Groups | Search | Server Info | Keyboard shortcuts | Login | Register [http] [https] [nntp] [nntps]

Groups > comp.sys.mac.apps > #37955 > unrolled thread

Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime

Back to article view | Back to comp.sys.mac.apps

Contents

  Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime RonTheGuy@null.invalid (Ron) - 2017-04-02 15:04 -0700
    Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-02 18:13 -0400
      Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime RonTheGuy@null.invalid (Ron) - 2017-04-03 19:56 -0700
        Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-03 23:01 -0400
          Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-04 03:43 +0000
        Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-04-04 00:23 -0400
          Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-04-04 15:44 +1100
            Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-04 16:25 -0500
              Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-04 17:26 -0400
                Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-04 23:46 +0000
                  Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-04 17:25 -0700
                    Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-04 17:28 -0700
                    Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-05 00:52 +0000
                      Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-05 13:35 -0400
                        Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-06 14:49 +0000
                          Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-06 11:12 -0400
                            Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-06 15:28 +0000
                              Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-06 11:43 -0400
                                Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-06 16:13 +0000
                                  Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-06 12:48 -0400
                                    Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-06 19:11 +0000
                                Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-04-07 09:51 +1100
              Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-04-05 10:53 +1100
                Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-04 18:55 -0700
                  Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-04-05 12:59 +1100
                    Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-04 20:28 -0700
                      Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-04-06 07:00 +1100
                        Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-05 14:22 -0700
                          Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> - 2017-04-06 09:37 +1100
                            Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-06 11:36 +0100
          Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> - 2017-04-04 13:07 +0100
            Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> - 2017-04-04 11:03 -0400
            Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> - 2017-04-04 16:39 -0500
            Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2017-04-04 18:05 -0400
          Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Jolly Roger <jollyroger@pobox.com> - 2017-04-04 15:20 +0000
        Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2017-04-04 17:56 -0400
    Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Davoud <star@sky.net> - 2017-04-02 20:53 -0400
    Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Lewis <g.kreme@gmail.com.dontsendmecopies> - 2017-04-03 02:34 +0000
    Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2017-04-03 17:47 -0400
      Re: Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2017-04-03 18:05 -0400
        Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-04 18:32 +0100
          Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-04-04 15:13 -0300
            Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-04 19:30 +0100
            Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-04 19:54 +0100
              Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) FrozenNorth <frozennorth.ask@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:11 -0400
                Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-04 20:33 +0100
                  Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) FrozenNorth <frozennorth.ask@gmail.com> - 2017-04-04 15:51 -0400
                  Re: [OT] Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-04-04 18:53 -0300
                    Re: [OT] Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-05 10:30 +0100
                      Re: [OT] Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-04-05 08:40 -0300
          Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-04 15:49 -0400
          Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2017-04-04 17:41 -0400
            Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-05 10:10 +0100
              Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-05 07:00 -0400
              Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-05 07:05 -0400
                Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-04-05 12:15 +0100
                  Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-04-05 09:06 -0300
                    Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-05 16:14 -0400
                    Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-05-19 15:54 +0100
                      Re: [OT]David Brooks - CYBERCRIMINAL Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-05-19 12:30 -0300
                        Re: [OT]David Brooks - CYBERCRIMINAL Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-05-19 14:35 -0300
                      Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) PhillipJones <pjonescet@comcast.net> - 2017-05-19 18:56 -0400
                        Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-05-20 08:08 +0100
                          Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-05-20 08:13 +0100
                        Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2017-05-20 14:00 +0000
                          Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-05-20 12:43 -0300
                            Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) "David B." <DavidB@nomail.afraid.org> - 2017-05-20 17:29 +0100
                              Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Shadow <Sh@dow.br> - 2017-05-20 22:00 -0300
                              Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-05-21 08:34 -0400
                              Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2017-05-21 13:04 +0000
                          Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Mike_Duffy <mqduffy001@bell.net> - 2017-05-20 18:21 -0400
                            Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) Diesel <me@privacy.net> - 2017-05-21 13:04 +0000
                              Re: [OT]Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-05-21 11:51 -0400
                  Re: Ping: Phillip Jones (was : Photoshop CS4 and Java SE 6 Runtime) burfordTjustice <burfordTjustice@tues.uk> - 2017-04-05 08:29 -0400

