Is there a free plug-in manager that works?

In article <iHLKp.11271$>,
"Carrie" wrote:

I’ve been looking and can’t find any. I find ones to download, but nothing happens (maybe they are too old, I have PS CS3 extended) I found some that don’t seem to work, that say they are 30 day trial. I’m thinking of something, a file, to put all the plug-ins in and then open it if and when I want to use something.
Is this something that’s out there, I can find and download (preferably free)?
Someone will probably say you get what you pay for, and free isn’t that great, but I’ve downloaded a lot of free programs that work. I don’t need anything fancy. I’m not even sure there is something like I want LOL

Under Preferences you can choose an additional folder for plug-ins. Perhaps that’s the place you should put the not often used plug-ins.

John J Stafford wrote:

In article <iHLKp.11271$>,
"Carrie" wrote:

I’ve been looking and can’t find any. I find ones to download, but nothing happens (maybe they are too old, I have PS CS3 extended) I found some that don’t seem to work, that say they are 30 day trial. I’m thinking of something, a file, to put all the plug-ins in and then open it if and when I want to use something.
Is this something that’s out there, I can find and download (preferably free)?
Someone will probably say you get what you pay for, and free isn’t that great, but I’ve downloaded a lot of free programs that work. I don’t need anything fancy. I’m not even sure there is something like I want LOL

Under Preferences you can choose an additional folder for plug-ins. Perhaps that’s the place you should put the not often used plug-ins.

I don’t think that’s the type of Plug-Ins Managerment Carrie talking about. Years ago when Plug-Ins was still very hot, few companies released some tool to manager the mass-plug-ins many Photoshop users installed but don’t (didn’t) know what to do with 99.x% of them. The Plug-Ins Managerment gives the option to LAUNCH Photoshop with specific group’s of plug-ins

To me, it ain’t worth the trouble. And people with too many plug-ins should have their hands chopped off, print the plug-ins and plug to their In The Name Of The Father. And start to learn Photoshop without plug-in

I tried that but they still load and show up each time I open Photoshop. I thought there might be one like a separate folder that wouldn’t load unless I wanted it, when I had photoshop open.

Under Preferences you can choose an additional folder for plug-ins. Perhaps that’s the place you should put the not often used plug-ins.

I could put plug-ins in this and uncheck it, and then check it if I wanted to use them but would have to check it and restart PS again to get it to show. I have seen (somewhere) a program, one can donload, maybe buy, that you put all the plug-ins in and only open and use it (through PS) when you want them. I got one that said free but it doesn’t seem to install. Maybe it’s not made to work with CS3.

Under Preferences you can choose an additional folder for plug-ins. Perhaps that’s the place you should put the not often used plug-ins.

"Joel" wrote in message

John J Stafford wrote:

In article <iHLKp.11271$>,
"Carrie" wrote:

I’ve been looking and can’t find any. I find ones to download, but nothing
happens (maybe they are too old, I have PS CS3 extended) I found some that
don’t seem to work, that say they are 30 day trial. I’m thinking of something, a file, to put all the plug-ins in and then open it if and when I
want to use something.
Is this something that’s out there, I can find and download (preferably
free)?
Someone will probably say you get what you pay for, and free isn’t that
great, but I’ve downloaded a lot of free programs that work. I don’t need
anything fancy. I’m not even sure there is something like I want LOL

Under Preferences you can choose an additional folder for plug-ins. Perhaps that’s the place you should put the not often used plug-ins.

I don’t think that’s the type of Plug-Ins Managerment Carrie talking about. Years ago when Plug-Ins was still very hot, few companies released some tool to manager the mass-plug-ins many Photoshop users installed but don’t (didn’t) know what to do with 99.x% of them. The Plug-Ins Managerment
gives the option to LAUNCH Photoshop with specific group’s of plug-ins
To me, it ain’t worth the trouble. And people with too many plug-ins should have their hands chopped off, print the plug-ins and plug to their In
The Name Of The Father. And start to learn Photoshop without plug-in

I know, I think I have too many LOL A lot of them do the same thing or I’m not sure what they do. I sometimes go over some and try them out. I’ve learned to make a duplicate layer first so I can fade the effect the plug-in has put on.Otherewise it usually covers the original picture. I used to have one I used some, it would make one image into several (depending on how you set it) I think it was called "Drink to Me". I don’t know where it went (I got new computers and reinstalled Windows and PS at times) I used to find websites with them offered as downloads.Or someone would give me a file of them. One I like (program) but don’t use too much, and don’t use most of the options is "Visual Painter". Though I always feel like I’m cheating. Real artists take time and actually make paintings. Though sometimes the effects can be really good. I have folders of pictures I have "done something" to, to make into art of sorts. What I should do is figure out which filters/plug-ins I might sometimes use and keep them, and put the rest in a spare folder. It’s not always easy to tell the name of the actual plug-in file, going by the name of it and effect. another one I like and sometimes use is "weave". With plug-ins, I think a little goes a long way. http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y212/starchild_dreams/moonb irds_6.jpg That is small size because I used to print notecards and used it. This is one of the few pictures I actually sold. I don’t try and sell them, someone wanted to buy a bigger copy of it to print and frame and put in her office (chiropractic) I mainly do pictures (photography and PS) because I love it. The trees in that picture are on a slope and around 50+ feel tall. The moon was coming up, late afternoon. I took a lot of pictures some with just the trees and moon. The weave just seemed to work with it.
I was looking for pictures I’d used plug-ins but don’t have a lot. I think it’s just something I occasionall do for fun.

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:12:18 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

I could

Could you stop top posting? English flows from left to right and top to bottom. Putting your replies above the quoted text is lazy and moronic.

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:12:18 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

I could

Could you stop top posting? English flows from left to right and top to bottom. Putting your replies above the quoted text is lazy and moronic.

I can stop posting at all

Get a life, Basement Boy.

On 06/20/2011 5:49 PM, Voivod wrote:

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:12:18 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

I could

Could you stop top posting? English flows from left to right and top to bottom. Putting your replies above the quoted text is lazy and moronic.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:02:48 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:12:18 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

I could

Could you stop top posting? English flows from left to right and top to bottom. Putting your replies above the quoted text is lazy and moronic.

I can stop posting at all

That’d be your choice. Not like I care.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:00:18 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

Get a life, Basement Boy.

Sorry, fucktard, no basement in the house I own. Better luck next time.

Oh, I doubt that. You’re still in the basement at Mommy and Daddy’s.

On 06/21/2011 11:16 AM, Voivod wrote:

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:00:18 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

Get a life, Basement Boy.

Sorry, fucktard, no basement in the house I own. Better luck next time.

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:02:48 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:12:18 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

I could

Could you stop top posting? English flows from left to right and top to bottom. Putting your replies above the quoted text is lazy and moronic.

