On Tue, Apr 7, 2009 at 1:52 AM, eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/5/2009 7:01:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
pentko...@gmail.com writes:
Found the old email and link.
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-elements-curves.html
Site is still active, but it looks
Nick,
If you download the free SmartCurve you get what you want.
It integrates in PSE under the filter tab. For me it doubles the value
of PSE. By changing the curve you can adapt contrast, gamma, local gamma
etcetera.
I even use it for pseudo-solarisation effects and to make positives of
my
Elements 6 has this feature too, but it's not as powerful as real curves.
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 11:01 PM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com wrote:
For what it's worth, Google Photoshop Elements 7 curves and the first hit
that comes up is from help.adobe.com
In a message dated 4/5/2009 7:01:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
pentko...@gmail.com writes:
Found the old email and link.
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-elements-curves.html
Site is still active, but it looks like it supports up to version 5 only.
Dave B
===
Your canoe is in the mail.
I have no idea what that means, but it's funny, so I'm
going to
steal it.
The original line was Give that man a canoe.
I have no idea what it means either.
Paddle off to Buffalo?
I thought that was supposed to be shuffle. Can you shuffle
Afew years ago, some one here supplied a link to a plug in type of
thing, that would let you do curves in PS Elements 3.
I downloaded it and it worked fine.
I think i have the email around still, i'll look for the links.
Dave
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 9:59 PM, John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com
I found a set of software called Grant's Tools. But the instructions
on how to install it don't match up with the file structures that were
installed on my computer so I have no idea how to get them in there.
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 8:21 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
Afew years
Found the old email and link.
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-elements-curves.html
Site is still active, but it looks like it supports up to version 5 only.
Dave B
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:27 AM, Nick Wright nickwright1...@gmail.com wrote:
I found a set of software called
Thanks Dave, I'll give it a try.
It's the feature I miss most from the old Paint Shop Pro.
Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 9:01 AM, David J Brooks pentko...@gmail.com wrote:
Found the old email and link.
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-elements-curves.html
Site is
Bob Nick -
Take a look at Elements Plus
http://simplephotoshop.com/elementsplus/
The demo allows you to download a small series of actions which includes
curves with, I believe, unrestricted use. You can buy all 150 or so for
a measly 12 bucks.
-p
Bob Sullivan wrote:
Thanks Dave, I'll
Ooo... now that's nice.
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:42 PM, Paul Sorenson allarou...@earthlink.net wrote:
Bob Nick -
Take a look at Elements Plus
http://simplephotoshop.com/elementsplus/
The demo allows you to download a small series of actions which includes
curves with, I believe,
In a message dated 4/5/2009 7:01:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
pentko...@gmail.com writes:
Found the old email and link.
http://www.earthboundlight.com/phototips/photoshop-elements-curves.html
Site is still active, but it looks like it supports up to version 5 only.
Dave B
Paul,
Thanks for the tip. I paid $10 and now have curves back! Wa Hoo!!!
Makes pictures like this easier...
http://picasaweb.google.com/rf.sullivan/FoggySunrise#5321348176152000642
The foreground was too dark and the sky too light without curves.
Regards, Bob S.
On Sun, Apr 5, 2009 at 12:42
Marnie,
Wh.And I haven't bought PSE 5 yet!!!
John Graves
WA1JG
jh.gra...@verizon.net
eactiv...@aol.com wrote:
In a message dated 4/5/2009 7:01:54 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
pentko...@gmail.com writes:
Found the old email and link.
For what it's worth, Google Photoshop Elements 7 curves and the first
hit that comes up is from help.adobe.com
http://help.adobe.com/en_US/PhotoshopElements/7.0_Win/WS3216BCB6-F54C-4c4a-99A0-EBEA69F30C27.html
From: Paul Sorenson
Bob Nick -
Take a look at Elements Plus
copradormition
No hits in Webster's, Wikipedia or Google.
Def. please. (We can guess, but need to know for future reference)
Sleeping in shit.