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

#38025

On 2017-04-06, nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
> In article <ekn7psFheufU1@mid.individual.net>, Jolly Roger
><jollyroger@pobox.com> wrote:
>
>>>>>> That's not the point I was making. Does the latest version of
>>>>>> Photoshop CC run on macOS 10.7? How about 10.8 or 10.9? At some
>>>>>> point support will drop for older operating systems and hardware.
>>>>>> And at some point in the future, if and when Adobe stops
>>>>>> supporting subscriptions for those older versions (or Adobe drops
>>>>>> them and moves on to better things), that software will just stop
>>>>>> working on those systems. My point is longevity of software
>>>>>> matters to some people for some use cases.
>>>>>
>>>>> i'm pretty sure cc won't update if it requires a system later than
>>>>> the one you're currently using. 
>>>>>
>>>>> you can also keep an older version.
>>>> 
>>>> Keeping it installed isn't going to be much help if it stops working
>>>> because Adobe's moved on though.
>>>
>>> yes it will.
>> 
>> How will it continue to work if it cannot contact subscription servers?
>
> older versions can ping the servers

If the servers no longer support them - or worse no longer exist - then
the software won't be able to ping those servers. Software is a moving
target, and that includes software running on Adobe's subscription
support servers. 

Again, there is value in software that can run *indefinitely* (look up
the definition of that word if you are confused about it) without
constant payments and without repeatedly contacting subscription
servers. You subscription cheerleaders can argue about this all you
want, but nothing will change this fact. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38026

In article <060420171143598671%nospam@nospam.invalid>,
 nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:

> for those that keep using an older version on older hardware, at some
> point, that hardware will stop working and they'll be forced to
> upgrade.

Depends on their age and how many "old" machines they have. At least 
for mortal man.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38000

In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnFnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:
> > In article <040420170023392529%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net> 
> > wrote:
> > 
> >> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
> >> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
> > 
> > This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other 
> > people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
> > 
> 
> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer. 
>

Depends on what exact question we are discussing. You think if someone 
could have a regular use for the subscription software (see Calum's 
good point), they should obviously use it?

But now, why is this *so obvious*? Perhaps the window shoppers on this 
matter are short of cash and perhaps they can't make it pay for them. 

Perhaps a lot of other things about *other people*. Amazing - or not - 
how so many people have such very narrow view of others! Very 
Republican really!

 
> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.

In other words there are other options. 

By the way, wtf do you guys do with all this fancy latest software? 
Making the world a better place? I get along fine with CS4 (for my 
business and personal needs)... but then I am mainly stuck on Snow 
Leopard and it may prove harder later on.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38001

On 2017-04-04 23:53:03 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:

> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnFnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
>> dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> wrote:
>>> In article <040420170023392529%star@sky.net>, Davoud <star@sky.net>
>>> wrote:
>>> 
>>>> $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
>>>> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.
>>> 
>>> This subscriber continues his breathtaking insensitivity towards other
>>> people. He would be a shoo in for a place on Donald Trump's team.
>>> 
>> 
>> I have to agree with Davoud on this question. The Adobe PS+LR CC
>> subscription for $9.99/month is a no-brainer.
>> 
> 
> Depends on what exact question we are discussing. You think if someone
> could have a regular use for the subscription software (see Calum's
> good point), they should obviously use it?

Over the years I have developed a Lightroom + Photoshop workflow which 
I am very familiar with, and as a result in my photography enthusiast 
mind I can produce images which first and foremost satisfy me. However, 
these days Lightroom has become a more than adequate photo editor, 
especially if you do not need PS for compositing. So LR is my primary 
processing/editing tool.
That said, I have also installed various LR & PS plugins and upgrades 
to those plugins. Along with those, I have explored and bought most of 
the various alternative software, and I find myself impressed with all 
they have to offer.

> 
> But now, why is this *so obvious*? Perhaps the window shoppers on this
> matter are short of cash and perhaps they can't make it pay for them.

Perhaps that is true, but as for myself, I am an amateur, hobbyist, 
enthusiast photographer, and in all my years of photography I have only 
had one individual insist on paying me for the work I did. So I haven't 
made it pay for me.
Photography is strictly for my pleasure and over the years I have spent 
tens of thousands of dollars on cameras, lenses, accessories and 
software. As a matter of fact, today I just spent $2000+ on a new 
camera body and some other stuff from B&H.