I can stop posting at all

That’d be your choice. Not like I care.

You seem to care where I post.
I usually post on top after I’ve already commented on the overall post (on the bottom) and want to add something else, extra. I guess I thought that would be obvious. Not making everyone read everything again, or scroll down over everything to skip it.
Maybe you should post the rules for this group every few days, to make them clear.

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Get a life, Basement Boy.

I guess there’s one (or more) in every group…

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:38:48 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

Oh, I doubt that. You’re still in the basement at Mommy and Daddy’s.

The delusions of a top posting fuckwit, while amusing, aren’t going to hurt my feelings. Your flame attempts have been pitiful. Quit while you’re behind.

P.S. Still no basements here in Florida.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:18:47 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 09:02:48 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Mon, 20 Jun 2011 17:12:18 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

I could

Could you stop top posting? English flows from left to right and top to bottom. Putting your replies above the quoted text is lazy and moronic.

I can stop posting at all

That’d be your choice. Not like I care.

You seem to care where I post.

Seem being the keyword here.

I usually post on top after I’ve already commented on the overall post

Top posting is for fuckwits and the clueless.

(on the bottom) and want to add something else, extra. I guess I thought that would be obvious. Not making everyone read everything again, or scroll down over everything to skip it.

How horrible that someone need press the page-down button. What a horrible fate.

Maybe you should post the rules for this group every few days, to make them clear.

That’s too much like work. You go on being a douchebag and I’ll occasionally make fun of you for it.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20:06 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Get a life, Basement Boy.

I guess there’s one (or more) in every group…

So it’s ok if they’re on your side, right?

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20:06 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Get a life, Basement Boy.

I guess there’s one (or more) in every group…

So it’s ok if they’re on your side, right?

Are you interested in Photoshop? Or just looking for reasons to call people names for something you have decided they are doing wrong.

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20:06 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Get a life, Basement Boy.

I guess there’s one (or more) in every group…

So it’s ok if they’re on your side, right?

And if you really want some action, you should go on the so-called "spiritual" (talk or alt relgion, etc) newsgroups. I thought when I found a Photoshop one, where it looked like people were actually discussing it, as a topic, this one was different. That’s what I meant by one (or more) in every group.
Is there a newsgroup "talk.argue.fight"?

On 06/21/2011 2:00 PM, Carrie wrote:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20:06 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Get a life, Basement Boy.

I guess there’s one (or more) in every group…

So it’s ok if they’re on your side, right?

And if you really want some action, you should go on the so-called "spiritual" (talk or alt relgion, etc) newsgroups. I thought when I found a Photoshop one, where it looked like people were actually discussing it, as a topic, this one was different. That’s what I meant by one (or more) in every group.
Is there a newsgroup "talk.argue.fight"?

Actually, Moronboy is a founder of alt.troll.

"Carrie" wrote:

"Joel" wrote in message

John J Stafford wrote:

In article <iHLKp.11271$>,
"Carrie" wrote:

I’ve been looking and can’t find any. I find ones to download, but nothing
happens (maybe they are too old, I have PS CS3 extended) I found some that
don’t seem to work, that say they are 30 day trial. I’m thinking of something, a file, to put all the plug-ins in and then open it if and when I
want to use something.
Is this something that’s out there, I can find and download (preferably
free)?
Someone will probably say you get what you pay for, and free isn’t that
great, but I’ve downloaded a lot of free programs that work. I don’t need
anything fancy. I’m not even sure there is something like I want LOL

Under Preferences you can choose an additional folder for plug-ins. Perhaps that’s the place you should put the not often used plug-ins.

I don’t think that’s the type of Plug-Ins Managerment Carrie talking about. Years ago when Plug-Ins was still very hot, few companies released some tool to manager the mass-plug-ins many Photoshop users installed but don’t (didn’t) know what to do with 99.x% of them. The Plug-Ins Managerment
gives the option to LAUNCH Photoshop with specific group’s of plug-ins
To me, it ain’t worth the trouble. And people with too many plug-ins should have their hands chopped off, print the plug-ins and plug to their In
The Name Of The Father. And start to learn Photoshop without plug-in

I know, I think I have too many LOL A lot of them do the same thing or I’m not sure what they do. I sometimes go over some and try them out. I’ve learned to make a duplicate layer first so I can fade the effect the plug-in has put on.Otherewise it usually covers the original picture. I used to have one I used some, it would make one image into several (depending on how you set it) I think it was called "Drink to Me". I don’t know where it went (I got new computers and reinstalled Windows and PS at times) I used to find websites with them offered as downloads.Or someone would give me a file of them. One I like (program) but don’t use too much, and don’t use most of the options is "Visual Painter". Though I always feel like I’m cheating. Real artists take time and actually make paintings. Though sometimes the effects can be really good. I have folders of pictures I have "done something" to, to make into art of sorts. What I should do is figure out which filters/plug-ins I might sometimes use and keep them, and put the rest in a spare folder. It’s not always easy to tell the name of the actual plug-in file, going by the name of it and effect. another one I like and sometimes use is "weave". With plug-ins, I think a little goes a long way.

Same with most if not all Photoshoppers, when I first started using Photoshop I tried to collect as many plug-ins as I can, and 99.99% of them just sit there doing nothing but taking disk space.

After some good years wasting my time and $$$ upgrading to newer version. One day I hit my head with a big hammer and told myself that I had enough with plug-ins, and stopped using plug-in ever since.

Right after I stopped folling around with plug-in, I tried to learn all skill, tricks to come up with my own technique, and my Photoshop started getting better and much better since. And til today, I don’t use any plug-in for the job, just once a moon (couple years average) I may try a plug-in someone mentions to see what it’s about. And I can learn newer technique just by looking at the result

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y212/starchild_dreams/moonb irds_6.jpg That is small size because I used to print notecards and used it. This is one of the few pictures I actually sold. I don’t try and sell them, someone wanted to buy a bigger copy of it to print and frame and put in her office (chiropractic) I mainly do pictures (photography and PS) because I love it. The trees in that picture are on a slope and around 50+ feel tall. The moon was coming up, late afternoon. I took a lot of pictures some with just the trees and moon. The weave just seemed to work with it.
I was looking for pictures I’d used plug-ins but don’t have a lot. I think it’s just something I occasionall do for fun.

The IMAGE, with that low quality image I wouldn’t bother to spend any energy on it. Not that it ain’t worth the trouble, low-rez image won’t give you much room to work, and often slowing you down (from improving your Photoshop skill).

The TECHNIQUE for the Moonbirds, I don’t think you will need any plug-in to come up with the similar result. All you need to do is learning how to use LAYER, and 1001 ways to make SHADOW.

