hope so for the money that you have spent to get to that point

    >
    > cs6 is spendy (although a drop in the bucket for a pro),


    we are not talking pro use here are we?

    > but photoshop
    > elements for $59, as noted in the subject, is dirt cheap and can do a
    > *lot* more than the gimp can.


    What exactly can you achieve with elements that cannot be acheived with
    gimp?


    > you can even get photoshop elements for
    > free bundled with some hardware.


    not the latest version you wont

    >> > Regarding differences between the two regarding what you might need to
    >> > produce the images you do, you will probably get by without being
    >> > limited by RGB & Gray Scale as color space choices.

    >>
    >> Yep that's fine for me and yourself I should think

    >
    > for many people it might be, but certainly not for all.


    Isn't that what I just said?
    >
    >> > You will probably
    >> > manage without content aware fill/correction.

    >>
    >> Ok, automatic cloning could be handy on occasion but does not stop me
    >> cloning manually, which was how you had to do it until cs5

    >
    > sure, if you don't mind making more work for yourself.
    >
    > each successive version makes things easier than previous versions.
    > computers are supposed to do the work for you, not the other way
    > around.
    >
    > also, cs5 had content aware tools.


    I already said that too

    >> > You will probably never
    >> > miss adjustment layers,

    >>
    >> you're right there, what do they do that I cannot achieve?

    >
    > quite a bit, namely non-destructive editing.


    why do think I can't do that?

    >
    > you can change your adjustments long after you first made them, even
    > after closing the file.
    >
    >> > or "Smart Objects".

    >>
    >> What do they do that I can't

    >
    > quite a bit, namely non-destructive editing.


    Why do you think I cant do that?
    >
    > you can go back and un-blur something you blurred long ago, even after
    > closing the file.


    And?

    >> > Most importantly there is
    >> > probably no convincing you that these are just a few of the features
    >> > available with what I use CS5, which you will find useless, but you
    >> > have never tried any of them because the are not replicated in any way
    >> > with your GIMP. CS6 has even more to offer.

    >>
    >> Why do you have to try and be condescending about it? Do you have some
    >> sort of feeling of superiority because of the software you use?

    >
    > how is what he said condescending?
    >
    > your mind is made up and it doesn't sound like you'll ever try cs6 or
    > elements or anything else.


    You definitely haven't provided any reason for me to do so

    >> > So my suggestion is to actually check out what Adobe has to say about
    >> > their product & its new features, and download and examine CS6 for
    >> > yourself:
    >> > <
    >> > http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/features._sl_id-

    >> contentfilter_sl_featuredisplaytypes_sl_new.html
    >>
    >> If adobe produced cross platform software then perhaps I would

    >
    > they do. just about *all* of adobe's software is cross platform,
    > particularly photoshop.


    No, for my platform, it is not,

    >> > also find working with GIMP awkward, but that is a personal issue, as I
    >> > have said if you are comfortable using GIMP, who am I to criticize you
    >> > choice, i just feel that CS5/6 is the better, more capable piece of
    >> > software.

    >>
    >> That still doesn't tell me what you can achieve that I can not. Is
    >> finished product the reason for all this or is it not?

    >
    > if you don't mind doing everything the hard way, then go for it.


    content aware fill seems to be the only thing to actually be not do able
    with gimp

    > meanwhile, photoshop users will be producing more and better photos in
    > less time with fewer headaches.


    quantify how you can produce more and particularly better photos using
    photoshop. I'm very quick with gimp as I've been using it for a long time,
    I've not had a headache from it, ever.

    And, because that's what I want, I'll ask again how are your photos better
    because of photoshop?

    --
    sid
    RLU 300284
    2010.2
     
    sid, Sep 2, 2012
    #11
  12. sid

    sid Guest

    Savageduck wrote:

    >>>>> ...but GIMP is "free".
    >>>>
    >>>> righto then, I'll ask the specific question. What, can you achieve with
    >>>> your ps/cs whatever that I cannot with my gimp. I haven't used ps since
    >>>> version 6 10 or 12 years ago and I don't see any of you avid ps users
    >>>> posting any pics that could not be processed using gimp.
    >>>

    >>
    >>> Certainly PS-6 was in the distant past and CS6 has moved way beyond
    >>> what PS-6 offered.