> Perhaps a lot of other things about *other people*. Amazing - or not -
> how so many people have such very narrow view of others! Very
> Republican really!

My particular political sensibilities would have preferred a Bernie 
Sanders White House.

>> If you don't want to go that route then the best current non-Adobe options
>> are Luminar, Affinity Photo, & Pixelmator.
> 
> In other words there are other options.

Yup!

> By the way, wtf do you guys do with all this fancy latest software?
> Making the world a better place? I get along fine with CS4 (for my
> business and personal needs)... but then I am mainly stuck on Snow
> Leopard and it may prove harder later on.

Unfortunately CS4 on Snow Leopard, while very capable is running on 
borrowed time. When you finally upgrade/update your system, CS4 might 
not be able to follow. Then you are going to have to decide just how 
much you need PS. One of those other options might suit you better, or 
you might take the plunge into the $9.99/month Adobe CC subscription. 
Today, if I had to make do with one of the options I would seriously 
consider Luminar, AlienSkin Exposure X2, or On1 Photo RAW 2017 all of 
which work superbly as standalone apps.


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38002

In article <2017040418550753144-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2017-04-04 23:53:03 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:
> 
> > In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnFnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
> >  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
...

> Photography is strictly for my pleasure...
>

Are you quite sure? This matter is not usually a coin where business 
is one side and pleasure the other. More complicated than than that 
usually. Not many art photographers, for example, come out much ahead 
financially for it, but it is not *strictly* for their pleasure only. 
It is important to them that they can share. 

In my case, in case you are interested, I have had many photographic 
jobs and sold a fair few pictures and it has been also a part of 
website design in recent years. A lot of the great satisfaction in it 
left me with digital. Sure easier now. Perhaps it is too easy now, the 
wonder of the process not there so much. Big subject...   
 
> > Perhaps a lot of other things about *other people*. Amazing - or not -
> > how so many people have such very narrow view of others! Very
> > Republican really!
> 
> My particular political sensibilities would have preferred a Bernie 
> Sanders White House.
>
 
Yes, he is impressive still and I hope his rallying calls against that 
"pathological liar" president does good. 
 
...

> Unfortunately CS4 on Snow Leopard, while very capable is running on 
> borrowed time. When you finally upgrade/update your system, CS4 might 
> not be able to follow. Then you are going to have to decide just how 
> much you need PS. 

I have it vaguely in mind that for a very long time I will have at 
least one or two machines capable of running SL even if I use more 
modern for other purposes. Reminder to self, look out for any second 
hand Macs in good nick to keep as spare. (Why is my late 2009 Macbook 
still going strong? Has a constant of nature ceased to be? Is its 
longevity a greater miracle than bearded men in rags walking on water 
or turning a bit of bread and fish into a lot just like that?)

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38003

On 2017-04-05 01:59:01 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:

> In article <2017040418550753144-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2017-04-04 23:53:03 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:
>> 
>>> In article <SMSdnXZs5IamknnFnZ2dnUU7-LHNnZ2d@giganews.com>,
>>> Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> ...
> 
>> Photography is strictly for my pleasure...
>> 
> 
> Are you quite sure? This matter is not usually a coin where business
> is one side and pleasure the other. More complicated than than that
> usually. Not many art photographers, for example, come out much ahead
> financially for it, but it is not *strictly* for their pleasure only.
> It is important to them that they can share.

You might say my photography is eclectic as I shoot stuff from 
landscapes, motorsport, airshows, candid street, and more. Sometimes I 
look to create something beyond the purely documentary, but mostly it 
is all for my head.