And for more complex weave then you may want to master the Layer Mask tool. Or just by looking at the photo I already come up with several different techniques (in my head) how to come up with the similar and even more complex

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

On 06/21/2011 2:00 PM, Carrie wrote:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20:06 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Get a life, Basement Boy.

I guess there’s one (or more) in every group…

So it’s ok if they’re on your side, right?

And if you really want some action, you should go on the so-called "spiritual" (talk or alt relgion, etc) newsgroups. I thought when I found a Photoshop one, where it looked like people were
actually discussing it, as a topic, this one was different. That’s what I meant by one (or more) in every group.
Is there a newsgroup "talk.argue.fight"?

Actually, Moronboy is a founder of alt.troll.

I think there’s one called alt.kook too.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 13:57:51 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20:06 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Get a life, Basement Boy.

I guess there’s one (or more) in every group…

So it’s ok if they’re on your side, right?

Are you interested in Photoshop? Or just looking for reasons to call

I use Photoshop every day.

people names for something you have decided they are doing wrong.

That’s just the icing on the cake.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:00:01 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20:06 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Get a life, Basement Boy.

I guess there’s one (or more) in every group…

So it’s ok if they’re on your side, right?

And if you really want some action, you should go on the so-called "spiritual" (talk or alt relgion, etc) newsgroups.

I’m quite happy here, thanks. If you’d like to fuck off to somewhere else, feel free.

I thought when I found a Photoshop one, where it looked like people were actually discussing it, as a topic, this one was different. That’s what I meant by one (or more) in every group.

And of course you were too stupid to just shut the fuck up and move on.

Is there a newsgroup "talk.argue.fight"?

Go look if you want to know.

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 14:20:44 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

On 06/21/2011 2:00 PM, Carrie wrote:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20:06 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Get a life, Basement Boy.

I guess there’s one (or more) in every group…

So it’s ok if they’re on your side, right?

And if you really want some action, you should go on the so-called "spiritual" (talk or alt relgion, etc) newsgroups. I thought when I found a Photoshop one, where it looked like people were actually discussing it, as a topic, this one was different. That’s what I meant by one (or more) in every group.
Is there a newsgroup "talk.argue.fight"?

Actually, Moronboy is a founder of alt.troll.

You should return that copy of ‘Flaming for Idiots’ it wasn’t worth what you paid.

When did the USA let you in.
A Canadian scum moves to florida and lives in a trailer park without a basement
are the cockroaches getting you down again
Note: top posting—now complain and see if I care
Note for all: TOP POST ALL REPLIES be sure to use the "F" word

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:38:48 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

Oh, I doubt that. You’re still in the basement at Mommy and Daddy’s.

The delusions of a top posting fuckwit, while amusing, aren’t going to hurt my feelings. Your flame attempts have been pitiful. Quit while you’re behind.

P.S. Still no basements here in Florida.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 07:34:27 -0400, "Ulysses" scribbled:

When did the USA let you in.

At birth, dipshit.

A Canadian scum moves to florida and lives in a trailer park without a basement

I’m Canadian?

Oh, right, your delusional obsession with my nickname.

are the cockroaches getting you down again
Note: top posting—now complain and see if I care
Note for all: TOP POST ALL REPLIES be sure to use the "F" word

Yes, this should be your role model, indeedy-do! Please, everyone emulate Ulysses!

"Ulysses" wrote in message

When did the USA let you in.
A Canadian scum moves to florida and lives in a trailer park without a basement
are the cockroaches getting you down again
Note: top posting—now complain and see if I care
Note for all: TOP POST ALL REPLIES be sure to use the "F" word
"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:38:48 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

Oh, I doubt that. You’re still in the basement at Mommy and Daddy’s.

The delusions of a top posting fuckwit, while amusing, aren’t going to hurt my feelings. Your flame attempts have been pitiful. Quit while you’re behind.

P.S. Still no basements here in Florida.

heard he was cought stealing eggs from a Pakistan zoo
so they shipped his dirty ass to florida, they take anything that looks human

— Posted via —

On 2011-06-21 11:00:01 -0700, "Carrie" said:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20:06 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Get a life, Basement Boy.

I guess there’s one (or more) in every group…

So it’s ok if they’re on your side, right?

And if you really want some action, you should go on the so-called "spiritual" (talk or alt relgion, etc) newsgroups. I thought when I found a Photoshop one, where it looked like people were actually discussing it, as a topic, this one was different. That’s what I meant by one (or more) in every group.
Is there a newsgroup "talk.argue.fight"?

Now we are taking on a Monty Pythonesque dimension.

The one thing he is correct about is how annoying top posting is. He could have been a little less provocative in expressing his distain. Following the flow of a thread is easier for readers of the thread. This is not e-mail where posting above the original message on replies is the standard convention.

Usenet threads are intended to be conversational and adding to the bottom of the thread makes sense and makes for a chronological flow to the thread.
For example, after asking a question as you did with your OP in this thread, it makes logical sense to answer said question below so all who see and choose to read the thread can follow the logic. Remember any question you might ask might be of interest to more individuals than you. Top posting above the original question or snipping it entirely can change the context and the logical flow. Somewhat like making the answer appear to have been answered before the question was posed. Very jeopardy-like done that way.
—
Regards,

Savageduck

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 10:35:25 -0400, "Drogon"
scribbled:

"Ulysses" wrote in message

When did the USA let you in.
A Canadian scum moves to florida and lives in a trailer park without a basement
are the cockroaches getting you down again
Note: top posting—now complain and see if I care
Note for all: TOP POST ALL REPLIES be sure to use the "F" word
"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 11:38:48 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

Oh, I doubt that. You’re still in the basement at Mommy and Daddy’s.

The delusions of a top posting fuckwit, while amusing, aren’t going to hurt my feelings. Your flame attempts have been pitiful. Quit while you’re behind.

P.S. Still no basements here in Florida.

heard he was cought stealing eggs from a Pakistan zoo
so they shipped his dirty ass to florida, they take anything that looks human

How about you learn to write a proper sentence and spell grammar school words like CAUGHT correctly before you try denigrating anyone else’s character?

"Savageduck" <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message

On 2011-06-21 11:00:01 -0700, "Carrie" said:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20:06 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Get a life, Basement Boy.

I guess there’s one (or more) in every group…

So it’s ok if they’re on your side, right?

And if you really want some action, you should go on the so-called "spiritual" (talk or alt relgion, etc) newsgroups. I thought when I found a Photoshop one, where it looked like people were
actually discussing it, as a topic, this one was different. That’s what I meant by one (or more) in every group.
Is there a newsgroup "talk.argue.fight"?

Now we are taking on a Monty Pythonesque dimension.