Bob
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please
Joe,
You had to use the wayback machine to get that one.
Regards, Bob S.
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 20:11 , William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Joseph McAllister Subject: Re: RAW
software
Oh. Sorry
Okay, so I'm disappointed. It used to be that my program CDFinder
would catalog the captions and keywords in an iPhoto library. Turns
out that's not the case anymore.
But I finally got a chance to download Photoshop Elements 6 for the
Mac (whew, 1.5 gigs!), and I am impressed. I didn't know that
that fired in response to
the question What would you do with a canoe?
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:05 PM, Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 20:11 , William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Joseph McAllister Subject:
Re: RAW
software
Oh. Sorry
From: William Robb
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: RAW software
It isn't a false analogy - you just haven't grasped it!
Find me a person who actually wants to put petrol in a pram and you'll
convince me it's not a false analogy.
Is there a baby in that pram?
Do I have a book
PS Elements will be a much more competent image processing environment
than iPhoto
No image management functionality, no scripting, and you only get to
use Camera Raw's basic functions, but as long as it lets you get
your work done, it's fine.
Godfrey
On Apr 4, 2009, at 8:04 AM, Nick
From: Graydon
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 08:30:59AM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi scripsit:
My #2 Philips Screwdriver cannot drive a #4 Torx screw, but it could
easily if they put an interchangeable bit on the end.
Of course, I could buy a screwdriver with an interchangeable bit head
and use
Only one thing ... why does Adobe insist on not putting real curves
control into Elements?!!?
On Sat, Apr 4, 2009 at 12:59 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
PS Elements will be a much more competent image processing environment than
iPhoto
No image management functionality, no
No idea. It's one of the reasons I never worked with PSE ... soon as I
saw that missing, I realized I needed the regular version of
Photoshop. When I do use PS for image processing, curves adjustment
layers are what I use the most.
G
On Apr 4, 2009, at 3:50 PM, Nick Wright wrote:
Only
- Original Message -
From: Nick Wright
Subject: Re: More RAW software
Only one thing ... why does Adobe insist on not putting real curves
control into Elements?!!?
They want you to buy Photoshop.
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman
From: Joseph McAllister
On Apr 3, 2009, at 16:37 , William Robb wrote:
Your canoe is in the mail.
I have no idea what that means, but it's funny, so I'm going to
steal it.
The original line was Give that man a canoe.
I have no idea what it means either.
Paddle off to Buffalo?
I
On Apr 4, 2009, at 17:19 , John Sessoms wrote:
From: Joseph McAllister
On Apr 3, 2009, at 16:37 , William Robb wrote:
Your canoe is in the mail.
I have no idea what that means, but it's funny, so I'm going
to steal it.
The original line was Give that man a canoe.
I have no idea what
Kenneth Waller
http://www.tinyurl.com/272u2f
- Original Message -
From: John Sessoms jsessoms...@nc.rr.com
Subject: Re: RAW software
From: Joseph McAllister
On Apr 3, 2009, at 16:37 , William Robb wrote:
Your canoe is in the mail.
I have no idea what that means, but it's funny
From: Nick Wright
Only one thing ... why does Adobe insist on not putting real curves
control into Elements?!!?
So that if you need them you'll have to upgrade to the full version of
Photoshop.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to
On Sat, Apr 04, 2009 at 03:40:13PM -0400, John Sessoms scripsit:
From: Graydon
If someone wants to drive Torx screws, and the screwdriver manufacturer,
despite making the best Phillips screwdrivers the mind of man can
conceive, refuses to do so, there's a legitimate basis for complaint.
If
On Apr 2, 2009, at 4:52 PM, Doug Franklin wrote:
And, I don't know about Lightroom specifically, but with many of the
Library oriented, database-based cataloging solutions, God help
you if you ever want to rearrange things on the file system after
they're in the catalog.
