Photoshop CS4, do you talk to any actual photographers?
Apr 2, 2009 1:42 AM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
v6v6v6 wrote:
I'm just calling you out. I feel you're the one itching for a fight, my friend.
Let's get two points straight, right off the bat: I'm neither your friend nor am I itching for a fight with you. I can't engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person.
Now:
Yeah, I shouldn't have called you that, but grow up, man, it's not just about name calling. It's your general lack of respect for anyone you deem beneath you. BTW, do you realize you "plonked" me a couple weeks ago vowing to never respond to any of my threads, but then you obviously couldn't resist and made some derogatory remarks in a thread that had absolutely nothing to do with you?
Wrong again. I commented on someone who quoted a post that turned out to be from you. I was not addressing you. It had nothing to do with "not resisting" anything.
The plonking scripts have not yet been customized to work in these new forums. In the meantime, your posts are visible to me. C'est la vie…
v6v6v6 wrote:
Please take a look through my past threads and judge again...
I stand by my comments, my judgments and my opinions as stated in the context in which I have formulated and expressed each one of them.
| -
-
(Chris_Boyce) wrote:
1. New screen mode functions, when you select 'full screen mode with menu bar' the image now anchors to the bottom of the screen. How stupid was that? Not only is that where the auto dock will appear on a mac, but I need to see beyond the bottom edge of the image, unless you can see beyond the bottom edge, you do not know where the bottom edge is. Sure you can use the hand tool to re-position the image but as soon as you touch the navigator to re-size, down it jumps to the bottom of the screen. It used to float freely in CS3, why change it.
It doesn't on my Mac or My PC, It stays centred. You may have an OS/Graphics bug, quite likely if you are using the flaky Leopard.
2. No contact sheet II in the automate menu. Now you want me to create contact sheets in pdf format. I am a professional photographer, I use a professional lab for printing, professional labs want image files like jpegs or tiffs not pdf's. Who thought that was a good idea? not a photographer. Your solution is to load the 'legacy version' as a plug-in. The fact you have withdrawn it from CS4 demonstrates you don't understand the business of professional photography.
Contact sheet is in Bridge, a much more sensible and practical location for it, than in PS and PDFs are very commonly used for printing. You use jpegs and Tiffs for printing individual images, layouts which contact sheets are, are better served by PDFs.
3. Colour labels used in CS4 bridge aren't recognised by lightroom2. CS4 bridge cant read CS2 Bridge colour labels. Why not? it's just simple metadata and they are all Adobe products.
LR + Bridge's label issues drives me nuts as well. As pointed out above there is a explanation, but it shouldn't be an issue in first place. Bridge and LR should work together, not do everything slightly differently. You lose the benefits of same company software due to LR's let's do everything different attitude even if the old way is actually quite good. The label colour should be independent of the label name, particularly as there are desperately few labels anyway,
First visit to the new forums, which rather pathetically do not work with my browser, so I have to use a crappy, crippled browser instead, so even less reason to visit. But although there's an all new look, there's the same old Ramon policing the forums, instructing people how to post and being abusive to all around. So, at at least some things in life are constant.
| -
Ramón G Castañeda wrote:
Let's get two points straight, right off the bat: I'm neither your friend nor am I itching for a fight with you. I can't engage in a battle of wits with an unarmed person
Bravo, good sir, nice job defending a phrase that's meant to be rhetorical. I think we'll call it a day on that point.
Ramón G Castañeda wrote:
Wrong again. I commented on someone who quoted a post that turned out to be from you. I was not addressing you. It had nothing to do with "not resisting" anything.
The plonking scripts have not yet been customized to work in these new forums. In the meantime, your posts are visible to me. C'est la vie…
You announced to the Adobe community that you were going to ignore me in and it happened to be your one and only post (had nothing to do with the topic): "Plonking V6 :/ No offense, V6. This just means I won't see your posts anymore, that's all." Seems like you didn't need a plonking script then to make that claim. You then proceeded to reply to my post in and I simply ignored you. Your assertion that you "commented on someone who quoted a post that turned out to be from you" is BS. There was no quote--just my original post that you replied to. So either be prepared to follow through or get called on it, ok?