The one thing he is correct about is how annoying top posting is. He could have been a little less provocative in expressing his distain. Following the flow of a thread is easier for readers of the thread. This is not e-mail where posting above the original message on replies is the standard convention.

Usenet threads are intended to be conversational and adding to the bottom of the thread makes sense and makes for a chronological flow to the thread.
For example, after asking a question as you did with your OP in this thread, it makes logical sense to answer said question below so all who see and choose to read the thread can follow the logic. Remember any question you might ask might be of interest to more individuals than you. Top posting above the original question or snipping it entirely can change the context and the logical flow. Somewhat like making the answer appear to have been answered before the question was posed. Very jeopardy-like done that way.
—
Regards,

Savageduck

Well, I thought I was just top posting when I had something more to add, after responding to or answering the original post. Like an afterthought. Probably more clear to me than anyone else reading it. I’ll make sure it doesn’t ever happen again.

There is absolutely nothing wrong with top posting, regardless of what some might say.

On 06/22/2011 1:54 PM, Carrie wrote:

"Savageduck"<savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote in message

On 2011-06-21 11:00:01 -0700, "Carrie" said:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Tue, 21 Jun 2011 12:20:06 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Get a life, Basement Boy.

I guess there’s one (or more) in every group…

So it’s ok if they’re on your side, right?

And if you really want some action, you should go on the so-called "spiritual" (talk or alt relgion, etc) newsgroups. I thought when I found a Photoshop one, where it looked like people were
actually discussing it, as a topic, this one was different. That’s what I meant by one (or more) in every group.
Is there a newsgroup "talk.argue.fight"?

Now we are taking on a Monty Pythonesque dimension.

The one thing he is correct about is how annoying top posting is. He could have been a little less provocative in expressing his distain. Following the flow of a thread is easier for readers of the thread. This is not e-mail where posting above the original message on replies is the standard convention.

Usenet threads are intended to be conversational and adding to the bottom of the thread makes sense and makes for a chronological flow to the thread.
For example, after asking a question as you did with your OP in this thread, it makes logical sense to answer said question below so all who see and choose to read the thread can follow the logic. Remember any question you might ask might be of interest to more individuals than you. Top posting above the original question or snipping it entirely can change the context and the logical flow. Somewhat like making the answer appear to have been answered before the question was posed. Very jeopardy-like done that way.
—
Regards,

Savageduck

Well, I thought I was just top posting when I had something more to add, after responding to or answering the original post. Like an afterthought. Probably more clear to me than anyone else reading it. I’ll make sure it doesn’t ever happen again.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:02:07 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with top posting, regardless of what some might say.

It disrpupts the flow of conversation. Makes tracking the subject nearly impossible. Anyone top posting with a properly delimited sig will cause ALL of the previous content below their sig to be removed when someone replies. Yeah, moron, there’s nothing at all with being a top posting fucktard.

Ah, a glimmer of hope. You were almost civil there for a moment, but you couldn’t quite pull it off, could you?

Tracking the subject is easy. It’s in the SUBJECT LINE. Duh.

I’ll grant you the sig thing.

The other side of the coin is that you get to see the poster’s response immediately, whereas in a thread with many responses, you could be scrolling for a page and a half before you got to the bottom. Often to see someone post the ever-popular "Me too."

On 06/22/2011 6:18 PM, Voivod wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:02:07 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with top posting, regardless of what some might say.

It disrpupts the flow of conversation. Makes tracking the subject nearly impossible. Anyone top posting with a properly delimited sig will cause ALL of the previous content below their sig to be removed when someone replies. Yeah, moron, there’s nothing at all with being a top posting fucktard.

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:50:21 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

Ah, a glimmer of hope. You were almost civil there for a moment, but you couldn’t quite pull it off, could you?

I wasn’t trying for civil, retard.

Tracking the subject is easy. It’s in the SUBJECT LINE. Duh.

Do I need to spell everything out for you in monosyllabic words?

I’ll grant you the sig thing.

How magnanimous of you, shitlips.

The other side of the coin is that you get to see the poster’s response immediately, whereas in a thread with many responses, you could be scrolling for a page and a half before you got to the bottom. Often to see someone post the ever-popular "Me too."

How horrible it must be to not have a Page-Down button.

On 2011-06-22 15:50:21 -0700, Craig Schiller said:

Ah, a glimmer of hope. You were almost civil there for a moment, but you couldn’t quite pull it off, could you?

Tracking the subject is easy. It’s in the SUBJECT LINE. Duh.

Not always. This discussion/sub-thread is far removed from the OP subject: "Is there a free plug-in manager that works?"

I’ll grant you the sig thing.

The other side of the coin is that you get to see the poster’s response immediately, whereas in a thread with many responses, you could be scrolling for a page and a half before you got to the bottom. Often to see someone post the ever-popular "Me too."

See below.

On 06/22/2011 6:18 PM, Voivod wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:02:07 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with top posting, regardless of what some might say.

It disrpupts the flow of conversation. Makes tracking the subject nearly impossible. Anyone top posting with a properly delimited sig will cause ALL of the previous content below their sig to be removed when someone replies. Yeah, moron, there’s nothing at all with being a top posting fucktard.

However mixing and matching for the top poster ( who is attempting to impose the tyranny of the minority in this case) only leads to a confusing conversation.

In the context of NewsGroup threads, a combination of chronological bottom posting, inline posting, and snipping irrelevant, unrelated text, (only when it does not change the context/meaning/direction of the discussion), remains the most sensible protocol.

—
Regards,

Savageduck

Dumbest. Troll. Ever.

On 06/22/2011 7:47 PM, Voivod wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:50:21 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

Ah, a glimmer of hope. You were almost civil there for a moment, but you couldn’t quite pull it off, could you?

I wasn’t trying for civil, retard.

Tracking the subject is easy. It’s in the SUBJECT LINE. Duh.

Do I need to spell everything out for you in monosyllabic words?

I’ll grant you the sig thing.

How magnanimous of you, shitlips.

The other side of the coin is that you get to see the poster’s response immediately, whereas in a thread with many responses, you could be scrolling for a page and a half before you got to the bottom. Often to see someone post the ever-popular "Me too."

How horrible it must be to not have a Page-Down button.

On Thu, 23 Jun 2011 10:36:41 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

Dumbest. Troll. Ever.

Yeah, don’t be so hard on yourself.

🙂

On 6/23/2011 9:47 AM, Voivod wrote:

Yeah, don’t be so hard on yourself.

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:02:07 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with top posting, regardless of what some might say.

It disrpupts the flow of conversation. Makes tracking the subject nearly impossible. Anyone top posting with a properly delimited sig will cause ALL of the previous content below their sig to be removed when someone replies. Yeah, moron, there’s nothing at all with being a top posting fucktard.