It's never a
On Apr 2, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
My organizational needs are different between film and digital. I
don't edit the files the same way, I can't usually organize film scans
by the day they were shot and the day they were scanned is useless to
me since I might have scanned a half-dozen
On Apr 2, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
As to keyword metadata, frankly I find adding it annoying and using it
of little use to me. I understand what value it can add, I just find
using said capabilities to be something that doesn't work for me. I've
got nothing agains keywording (Which
Paul Stenquist wrote:
My files are simply organized by date shot as the folder name, followed
by a few key words. If the folder hasn't been backed up yet, it carries a
b prefix. Once I back it up, I remove the prefix. I manage the files
with Bridge and find it all quite simple. I never
Basically, when I tried it out, Lightroom got in my way at
least as often
as it helped me. The tools I already have work just fine with my
preferred workflow, and don't make me jump through their
hoops to do what
I want to do. And, I don't know about Lightroom
specifically, but
And exactly what do I gain by importing them? Nothing except a file
management UI I don't like in the first place and metadata-based
searching I'll never use along with the need to import it in the first
place, which Bridge doesn't need to do. Not to mention the fact that
Bridge allows me
Bob W wrote:
It's true that you have to do the import step for scanned files, and can't
as Mark said, use LR's facilities without importing, but that's the way LR
was designed to work from the beginning. Complaining about it is like
complaining that a car is not as good as a pram because you
It's true that you have to do the import step for scanned
files, and can't
as Mark said, use LR's facilities without importing, but
that's the way LR
was designed to work from the beginning. Complaining about
it is like
complaining that a car is not as good as a pram because you
Bob W wrote:
It's true that you have to do the import step for scanned
files, and can't
as Mark said, use LR's facilities without importing, but
that's the way LR
was designed to work from the beginning. Complaining about
it is like
complaining that a car is not as good as a pram because
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: RAW software
It isn't a false analogy - you just haven't grasped it!
Find me a person who actually wants to put petrol in a pram and you'll
convince me it's not a false analogy.
Is there a baby in that pram?
Do I have
- Original Message -
From: Godfrey DiGiorgi
Subject: Re: RAW software
On Apr 2, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
As to keyword metadata, frankly I find adding it annoying and using it
of little use to me. I understand what value it can add, I just find
using said capabilities
Anyway, here's a
better one. You need a steamhammer for your work which
involves driving
enormous piles into the ground. You also occasionally need
to tap a tack
into a piece of wood. You complain because the steam
piledriver is no good
at tapping little tacks into wood.
Speaking of Steamhammers...and piledrivers, I am still using PSE3. I am
limited to adobe Camera Raw 3.6 (which I have installed)by PSE3. I have
not seen any picture processing tools in any of the subsequent PSE or
Camera Raw releases that warrant their purchase. It appears that the
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:12 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
As to keyword metadata, frankly I find adding it annoying and using it
of little use to me. I understand what value it can add, I just find
using said capabilities to be
Bob W wrote:
Anyway, here's a
better one. You need a steamhammer for your work which
involves driving
enormous piles into the ground. You also occasionally need
to tap a tack
into a piece of wood. You complain because the steam
piledriver is no good
at tapping little tacks into wood.
- Original Message -
From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: RAW software
There's zero nonsense involved.
Grasshopper, you have strayed from the one true path to file system nirvhana
and must be shamed until you see the light and allow it to guide you back to
the one true path, from
- Original Message -
From: Mark Roberts
Subject: Re: RAW software
Pointing out that software can't do something which it easily *could*
do, and is desired by some users, is not an exercise in futility. It is,
in fact, how good, responsive software developers improve their product
William Robb wrote:
- Original Message - From: Mark Roberts Subject: Re: RAW software
Pointing out that software can't do something which it easily *could*
do, and is desired by some users, is not an exercise in futility. It
is, in fact, how good, responsive software developers
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:10 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 2, 2009, at 9:04 PM, Adam Maas wrote:
My organizational needs are different between film and digital. I
don't edit the files the same way, I can't usually organize film scans
by the day they were shot and the day
On Apr 3, 2009, at 5:02 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
That's still wrong: Lightroom isn't anything as crude as a
piledriver. No one would reasonably expect to be able to use a
piledriver for tapping little tacks. A reasonable photographer
*would* like to be able to use a tool whose desirable
- Original Message -
From: Christian
Subject: Re: RAW software
I'd rather set fire to a few prams.