A taste:
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/fi39trnaoroj2st/DNC_4900-Edit.jpg>
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/o92cqimzgevxui1/DNC_5064-Edit.jpg>
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/5f6xbgibt5bmvmd/DNC5067-Edit.jpg>
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/vhq3tebnlujg7jf/_DSF2575.jpg>
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/r9lv818cecxwxaq/_DSF0337.jpg>
<https://www.dropbox.com/s/02uvcpbk5i1oo40/DNC1181-Edit-3.jpg>

> In my case, in case you are interested, I have had many photographic
> jobs and sold a fair few pictures and it has been also a part of
> website design in recent years. A lot of the great satisfaction in it
> left me with digital. Sure easier now. Perhaps it is too easy now, the
> wonder of the process not there so much. Big subject...
> 
>>> Perhaps a lot of other things about *other people*. Amazing - or not -
>>> how so many people have such very narrow view of others! Very
>>> Republican really!
>> 
>> My particular political sensibilities would have preferred a Bernie
>> Sanders White House.
>> 
> 
> Yes, he is impressive still and I hope his rallying calls against that
> "pathological liar" president does good.
> 
> ...
> 
>> Unfortunately CS4 on Snow Leopard, while very capable is running on
>> borrowed time. When you finally upgrade/update your system, CS4 might
>> not be able to follow. Then you are going to have to decide just how
>> much you need PS.
> 
> I have it vaguely in mind that for a very long time I will have at
> least one or two machines capable of running SL even if I use more
> modern for other purposes. Reminder to self, look out for any second
> hand Macs in good nick to keep as spare. (Why is my late 2009 Macbook
> still going strong? Has a constant of nature ceased to be? Is its
> longevity a greater miracle than bearded men in rags walking on water
> or turning a bit of bread and fish into a lot just like that?)

Just keep doing whatever keeps your head above water. ;-)


-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38015

In article <2017040420284959745-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> You might say my photography is eclectic as I shoot stuff from 
> landscapes, motorsport, airshows, candid street, and more. Sometimes I 
> look to create something beyond the purely documentary, but mostly it 
> is all for my head.
> 
> A taste:
> ...
> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/02uvcpbk5i1oo40/DNC1181-Edit-3.jpg>

Good for you. Nice portrait, care to say anything about it?

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38016

On 2017-04-05 20:00:52 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:

> In article <2017040420284959745-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
>> You might say my photography is eclectic as I shoot stuff from
>> landscapes, motorsport, airshows, candid street, and more. Sometimes I
>> look to create something beyond the purely documentary, but mostly it
>> is all for my head.
>> 
>> A taste:
>> ...
>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/02uvcpbk5i1oo40/DNC1181-Edit-3.jpg>
> 
> Good for you. Nice portrait, care to say anything about it?

It was a purely opportunistic shot. He was panhandling outside a 
grocery store, I had my D300S sitting on my passenger seat, I gave him 
some change and took the shot through the rolled down window on the 
passenger side.

It was processed using Photoshop + NIK Silver Efex Pro2.

-- 
Regards,

Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38017

In article <2017040514221743042-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
 Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> On 2017-04-05 20:00:52 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:
> 
> > In article <2017040420284959745-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
> >  Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> > 
...

> >> ...
> >> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/02uvcpbk5i1oo40/DNC1181-Edit-3.jpg>
> > 
> > Good for you. Nice portrait, care to say anything about it?
> 
> It was a purely opportunistic shot. He was panhandling outside a 
> grocery store, 

Excellent.

-- 
dorayme

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#38018

On 4/5/2017 11:37 PM, dorayme wrote:
> In article <2017040514221743042-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>   Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
> 
>> On 2017-04-05 20:00:52 +0000, dorayme <do_ray_me@bigpond.com> said:
>>
>>> In article <2017040420284959745-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom>,
>>>   Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:
>>>
> ...
> 
>>>> ...
>>>> <https://www.dropbox.com/s/02uvcpbk5i1oo40/DNC1181-Edit-3.jpg>
>>>
>>> Good for you. Nice portrait, care to say anything about it?
>>
>> It was a purely opportunistic shot. He was panhandling outside a
>> grocery store,
> 
> Excellent.

I think so too!  :-)

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37975

On 04/04/2017 05:23, Davoud wrote:
> Ron:
>> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
>> like the subscription model...
>
> That's a common theme, and a personal decision. It amuses me that
> people who subscribe via monthly payments to electricity, phone
> service, gas service, cable TV, water, mortgage or rent payments, car
> payments, magazines, newspapers, et al. balk at a subscription model
> for world-class graphics software.

People use their electricity, phone, gas, TV, water and house every day, 
so an ongoing payment feels appropriate. The vast majority of people 
using Photoshop that frequently and regularly are professionals whose 
subscriptions are likely either a business expense, or being paid for by 
their employer.