    >>
    >> I should hope so for the money that you have spent to get to that point

    >
    > What does that have to do with anything?


    You brought price into in the first instance, do you not see the first line
    in this post, but apart from that nothing at all.
    >
    >>> Regarding differences between the two regarding what you might need to
    >>> produce the images you do, you will probably get by without being
    >>> limited by RGB & Gray Scale as color space choices.

    >>
    >> Yep that's fine for me and yourself I should think

    >
    > Fine for you maybe, but certainly not for me.


    Where are all these images where you need more than that? I'm sure I've seen
    as much of your good work as anyone here but nothing that cant be done with
    different tools to you.

    >
    >>> You will probably
    >>> manage without content aware fill/correction.

    >>
    >> Ok, automatic cloning could be handy on occasion but does not stop me
    >> cloning manually, which was how you had to do it until cs5

    >
    > What "automatic cloning"?
    >
    > I was talking about content aware fill/correction, and in CS6 there is
    > considerably more, but I am sure you haven't even bothered to read
    > about those features.


    From the demo that I have seen that's what content aware fill/correction
    does

    http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI


    >>> You will probably never
    >>> miss adjustment layers,

    >>
    >> you're right there, what do they do that I cannot achieve?

    >
    >>> or "Smart Objects".

    >>
    >> What do they do that I can't

    >
    > Quite a bit, you should read about them some time, not the least of
    > which is opening from ACR as a 32-bit Smart object which can provide a
    > different level of adjustment, plus the ability to be taken back into
    > ACR for double processing, but you probably wouldn't use that anyway.


    you're right again oh wise sage, why oh why would I ever need that level of
    superiority, my images just do not come up to your high standards, or is it
    that I just do not feel that level of over complexity is at all necessary

    But anyway, there you go with that condescending attitude again.

    >>> So my suggestion is to actually check out what Adobe has to say about
    >>> their product & its new features, and download and examine CS6 for
    >>> yourself:
    >>> <
    >>> http://www.adobe.com/products/photoshop/features._sl_id-

    >> contentfilter_sl_featuredisplaytypes_sl_new.html
    >>
    >> If adobe produced cross platform software then perhaps I would

    >
    > Why on earth should Adobe produce an open source version of CS6 for
    > Linux? They are a successful commercial enterprise, and the Linux base
    > is an insignificant market to chase.


    I never said they should did I?

    > So the reality of the situation is, you have made the choice to use
    > Linux exclusively,


    Yes we have

    > and because the closest open source image editing SW
    > to PS you can find is GIMP.


    See, even at this point you don't seem to believe there are choices other
    than PS, if I wanted to use PS I could, cs5 runs under wine apparently but
    why would I need to run it to achieve what I already achieve without it.


    > You like Floyd, and Pablo are rabidly
    > locked into your choices and will remain blind to alternatives, many of
    > them which are superior to the GIMP.


    I'm sorry duck but the rabid frothing over software is coming from you, Alan
    and your best mate nospam. No change there then.

    > I also find working with GIMP awkward, but that is a personal issue, as I
    >>> have said if you are comfortable using GIMP, who am I to criticize you
    >>> choice, i just feel that CS5/6 is the better, more capable piece of
    >>> software.

    >>
    >> That still doesn't tell me what you can achieve that I can not. Is
    >> finished product the reason for all this or is it not?

    >
    > It isn't going to make any difference to you one way, or another is it?


    Not really, no. If I could see that all you PS users were producing images
    that I couldn't it would be a different story, but you're not, are you?

    --
    sid
    RLU 300284
    2010.2
     
    sid, Sep 3, 2012
    #12
  13. sid

    sid Guest

    Eric Stevens wrote:


    >> WARNING
    >>You are crossposting to more than two newsgroups.
    >>Please use the "Followup-To" header to direct the replies to your article
    >>into one group.
    >>Do you want to re-edit the article or send it anyway?