Ramon, let's get to the bottom line... I'm specifically calling you out because in typical Internet-bully fashion you hide behind your computer and blow spitballs at anyone who would even dare to cross you. You're one of the most vocal in the community and from what I've observed and experienced in the last few months is that any good information you've got to share is drowned out by this vicious jekyll and hyde show. At least this is true for any newcomers that happen to stop by. For example, you make like, "Really, if I'd known we were discussing MacBooks, I wouldn't even had [sic] read the thread. :/", like, "Your post is a little too long to read in its entirety..." as in the beginning of this thread, or like, "It's very unlikely that Adobe staff who drop by as volunteers, on their own time and dime, will respond to this [sic] type of questions. It's futile to ask why. It just is." and then an Adobe staff member comes along and responds.
So grow up... let's all grow up. I feel that along with the new forum, we should also usher in a new attitude as posted in the Forum Etiquette and Best Practices thread. Not to rely on simple stereotypes, but this isn't some gaming or car forum full of teenagers. I hope I speak for all newcomers (and maybe some vets) when I say I want a professional forum. We're supposed to be professionals in our respective fields. We participate in this community to better our knowledge of PS and other Adobe products that we rely on on a daily basis. I don't put down my colleagues who I work with on a daily basis and I shouldn't expect this type of behavior amongst my online peers, either.
| -
-
-
v6v6v6 wrote:
… you hide behind your computer
If anybody is hiding here that would be the cowards hiding behind an anonymous pseudonym.
I post under my real name. Ramón G Castañeda, ramon [at] surewest [dot] net, not a gmail or hotmail phony address. My face in my profile is real—if a little dated (I needed one with my beard, which I shaved off several years ago). That's who I am.
Grow up yourself, v6v6v6 punk. You sound below the cognitive level of even my youngest grandchild under any of the pseudonyms you've used here so far..
Message was edited by: Ramón G Castañeda
| -
imajez wrote:
… I visit here on occasions to do research and cannot help but notice Ramon's omnipresence, which wouldn't be an issue but for the bizzarre outbursts of vitriol and very nasty abuse…
imajez,
I have no clue as to who you are (your first name wouldn't happen to be Martin, would it?), but I'd put money on your not being able to find a single instance of my resorting to obloquy when the target of any indignant remarks of mine did not attack me first, as another anonymous coward did in post #2 of this very thread.
Do not for a second presume that I feel the need to justify myself. I do not.
At the time of the aborted changeover a couple of years ago, the web forums credited me with just under 25,000 posts or something like that. There were hundreds if not thousands of posts thanking me for assistance provided, and, as my contact information was visible in my profile in the form I typed it above (ramon [at] surewest [dot] net), I routinely received dozens of private emails thanking me too.
My style is straightforward, to the point and frank. I do not engage in English hedging ("I'm afraid this…" or "I'm afraid that…"). Because of these linguistic qualities—which I am not about to change at this very late period of my life—some people may find my posts abrasive sometimes, but I don't switch to confrontational mode unless attacked and injured by an interlocutor or even an idle, unproductive bystander first. Some people have an irrepressible urge to lecture others without being involved in the discussions, as you have just done. I was not addressing you, yet you chose to intervene, much like a street mob suddenly finds strength in numbers and goes after someone.
Yes, I do not suffer fools gladly, nor lazy individuals who do not have the elemental decency to check the FAQs and existing threads before posting questions they feel others have the obligation to answer. Yet, I do not go on the attack unless I'm injured first.
| -
-
Ramon, your post is a little too long to read in its entirety,
but your saying you only attack in defence is simply not true from my observations.As I said above I do not come here often, but your name was instantly recognizable, as your outbursts of invective are simply a bit crazy at times and you are very memorable as a result and the fact you are so astonishingly prolific.
Why not simply be polite, there's no need to shout or be so agggresive?
Ramón G Castañeda wrote:.
Do not for a second presume that I feel the need to justify myself. I do not.
Ironically and amusingly, you just did so at great length
Interesting that you claimed near 30,000 posts in another thread on here, do you just make the no.s up at random?
And these forums are open, discusions here are for anyone to join in and your trying to police the forums as if you had some higher moral authority is why you were called out in this thread in the first place.
BTW my name tells you my name!
| -
-
-
-
-
-