Nothing anymore wrong (as in disrupting the flow of conversation) than using some petty topic to call someone names, and get totally off topic ( which is Photoshop, here) Which is worse (for the flow of conversation) top posting, when it’s clear it’s not directly responding or answering something in the post, or bottom posting and lecturing and calling people names?

"Craig Schiller" wrote in message

Ah, a glimmer of hope. You were almost civil there for a moment, but you couldn’t quite pull it off, could you?

Tracking the subject is easy. It’s in the SUBJECT LINE. Duh.
I’ll grant you the sig thing.

The other side of the coin is that you get to see the poster’s response immediately, whereas in a thread with many responses, you could be scrolling for a page and a half before you got to the bottom. Often to see someone post the ever-popular "Me too."

Right
Or, get called a fucktard.
Most of the time, if someone top posts, it’s clear in it WHAT they are responding to, that might be way down the bottom of the thread. If someone reads all down the thread, and then goes back up to the top to post an answer or response, maybe there isn’t anything in the thread (sometimes many posts) that’s needed to be reread
I’ve been on several newsgroups, one mainly, for a lot of years and somethiung like "top posting" is only used as a way of starting trouble, like an excuse to call someone names. Doesn’t seem to relate to the topic of the newsgroup, itself.

On 06/22/2011 6:18 PM, Voivod wrote:

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:02:07 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with top posting, regardless of what some might say.

It disrpupts the flow of conversation. Makes tracking the subject nearly impossible. Anyone top posting with a properly delimited sig will cause ALL of the previous content below their sig to be removed when someone replies. Yeah, moron, there’s nothing at all with being a top posting fucktard.

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:50:21 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

Ah, a glimmer of hope. You were almost civil there for a moment, but you couldn’t quite pull it off, could you?

I wasn’t trying for civil, retard.

Tracking the subject is easy. It’s in the SUBJECT LINE. Duh.

Do I need to spell everything out for you in monosyllabic words?

I’ll grant you the sig thing.

How magnanimous of you, shitlips.

The other side of the coin is that you get to see the poster’s response immediately, whereas in a thread with many responses, you could be scrolling for a page and a half before you got to the bottom. Often to see someone post the ever-popular "Me too."

How horrible it must be to not have a Page-Down button.

There’s also the idea of reading the response on top and if it’s not clear, what it’s in answer to, scrolling and skimming over all the posts below. Sometimes they go on for days.
If someone asks a question and it’s answered on top (which I have seen done) the person who asks knows WHAT they asked, and gets the answer, without having to read over what they wrote first. A lot of the posts here are questions, and what they are is sometimes in the subject line. It’s not that hard to figure out.
The real question is, why all the fuss about where someone posts, which has nothing to do with Photoshop?

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:28:31 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 17:02:07 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

There is absolutely nothing wrong with top posting, regardless of what some might say.

It disrpupts the flow of conversation. Makes tracking the subject nearly impossible. Anyone top posting with a properly delimited sig will cause ALL of the previous content below their sig to be removed when someone replies. Yeah, moron, there’s nothing at all with being a top posting fucktard.

Nothing anymore wrong (as in disrupting the flow of conversation) than using some petty topic to call someone names, and get totally off topic ( which is Photoshop, here) Which is worse (for the flow of conversation) top posting, when it’s clear it’s not directly responding or answering something in the post, or bottom posting and lecturing and calling people names?

Worse is being you. Someday, probably not soon, you’ll learn to stop painting the target on your forehead.

On Fri, 24 Jun 2011 08:34:23 -0400, "Carrie"
scribbled:

"Voivod" wrote in message

On Wed, 22 Jun 2011 18:50:21 -0400, Craig Schiller
scribbled:

Ah, a glimmer of hope. You were almost civil there for a moment, but you couldn’t quite pull it off, could you?

I wasn’t trying for civil, retard.

Tracking the subject is easy. It’s in the SUBJECT LINE. Duh.

Do I need to spell everything out for you in monosyllabic words?

I’ll grant you the sig thing.

How magnanimous of you, shitlips.

The other side of the coin is that you get to see the poster’s response immediately, whereas in a thread with many responses, you could be scrolling for a page and a half before you got to the bottom. Often to see someone post the ever-popular "Me too."

How horrible it must be to not have a Page-Down button.

There’s also the idea of reading the response on top and if it’s not clear, what it’s in answer to, scrolling and skimming over all the posts below. Sometimes they go on for days.

Will you stop trying to defend your stupidity. Thanks.

If someone asks a question and it’s answered on top (which I have seen done) the person who asks knows WHAT they asked, and gets the answer,

I’ve seen Goatse, it doesn’t mean I want to do it.

without having to read over what they wrote first. A lot of the posts here are questions, and what they are is sometimes in the subject line. It’s not that hard to figure out.

That you’re an idiot? No, that was obvious on your very first post.

The real question is, why all the fuss about where someone posts, which has nothing to do with Photoshop?

The real question is; when will you grow a clue?

"Joel" wrote in message

"Carrie" wrote:

"Joel" wrote in message

John J Stafford wrote:

In article <iHLKp.11271$>,
"Carrie" wrote:

I’ve been looking and can’t find any. I find ones to download, but nothing
happens (maybe they are too old, I have PS CS3 extended) I found some
that
don’t seem to work, that say they are 30 day trial. I’m thinking of something, a file, to put all the plug-ins in and then open it if and
when I
want to use something.
Is this something that’s out there, I can find and download (preferably
free)?
Someone will probably say you get what you pay for, and free isn’t
that
great, but I’ve downloaded a lot of free programs that work. I don’t need
anything fancy. I’m not even sure there is something like I want LOL

Under Preferences you can choose an additional folder for plug-ins. Perhaps that’s the place you should put the not often used plug-ins.

I don’t think that’s the type of Plug-Ins Managerment Carrie talking about. Years ago when Plug-Ins was still very hot, few companies released
some tool to manager the mass-plug-ins many Photoshop users installed but
don’t (didn’t) know what to do with 99.x% of them. The Plug-Ins Managerment
gives the option to LAUNCH Photoshop with specific group’s of plug-ins
To me, it ain’t worth the trouble. And people with too many plug-ins should have their hands chopped off, print the plug-ins and plug to their
In
The Name Of The Father. And start to learn Photoshop without plug-in

I know, I think I have too many LOL A lot of them do the same thing or I’m not sure what they do. I sometimes go over some and try them out. I’ve
learned to make a duplicate layer first so I can fade the effect the plug-in
has put on.Otherewise it usually covers the original picture. I used to have
one I used some, it would make one image into several (depending on how you
set it) I think it was called "Drink to Me". I don’t know where it went (I
got new computers and reinstalled Windows and PS at times) I used to find websites with them offered as downloads.Or someone would give me a file of
them. One I like (program) but don’t use too much, and don’t use most of the options is "Visual Painter". Though I always feel like I’m cheating. Real artists take time and actually make paintings. Though sometimes the effects can be really good. I have folders of pictures I have "done something" to, to make into art of sorts. What I should do is figure out which filters/plug-ins I might sometimes use and keep them, and put the rest
in a spare folder. It’s not always easy to tell the name of the actual plug-in file, going by the name of it and effect. another one I like and sometimes use is "weave". With plug-ins, I think a little goes a long way.