    >
    > Why don't you send it anyway?


    how do think it got here?

    --
    sid
    RLU 300284
    2010.2
     
    sid, Sep 3, 2012
    #13
  14. sid

    Pablo Guest

    Savageduck escribió:

    > So the reality of the situation is, you have made the choice to use
    > Linux exclusively, and because the closest open source image editing SW
    > to PS you can find is GIMP. You like Floyd, and Pablo are rabidly
    > locked into your choices and will remain blind to alternatives, many of
    > them which are superior to the GIMP.


    You are *such* a twat.

    I use Gimp because it serves its purpose. I don't care what PS can do, as I
    don't frigging need it. Just get that into your extremely thick skull.

    For your information, I buy the software that I need. For work, I bought
    Trados, a windows program that costs a lot of money. There is a free linux
    program called OmegaT, which has quite a following. I tried it, but prefer
    to use the commercial offering largely because of extra features and ease of
    use. I believe OmegaT is fine for most stuff.

    You are so up your own arse, you will probably (hopefully) disappear any
    moment).

    Now look, you've got me using rude words.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
    for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
    Follow the link at your peril.
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Sep 3, 2012
    #14
  15. sid

    sid Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:


    >>> On 2012.09.02 11:51 , sid wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> righto then, I'll ask the specific question. What, can you achieve with
    >>>> your ps/cs whatever that I cannot with my gimp.



    >>> I personally can't point directly to that


    I don't know why I didn't stop right here before as those 7 words are
    exactly right.

    eod for me

    --
    sid
    RLU 300284
    2010.2
     
    sid, Sep 3, 2012
    #15
  16. sid

    Pablo Guest

    Eric Stevens escribió:

    > On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 09:08:24 +0100, sid
    > <> wrote:
    >
    >>Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>> WARNING
    >>>>You are crossposting to more than two newsgroups.
    >>>>Please use the "Followup-To" header to direct the replies to your
    >>>>article into one group.
    >>>>Do you want to re-edit the article or send it anyway?
    >>>
    >>> Why don't you send it anyway?

    >>
    >>how do think it got here?

    >
    > My apologies. I thought you were the guy who said he had no option but
    > to respond by posting articles without the follow ups. Clearly you are
    > not.


    Praps you refer to me. My newsreader *defaults* to setting followups to
    prevent spamming, but I can manually change that on a per-post basis.

    > You have eminently demonstrated that it is possible to post with a
    > full complement of follow ups.. I suspect this is a case of someone
    > else trying to convert this little corner of Usenet to the way he
    > would like it to be. Yet another Reg Shoe perhaps?


    I do wonder if the majority of subscribers to all these groups actually want
    to see all this nonsense.

    --
    Pablo

    http://www.flickr.com/photos/wibbleypants/
    The below is a link to an ad for an apartment
    for rent. It may or may not be of interest to photographers.
    Follow the link at your peril.
    http://paulc.es/piso/index.php
     
    Pablo, Sep 3, 2012
    #16
  17. sid

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/2/2012 12:42 PM, Savageduck wrote:

    <snip>

    > There certainly seems to be a "Cult of GIMP" developing here.
    >

    I assume the pun was unintentional.


    --
    Peter
     
    PeterN, Sep 3, 2012
    #17
  18. sid

    Bruce Guest

    Pablo <> wrote:

    >Eric Stevens escribió:
    >
    >> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 09:08:24 +0100, sid
    >> <> wrote:
    >>
    >>>Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>
    >>>
    >>>>> WARNING
    >>>>>You are crossposting to more than two newsgroups.
    >>>>>Please use the "Followup-To" header to direct the replies to your
    >>>>>article into one group.
    >>>>>Do you want to re-edit the article or send it anyway?
    >>>>
    >>>> Why don't you send it anyway?
    >>>
    >>>how do think it got here?

    >>
    >> My apologies. I thought you were the guy who said he had no option but
    >> to respond by posting articles without the follow ups. Clearly you are
    >> not.