For 'normal' people who might only need Photoshop's features a few times 
a year, I completely understand why paying for it monthly just feels 
like a waste of money, whether it really is or not.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37976

In article <oc029u$unu$1@gioia.aioe.org>, Calum
<com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:

> For 'normal' people who might only need Photoshop's features a few times 
> a year, I completely understand why paying for it monthly just feels 
> like a waste of money, whether it really is or not.

for normal people, there is photoshop elements, which is about $50-60
street price.

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37990

Calum <com.gmail@nospam.scottishwildcat> wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 05:23, Davoud wrote:
>> Ron:
>>> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
>>> like the subscription model...
>> 
>> That's a common theme, and a personal decision. It amuses me that
>> people who subscribe via monthly payments to electricity, phone
>> service, gas service, cable TV, water, mortgage or rent payments, car
>> payments, magazines, newspapers, et al. balk at a subscription model
>> for world-class graphics software.
> 
> People use their electricity, phone, gas, TV, water and house every day, 
> so an ongoing payment feels appropriate. The vast majority of people 
> using Photoshop that frequently and regularly are professionals whose 
> subscriptions are likely either a business expense, or being paid for by 
> their employer.
> 
> For 'normal' people who might only need Photoshop's features a few times 
> a year, I completely understand why paying for it monthly just feels 
> like a waste of money, whether it really is or not.
> 

I am a retired, photo amateur who has paid his own way with Photoshop and
Lightroom through upgrades for years. I have been an Adobe CC subscribers
for 3+ years and for those of us who use LR+PS as our workflow it is a
bargain. I have never written the cost off as a business expense, or had it
paid for by an employer.

For those Mac users who don't care to pay for the Adobe CC model there are
the very good Luminar, Affinity Photo, or Pixelmator to use.

-- 

 Regards,
 Savageduck

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37994

Calum wrote:
> On 04/04/2017 05:23, Davoud wrote:
>> Ron:
>>> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
>>> like the subscription model...
>>
>> That's a common theme, and a personal decision. It amuses me that
>> people who subscribe via monthly payments to electricity, phone
>> service, gas service, cable TV, water, mortgage or rent payments, car
>> payments, magazines, newspapers, et al. balk at a subscription model
>> for world-class graphics software.
>
> People use their electricity, phone, gas, TV, water and house every day,
> so an ongoing payment feels appropriate. The vast majority of people
> using Photoshop that frequently and regularly are professionals whose
> subscriptions are likely either a business expense, or being paid for by
> their employer.
>
> For 'normal' people who might only need Photoshop's features a few times
> a year, I completely understand why paying for it monthly just feels
> like a waste of money, whether it really is or not.
  Although Cable/Internet could be considered a Luxury. Items such as 
Gas/Oil, Water/Sewer/Utilities , Rent/lease/Mortgage  are necessities of 
living. Without a vehicle it's not an absolute necessity it would be a 
severe inconvenience. It all depends on your situation. If you got the 
necessary funds then go ahead. if your on a fixed income then you have 
to pick and choose.

-- 
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.      "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net    mailto:pjonescet@comcast.net
http://phillipjones-cet.net/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37979

On 2017-04-04, Davoud <star@sky.net> wrote:
> Ron:
>> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
>> like the subscription model...
>
> That's a common theme, and a personal decision. It amuses me that
> people who subscribe via monthly payments to electricity, phone
> service, gas service, cable TV, water, mortgage or rent payments, car
> payments, magazines, newspapers, et al. balk at a subscription model
> for world-class graphics software. $9.99 per month for Lightroom and
> Photoshop is a no-brainer for me.

Laugh it up, fuzz ball. : ) Meanwhile, it amuses some of us that people
will gleefully support a scheme that results in them not being able to
use a piece of software if they don't continually fork over cash for it.
Some of us value longevity and have computers that are decades old that
are (prepare yourself for this shock) still able to run all of the
software on them today without paying a single red cent, because that
software did not demand a subscription. In fact many of the companies
that created said software are no longer around today, or have moved on
to newer versions, yet the software still runs just fine because it does
not require connection to the internet or subscription servers that no
longer exist. There is high value in that for some people. 