Same with most if not all Photoshoppers, when I first started using Photoshop I tried to collect as many plug-ins as I can, and 99.99% of them just sit there doing nothing but taking disk space.

I think I have gone through that already LOL

After some good years wasting my time and $$$ upgrading to newer version. One day I hit my head with a big hammer and told myself that I had enough with plug-ins, and stopped using plug-in ever since.

I keep thinking I will go over them and figure out which ones I actually use or might, and take the extras out.

Right after I stopped folling around with plug-in, I tried to learn all skill, tricks to come up with my own technique, and my Photoshop started getting better and much better since. And til today, I don’t use any plug-in for the job, just once a moon (couple years average) I may try a plug-in someone mentions to see what it’s about. And I can learn newer technique just by looking at the result

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y212/starchild_dreams/moonb irds_6.jpg That is small size because I used to print notecards and used it. This is
one of the few pictures I actually sold. I don’t try and sell them, someone
wanted to buy a bigger copy of it to print and frame and put in her office
(chiropractic) I mainly do pictures (photography and PS) because I love it.
The trees in that picture are on a slope and around 50+ feel tall. The moon
was coming up, late afternoon. I took a lot of pictures some with just the
trees and moon. The weave just seemed to work with it.
I was looking for pictures I’d used plug-ins but don’t have a lot. I think it’s just something I occasionall do for fun.

The IMAGE, with that low quality image I wouldn’t bother to spend any energy on it. Not that it ain’t worth the trouble, low-rez image won’t give
you much room to work, and often slowing you down (from improving your Photoshop skill).

I know it’s a low quality image. I was just using it as an example. I have higher res versions of it, too. It’s in Photobucket.

The TECHNIQUE for the Moonbirds, I don’t think you will need any plug-in to come up with the similar result. All you need to do is learning how to use LAYER, and 1001 ways to make SHADOW.

I used one of the Eye Candys, I think 3-something.
It was just like having fun with images and seeing how they look. I showed that to some (not into computer art) and they were amazed at it. The weave look. Not too many pictueres go good with it.

And for more complex weave then you may want to master the Layer Mask tool. Or just by looking at the photo I already come up with several different techniques (in my head) how to come up with the similar and even more complex

I’m working on it. I’ve discovered Lynda.com videos and feel for the first time I am actually learning a lot, and every detail of everything that can be done. Before I used to find tutorials online or think of something and try and figure it out, or go by books.

"Carrie" wrote:

Same with most if not all Photoshoppers, when I first started using Photoshop I tried to collect as many plug-ins as I can, and 99.99% of them just sit there doing nothing but taking disk space.

I think I have gone through that already LOL

After messing around with Photoshop (learning stage) for awhile, when I first found out what plug-in can do then it was the first thing I tried to find. I then used plug-in to impress my friends.

But I can’t lie to myself that it wasn’t my skill.

After some good years wasting my time and $$$ upgrading to newer version. One day I hit my head with a big hammer and told myself that I had enough with plug-ins, and stopped using plug-in ever since.

I keep thinking I will go over them and figure out which ones I actually use or might, and take the extras out.

Then one day, I said to myself that plug-in just do what Photoshop is capable of doing. If someone not only can create a technique, but even create a list of commands for Photoshop to follow etc.. which is even harder for Photoshop to max its limitation.

Or if someone gives me the idea of what Photoshop can do, then why not learn the commands (technique) myself.

Right after I stopped folling around with plug-in, I tried to learn all skill, tricks to come up with my own technique, and my Photoshop started getting better and much better since. And til today, I don’t use any plug-in for the job, just once a moon (couple years average) I may try a plug-in someone mentions to see what it’s about. And I can learn newer technique just by looking at the result

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y212/starchild_dreams/moonb irds_6.jpg That is small size because I used to print notecards and used it. This is
one of the few pictures I actually sold. I don’t try and sell them, someone
wanted to buy a bigger copy of it to print and frame and put in her office
(chiropractic) I mainly do pictures (photography and PS) because I love it.
The trees in that picture are on a slope and around 50+ feel tall. The moon
was coming up, late afternoon. I took a lot of pictures some with just the
trees and moon. The weave just seemed to work with it.
I was looking for pictures I’d used plug-ins but don’t have a lot. I think it’s just something I occasionall do for fun.

The IMAGE, with that low quality image I wouldn’t bother to spend any energy on it. Not that it ain’t worth the trouble, low-rez image won’t give
you much room to work, and often slowing you down (from improving your Photoshop skill).

I know it’s a low quality image. I was just using it as an example. I have higher res versions of it, too. It’s in Photobucket.

As a professional photographer, and even with top-of-the-line lenses I know it won’t be easy to capture a good quality with that image. And with years messing with Photoshop I can pretty much see what may appear on screen.

The TECHNIQUE for the Moonbirds, I don’t think you will need any plug-in to come up with the similar result. All you need to do is learning how to use LAYER, and 1001 ways to make SHADOW.

I used one of the Eye Candys, I think 3-something.
It was just like having fun with images and seeing how they look. I showed that to some (not into computer art) and they were amazed at it. The weave look. Not too many pictueres go good with it.

And for more complex weave then you may want to master the Layer Mask tool. Or just by looking at the photo I already come up with several different techniques (in my head) how to come up with the similar and even more complex

I’m working on it. I’ve discovered Lynda.com videos and feel for the first time I am actually learning a lot, and every detail of everything that can be done. Before I used to find tutorials online or think of something and try and figure it out, or go by books.

Video tutorial is a good tool to learn new command. BUT (yes, a BIG BUT) you may want to pay closer attention to what the video may teach.

1. You may want to learn from hi-rez image (or the tutorial using hi-rez image)

2. You may want to learn the processing for printing not displaying.

3. Go for video instead of book, or you may not learn much from book.

Many people may disagree with me on this one, but in general with Video you can see how to do it without knowing the name of commands, Book you know the name of commands (you can find in the pull-down menus, or HELP file) but don’t know what to do with it.

I have seen quite a bit of video tutorials as well as demonstation, and I can tell that most of them are for showing off. I have seen few quite good, and I can learn by watching the video not the language I can’t understand (because I know the commands so I just learn the techiques, tricks, idea etc.)

