On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:32:11 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 19:12:11 GMT, Short Wave Sportfishing
wrote:

And
it's much easier to learn than Adobe.

====================================

Almost anything is easier in my opinion but my brother-in-law is in
the ad business and says that Adobe has become the defacto standard
with the pros he works with.

Does Adobe work on Macs?

Take care.

Tom

"The beatings will stop when morale improves."
E. Teach, 1717

Around 9/27/2004 1:04 PM, Short Wave Sportfishing wrote:

On Mon, 27 Sep 2004 14:32:11 -0400, Wayne.B
wrote:

Almost anything is easier in my opinion but my brother-in-law is in
the ad business and says that Adobe has become the defacto standard
with the pros he works with.


Does Adobe work on Macs?

Yep.

--
~/Garth - 1966 Glastron V-142 Skiflite: "Blue-Boat"
"There is nothing - absolutely nothing - half so much worth doing
as simply messing about in boats."
-Kenneth Grahame, The Wind in the Willows

basskisser wrote:
(basskisser) wrote in message . com...
Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Perhaps YOU are the moron. If I am wrong, please show where. I have
read Harry's post again, and STILL don't see where he said that this
was NEW technology, or whether or not it was being done in the "mid
80s". Please, show where he said such. If you can't, then yes, YOU are
the moron.

Until recently, a year or so ago, I had no great interest in digital
photography. When I work professionally on magazines or brochures or
annual reports, I always have the photography done by a top pro, and the
graphics done by a professional graphics artist. My role was always
directing the photogs and then looking through the 'chromes and picking
the photos I wanted to use. That's still mostly the case on my
professinoal work, though I am starting to see more use of digital
originals. Still, with a digital original, you can't really tell what
you have because of screen resolution limitations.

There are many other limitations inherent in "digital processing" of
photos, art and layout in putting together publications. My graphics
designer uses Photoshop for photos, but Quark Express for design and
layout of publications. When we have the budget, we send out to the
typehouse for type, instead of using "DTP" type.

But digital works...and is useful for some professional jobs.

My personal involvement in digital photography now is casual.




--
We today have a president of the United States who looks like he is the
son of Howdy Doody or Alfred E. Newman, who isn't smarter than either of
them, who is arrogant about his ignorance, who is reckless and
incompetent, and whose backers are turning the United States into a pariah.

What, me worry?

Harry Krause wrote in message ...
basskisser wrote:
(basskisser) wrote in message . com...
Cleesturtle1 wrote in message . ..
On Sun, 19 Sep 2004 13:25:00 -0400, Harry Krause
wrote:


Forgot...another reason to go digital. With digital "negs" and some
decent software, you can much more easily take care of "problems" in
your shots without having to scan a real negative or slide (and thus
lose a generation of sharpness). Take a nice inside shot and there's a
damned wastebasket you can't crop out? Make it disappear digitally!

Heh heh...lets see...wasnt Corel doing this in the mid 80s?

You are such a moron...

Where did Harry say that this was NEW technology, and/or wasn't being
done in the "mid 80s"?

You are such a moron.

Perhaps YOU are the moron. If I am wrong, please show where. I have
read Harry's post again, and STILL don't see where he said that this
was NEW technology, or whether or not it was being done in the "mid
80s". Please, show where he said such. If you can't, then yes, YOU are
the moron.

Until recently, a year or so ago, I had no great interest in digital
photography. When I work professionally on magazines or brochures or
annual reports, I always have the photography done by a top pro, and the
graphics done by a professional graphics artist. My role was always
directing the photogs and then looking through the 'chromes and picking
the photos I wanted to use. That's still mostly the case on my
professinoal work, though I am starting to see more use of digital
originals. Still, with a digital original, you can't really tell what
you have because of screen resolution limitations.

There are many other limitations inherent in "digital processing" of
photos, art and layout in putting together publications. My graphics
designer uses Photoshop for photos, but Quark Express for design and
layout of publications. When we have the budget, we send out to the
typehouse for type, instead of using "DTP" type.

But digital works...and is useful for some professional jobs.

My personal involvement in digital photography now is casual.

I have always had a *hobby* interest in photography. It's the only
artistic type of thing I'm any good at. I've taken a few classes at
junior colleges, etc. I still like the artistic bent of 35mm
photography, that is, being able manipulate things at the point of
contact, rather than doing it at the computer, although there are a
lot of advantages to digital. I may at some time dabble more and more
with digital, I have a camera, and decent software.