    >
    >Praps you refer to me. My newsreader *defaults* to setting followups to
    >prevent spamming, but I can manually change that on a per-post basis.
    >
    >> You have eminently demonstrated that it is possible to post with a
    >> full complement of follow ups.. I suspect this is a case of someone
    >> else trying to convert this little corner of Usenet to the way he
    >> would like it to be. Yet another Reg Shoe perhaps?

    >
    >I do wonder if the majority of subscribers to all these groups actually want
    >to see all this nonsense.




    Unfortunately, the most active posters to these newsgroups appear to
    thrive on it, revel in it, and delight in wasting other people's time
    with it. :-(
     
    Bruce, Sep 3, 2012
    #18
  19. sid

    PeterN Guest

    On 9/3/2012 7:47 AM, Bruce wrote:
    > Pablo <> wrote:
    >
    >> Eric Stevens escribió:
    >>
    >>> On Mon, 03 Sep 2012 09:08:24 +0100, sid
    >>> <> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> Eric Stevens wrote:
    >>>>
    >>>>
    >>>>>> WARNING
    >>>>>> You are crossposting to more than two newsgroups.
    >>>>>> Please use the "Followup-To" header to direct the replies to your
    >>>>>> article into one group.
    >>>>>> Do you want to re-edit the article or send it anyway?
    >>>>>
    >>>>> Why don't you send it anyway?
    >>>>
    >>>> how do think it got here?
    >>>
    >>> My apologies. I thought you were the guy who said he had no option but
    >>> to respond by posting articles without the follow ups. Clearly you are
    >>> not.

    >>
    >> Praps you refer to me. My newsreader *defaults* to setting followups to
    >> prevent spamming, but I can manually change that on a per-post basis.
    >>
    >>> You have eminently demonstrated that it is possible to post with a
    >>> full complement of follow ups.. I suspect this is a case of someone
    >>> else trying to convert this little corner of Usenet to the way he
    >>> would like it to be. Yet another Reg Shoe perhaps?

    >>
    >> I do wonder if the majority of subscribers to all these groups actually want
    >> to see all this nonsense.

    >
    >
    >
    > Unfortunately, the most active posters to these newsgroups appear to
    > thrive on it, revel in it, and delight in wasting other people's time
    > with it. :-(
    >


    Yet some are so far above it all, that they make comments about why they
    don't participate. We are still waiting with bated breath, for
    contributions of photo from the superior ones. we need to learn from the
    masters.

    --
    Peter

    Wondering if the term: "baited breath" would be more appropriate.
     
    PeterN, Sep 3, 2012
    #19
  20. sid

    sid Guest

    Alan Browne wrote:

    > On 2012.09.03 04:22 , sid wrote:
    >> Alan Browne wrote:
    >>
    >>
    >>>>> On 2012.09.02 11:51 , sid wrote:
    >>>>>
    >>>>>> righto then, I'll ask the specific question. What, can you achieve
    >>>>>> with your ps/cs whatever that I cannot with my gimp.

    >>
    >>
    >>>>> I personally can't point directly to that

    >>
    >> I don't know why I didn't stop right here before as those 7 words are
    >> exactly right.
    >>
    >> eod for me

    >
    > Bailed out, eh?


    Yeah, that sort of thing is fine to kill a dull Sunday afternoon/evening but
    it's utterly pointless thinking it's any more than that.

    hand

    --
    sid
    RLU 300284
    2010.2
     
    sid, Sep 3, 2012
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. PeterN

    Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

    PeterN, Aug 29, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    338
    PeterN
    Aug 29, 2012
  2. Bob S

    Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

    Bob S, Aug 29, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    302
    Bob S
    Aug 29, 2012
  3. tony cooper

    Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

    tony cooper, Aug 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    301
    tony cooper
    Aug 30, 2012
  4. nospam

    Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

    nospam, Aug 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    329
    nospam
    Aug 30, 2012
  5. tony cooper

    Re: Photoshop Elements sale: $59 Aug 28 only

    tony cooper, Aug 30, 2012, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    26
    Views:
    580
    tony cooper
    Sep 3, 2012
Loading...

Share This Page