Whatever you learn, after done processing you may want to PRINT it out to see the result. You can print with your inkjet, and take to photolab for the final exam. If you like as 4×6" then print at larger size like 8×10" (I do print up to around 46") to catch even more error.

The printer won’t lie (super hard to please teacher), and it may teach you much more than the monitor can. And you do this to yourself not for other.

"Joel" wrote in message

"Carrie" wrote:

Same with most if not all Photoshoppers, when I first started using Photoshop I tried to collect as many plug-ins as I can, and 99.99% of them
just sit there doing nothing but taking disk space.

I think I have gone through that already LOL

After messing around with Photoshop (learning stage) for awhile, when I first found out what plug-in can do then it was the first thing I tried to find. I then used plug-in to impress my friends.

But I can’t lie to myself that it wasn’t my skill.

After some good years wasting my time and $$$ upgrading to newer version.
One day I hit my head with a big hammer and told myself that I had enough
with plug-ins, and stopped using plug-in ever since.

I keep thinking I will go over them and figure out which ones I actually use or might, and take the extras out.

Then one day, I said to myself that plug-in just do what Photoshop is capable of doing. If someone not only can create a technique, but even create a list of commands for Photoshop to follow etc.. which is even harder
for Photoshop to max its limitation.

Or if someone gives me the idea of what Photoshop can do, then why not learn the commands (technique) myself.

Right after I stopped folling around with plug-in, I tried to learn all
skill, tricks to come up with my own technique, and my Photoshop started
getting better and much better since. And til today, I don’t use any plug-in for the job, just once a moon (couple years average) I may try a
plug-in someone mentions to see what it’s about. And I can learn newer technique just by looking at the result

http://i6.photobucket.com/albums/y212/starchild_dreams/moonb irds_6.jpg That is small size because I used to print notecards and used it. This
is
one of the few pictures I actually sold. I don’t try and sell them, someone
wanted to buy a bigger copy of it to print and frame and put in her office
(chiropractic) I mainly do pictures (photography and PS) because I love
it.
The trees in that picture are on a slope and around 50+ feel tall. The moon
was coming up, late afternoon. I took a lot of pictures some with just the
trees and moon. The weave just seemed to work with it.
I was looking for pictures I’d used plug-ins but don’t have a lot. I think it’s just something I occasionall do for fun.

The IMAGE, with that low quality image I wouldn’t bother to spend any energy on it. Not that it ain’t worth the trouble, low-rez image won’t give
you much room to work, and often slowing you down (from improving your Photoshop skill).

I know it’s a low quality image. I was just using it as an example. I
have higher res versions of it, too. It’s in Photobucket.

As a professional photographer, and even with top-of-the-line lenses I know it won’t be easy to capture a good quality with that image. And with years messing with Photoshop I can pretty much see what may appear on screen.

The TECHNIQUE for the Moonbirds, I don’t think you will need any plug-in
to come up with the similar result. All you need to do is learning how to
use LAYER, and 1001 ways to make SHADOW.

I used one of the Eye Candys, I think 3-something.
It was just like having fun with images and seeing how they look. I showed that to some (not into computer art) and they were amazed at it. The
weave look. Not too many pictueres go good with it.

And for more complex weave then you may want to master the Layer Mask tool. Or just by looking at the photo I already come up with several different techniques (in my head) how to come up with the similar and even
more complex

I’m working on it. I’ve discovered Lynda.com videos and feel for the first time I am actually learning a lot, and every detail of everything that
can be done. Before I used to find tutorials online or think of something and try and figure it out, or go by books.

Video tutorial is a good tool to learn new command. BUT (yes, a BIG BUT) you may want to pay closer attention to what the video may teach.
1. You may want to learn from hi-rez image (or the tutorial using hi-rez image)

2. You may want to learn the processing for printing not displaying.
3. Go for video instead of book, or you may not learn much from book.
Many people may disagree with me on this one, but in general with Video you can see how to do it without knowing the name of commands, Book you know
the name of commands (you can find in the pull-down menus, or HELP file) but
don’t know what to do with it.

I have seen quite a bit of video tutorials as well as demonstation, and I can tell that most of them are for showing off. I have seen few quite good,
and I can learn by watching the video not the language I can’t understand (because I know the commands so I just learn the techiques, tricks, idea etc.)

Whatever you learn, after done processing you may want to PRINT it out to see the result. You can print with your inkjet, and take to photolab for the final exam. If you like as 4×6" then print at larger size like 8×10" (I
do print up to around 46") to catch even more error.
The printer won’t lie (super hard to please teacher), and it may teach you much more than the monitor can. And you do this to yourself not for other.

I have a Canon Rebel XSi. I see beautiful, high res photos online, that are taken with $3000 or more cameras. I started out looking at the Nikons then decided the Canon was more affordable. Before that I had a Canon Powershot G-6. Long before that I had ones like Epson 1 mp (think it was 750Z) and the first one was a Kodak (refurnished, it was around $60). I live on limited income (Social Security) and do what I can with what I have. That said, I am grateful for the first cameras, and even now not having the $3000+ ones, because that’s what got me into Photoshop. Actually I had PSP 6 when I first started. BecauseI didn’t have a great camera, I did a lot of fixing on the computer.
I remember asking on a discussion group, in the photo topic (where people loved to brag about the new camera or $1200 lens they just bought) about getting greens to come out better in shady areas. I had one of the Epsons then which I had bought used, and was the best I had at the time. One person said "you are never going to get anything but crummy pictures with a 1 mp camera". Though I have decided, it’s not ALL the number of mps, but the quality of the lens, too.
I figured out how to adjust the color and get good green on the computer. The same with not having a car, and not being able to go too many places to take exotic or different pictures. I pretty much have to be creative and use what I have around me. Looking at small things (one summer I took, cropped and enlarged everything tiny I could find, bugs, spiders, ants, etc) or the different seasons, or light coming through the trees (or light shining on my wood floor)\
If I’d had a really good, expensive camera all along, I’d probably not have gotten into learning so much about the computer side of it. I have two monitors and have been using the first PS CS3 set from Lynda.com. I feel I am learning a lot, he goes over every way of doing things, and tells the short cuts, and does this enough so I sometimes even remember it after LOL I use batch and action and resize-lower resolution of pictures I plan to put up online for whatever reason.
There’s not much doing around here, but sometimes I get a surprise. Probably trying to capture "nature" and have it look in a picture like it does to the eye, is something to keep working on.
This was 8pm at night, in a light rain
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_2091.jpg

This year there are the most beautiful (colors together) wildflowers. http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ meadow4_crop.jpg

I love taking pictures, doing/learning computer art, and talking about it LOL

"Carrie" wrote:

I have a Canon Rebel XSi. I see beautiful, high res photos online, that are taken with $3000 or more cameras. I started out looking at the Nikons then decided the Canon was more affordable. Before that I had a Canon Powershot G-6. Long before that I had ones like Epson 1 mp (think it was 750Z) and the first one was a Kodak (refurnished, it was around $60). I live on limited income (Social Security) and do what I can with what I have.