-- 
E-mail sent to this address may be devoured by my ravenous SPAM filter.
I often ignore posts from Google. Use a real news client instead.

JR

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37993

Ron wrote:
> Thanks for all the replies. Might consider upgrading to CC, but don't
> like the subscription model...
>
> nospam <nospam@nospam.invalid> wrote:
>
>> In article <1n3v0er.1nf9pex1f1eggqN%RonTheGuy@null.invalid>, Ron
>> <RonTheGuy@null.invalid> wrote:
>>
>>> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
>>> CS4,
>>
>> it's long overdue to upgrade.
>>
>>> I get the message,
>>> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
>>> SE 6 runtime."
>>> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps
>>
>> no.
>>
>>> or reduce
>>> security on my Mac?
>>
>> it's java, and an old version at that, so yes.
>>
>> photoshop does not use java (it's an apple bug that won't ever be
>> fixed), so it's possible to spoof the check, however, you now have to
>> disable sip to do so and keep reapplying the fix every time you update
>> sierra, making it not a viable option.
>
>
  I don't like subscription Model either but that what all big 
software(s) are going to. I pay for separate subscription for Acrobat 
and also Photography setup (Photoshop and Lightroom) if I were to pay 
sub for Dreamweaver it would Double or triple my subscription payments 
to Adobe. Now Subscription to Office (Word, PowerPoint, Excel, Outlook, 
and One note, is a bargain $99 a Year a Life time license is close t 
$400.00 for Home/Business version.

-- 
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.      "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net    mailto:pjonescet@comcast.net
http://phillipjones-cet.net/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37959

Ron:
> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
> CS4, I get the message, 
> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
> SE 6 runtime." 
> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
> security on my Mac? 
> TIA, 
> Ron

For $10 per month you get a subscription to Lightroom and Photoshop.
Always up-to-date, no obsolete Java (with possible security risks)
required.

-- 
I agree with almost everything that you have said and almost everything that
you will say in your entire life.

usenet *at* davidillig dawt cawm

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37960

In message <1n3v0er.1nf9pex1f1eggqN%RonTheGuy@null.invalid> Ron <RonTheGuy@null.invalid> wrote:
> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
> CS4, I get the message, 
> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
> SE 6 runtime." 

> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
> security on my Mac? 

Yes.

-- 
"Two years from now, spam will be solved," -- Bill Gates, January, 2004

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37966

Ron wrote:
> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
> CS4, I get the message,
> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
> SE 6 runtime."
> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
> security on my Mac?
> TIA,
> Ron
>
>
It hasn't affected OSes up to Sierra/ But I haven't tried Sierra Yet. I 
know every time you switch to a new OS you have to reload it.
I'll have to try and see I have one legacy program I'd like to continue 
to work as I use it to maintain a website I have I designed it using 
DreamWeaver and way to large and complicated to redesign using something 
else.


-- 
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.      "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net    mailto:pjonescet@comcast.net
http://phillipjones-cet.net/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

#37967

PhillipJones wrote:
> Ron wrote:
>> Recently upgraded iMac to Sierra. Now when I try to launch Photoshop
>> CS4, I get the message,
>> "To open "Adobe Photoshop CS4.app" you need to install the legacy Java
>> SE 6 runtime."
>> Will loading this older runtime cause problems with other apps or reduce
>> security on my Mac?
>> TIA,
>> Ron
>>
>>
> It hasn't affected OSes up to Sierra/ But I haven't tried Sierra Yet. I
> know every time you switch to a new OS you have to reload it.
> I'll have to try and see I have one legacy program I'd like to continue
> to work as I use it to maintain a website I have I designed it using
> DreamWeaver and way to large and complicated to redesign using something
> else.
>
>
Well I ran it Dreamweaver came alive and nothing seem to act strange. 
I'd love to subscribe to Dreamweaver as I need to add a section my website.

-- 
Phillip M. Jones, C.E.T.      "If it's Fixed, Don't Break it"
http://www.phillipmjones.net    mailto:pjonescet@comcast.net
http://phillipjones-cet.net/

[toc] | [prev] | [next] | [standalone]

Page 2 of 4 — ← Prev page 1 [2] 3 4  Next page →

Back to top | Article view | comp.sys.mac.apps

csiph-web