Canon Rebel series is a good DSLR camera (image quality), but not for professional use (the design not suite for pro). One of the main parts of photography (gear) is the LENS (good external flash is the must have for serious hobby user)

I have been using digital camera since early 90 (started with greyscale), and have been photographing since early 60’s.

In article <cGOLp.16036$>,
"Carrie" wrote:

I tried that but they still load and show up each time I open Photoshop. I thought there might be one like a separate folder that wouldn’t load unless I wanted it, when I had photoshop open.

Under Preferences you can choose an additional folder for plug-ins. Perhaps that’s the place you should put the not often used plug-ins.

You are correct. May I ask why you want to selectively load plug-ins? To save memory? I’m afraid I can’t remember much about Photoshop 3, but I do have some resources at work that I will look into.

In article <GhaNp.19308$>,
"Carrie" wrote:

I’m working on it. I’ve discovered Lynda.com videos and feel for the first time I am actually learning a lot, and every detail of everything that can be done. Before I used to find tutorials online or think of something and try and figure it out, or go by books.

Good decision! lynda.com rules. We used it a lot at the university to point students to things we did not ordinarily teach. They loved it.

In article ,
Joel wrote:

Canon Rebel series is a good DSLR camera (image quality), but not for professional use (the design not suite for pro). One of the main parts of photography (gear) is the LENS (good external flash is the must have for serious hobby user)

I just switched to Leica M9 (from Leica M7 and M4). Life is simpler now.

If you rename a plugin with a "~" at the start of its name, Photoshop won’t load it, if that’s any help. You could test to see if that extends to renaming folders of plugins.

—
Andrew

"Andrew Morton" wrote:

If you rename a plugin with a "~" at the start of its name, Photoshop won’t load it, if that’s any help. You could test to see if that extends to renaming folders of plugins.

In general NONE of the options is worth the trouble, and renaming dozen(s) of plug-ins every time you launch Photoshop is even worse. IOW, with the Filter Manager you only need to do it ONCE.

Example you have 200 plug-ins and you don’t want to load them all, then you use PLug-In Manager to create a group of plug-ins you want Photoshop to load.

1. Plug-ins from 1-10

2. Plug-ins from 11-20

3. Plug-ins from 21-40

4. Plug-ins from 41-50

And so on til you happy with the choice. Then when you want to use Photoshop instead of launching Photoshop directly you launch it from Plug-Ins Manager, and pick the group # of plug-ins you want Photoshop to load.

And that is much simpler than your idea, but I don’t think it’s worth the trouble either.

Also, base on your idea I would say renaming the FOLDERS is much simpler, as well as you can launch using BAT(ch) command to rename the FOLDER (group of plug-ins) instead of manually rename each individual plug-ins.

On Sat, 25 Jun 2011 18:02:07 -0400, "Carrie"
wrote:

I have a Canon Rebel XSi. I see beautiful, high res photos online, that are taken with $3000 or more cameras. I started out looking at the Nikons then decided the Canon was more affordable. Before that I had a Canon Powershot G-6. Long before that I had ones like Epson 1 mp (think it was 750Z) and the first one was a Kodak (refurnished, it was around $60). I live on limited income (Social Security) and do what I can with what I have. That said, I am grateful for the first cameras, and even now not having the $3000+ ones, because that’s what got me into Photoshop. Actually I had PSP 6 when I first started. BecauseI didn’t have a great camera, I did a lot of fixing on the computer.
I remember asking on a discussion group, in the photo topic (where people loved to brag about the new camera or $1200 lens they just bought) about getting greens to come out better in shady areas. I had one of the Epsons then which I had bought used, and was the best I had at the time. One person said "you are never going to get anything but crummy pictures with a 1 mp camera". Though I have decided, it’s not ALL the number of mps, but the quality of the lens, too.
I figured out how to adjust the color and get good green on the computer. The same with not having a car, and not being able to go too many places to take exotic or different pictures. I pretty much have to be creative and use what I have around me. Looking at small things (one summer I took, cropped and enlarged everything tiny I could find, bugs, spiders, ants, etc) or the different seasons, or light coming through the trees (or light shining on my wood floor)\
If I’d had a really good, expensive camera all along, I’d probably not have gotten into learning so much about the computer side of it. I have two monitors and have been using the first PS CS3 set from Lynda.com. I feel I am learning a lot, he goes over every way of doing things, and tells the short cuts, and does this enough so I sometimes even remember it after LOL I use batch and action and resize-lower resolution of pictures I plan to put up online for whatever reason.
There’s not much doing around here, but sometimes I get a surprise. Probably trying to capture "nature" and have it look in a picture like it does to the eye, is something to keep working on.
This was 8pm at night, in a light rain
http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ IMG_2091.jpg
This year there are the most beautiful (colors together) wildflowers. http://i1198.photobucket.com/albums/aa455/starchild_dreams3/ meadow4_crop.jpg
I love taking pictures, doing/learning computer art, and talking about it LOL

Hi Carrie!

The thing about photography is that it allows the average person to capture pictures that make them happy. It doesn’t matter if you have a $5000 camera or a $200 camera. They both will capture pictures, so if you have a good eye, you can capture some really amazing pictures with any camera. The idea is to have fun and enjoy what you do, which you seem to do already.
I have the original Canon Digital Rebel, and that is all I need. I know I am not a great photographer, so it wouldn’t make sense for me to buy a top of the line camera. By the same token, my daughter is a good photographer, and she could take really great pictures with her Digital Rebel. I upgraded her to the Canon 5D Mark II a few years ago and the pictures she now takes are awesome.(she is a professional photographer.)
If you enjoy taking pictures and know how to use your camera, it doesn’t matter what the camera is. The enjoyment comes from taking pictures.
As to plugins, I guess I have about 200 plugins for Photoshop. It seems that when you buy a plugin package for Photoshop, it comes with a lot of filters that you don’t want, but you have to load the whole package in order to get the few filters that you do want, so you end up with many unwanted filters. Having a lot of plugins can slow down Photoshop, that’s why when my Windows XP computer died, I got a new Windows 7 system that wouldn’t have a problem loading all of the plugins and filters.
This new system will launch Photoshop and all 200 plugins in 4 seconds, so I never worry about having too many plugins. Now if I could only take some decent pictures….<g>

Talker