With or without babies in them?
This is a rhetorical question, right?
William Robb
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo
On Apr 3, 2009, at 8:22 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
You seem unable to understand the idea that LR's work-saving features
can actually create more work in some situations. Using LR requires me
to do more work than using Bridge and my heirarchical filing system.
This slows down my workflow rather than
On Apr 3, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Pointing out that software can't do something which it easily
*could* do, and is desired by some users, is not an exercise in
futility. It is, in fact, how good, responsive software developers
improve their product.
My #2 Philips
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:30 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
Of course, I could buy a screwdriver with an interchangeable bit head and
use that, but then I wouldn't have something to complain about. I want to
use my #2 Philips head screwdriver for Torx screws too.
If you think
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 4:50 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
And exactly what do I gain by importing them? Nothing except a file
management UI I don't like in the first place and metadata-based
searching I'll never use along with the need to import it in the first
place, which Bridge
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:39:18PM -0600, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Doug Franklin
Subject: Re: RAW software
Basically, when I tried it out, Lightroom got in my way at least as often
as it helped me. The tools I already have work just fine with my
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 10:12 AM, Bob W p...@web-options.com wrote:
Anyway, here's a
better one. You need a steamhammer for your work which
involves driving
enormous piles into the ground. You also occasionally need
to tap a tack
into a piece of wood. You complain because the steam
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:24 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 5:02 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
That's still wrong: Lightroom isn't anything as crude as a piledriver. No
one would reasonably expect to be able to use a piledriver for tapping
little tacks. A reasonable
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:28 AM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 8:22 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
You seem unable to understand the idea that LR's work-saving features
can actually create more work in some situations. Using LR requires me
to do more work than using Bridge
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 11:46 AM, Larry Colen l...@red4est.com wrote:
On Thu, Apr 02, 2009 at 08:39:18PM -0600, William Robb wrote:
- Original Message -
From: Doug Franklin
Subject: Re: RAW software
I just had to do an OS install and when the machine came back to me my
mirrored
Godfrey DiGiorgi wrote:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 5:02 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
That's still wrong: Lightroom isn't anything as crude as a piledriver.
No one would reasonably expect to be able to use a piledriver for
tapping little tacks. A reasonable photographer *would* like to be
able to use a
- Original Message -
From: Matthew Hunt
Subject: Re: RAW software
.
If you think people should use the right tool for their needs, perhaps
you should have used less critical language when they chose not to use
your favorite tool.
Your canoe is in the mail.
William Robb
- Original Message -
From: Larry Colen
Subject: Re: RAW software
It's too bad you couldn't just change a line in /etc/fstab. People say
that Windows is so much easier than Unix, but if something like that
happened on a Linux box, it would be a 30 second job to remap the
drive back
On Apr 3, 2009, at 9:15 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
if all you wanted was RAW conversion, use Camera Raw. Lightroom was
not designed for that kind of use. It was designed for end-to-end
image management. That's what makes it efficient.
Except that Camera Raw doesn't work as well. I much
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 11:22:20AM -0400, Adam Maas wrote:
No, I don't like LR's file management and am explaining why . . .
I have to agree with Godfrey here. Your reasons for disliking it
appear to be partly based on inaccurate statements about Lightroom.
I use Lightroom entirely with my
If you think people should use the right tool for their
needs, perhaps
you should have used less critical language when they chose
not to use
your favorite tool.
Your canoe is in the mail.
I have no idea what that means, but it's funny, so I'm going to steal it.
Bob
--
PDML
In a message dated 4/3/2009 7:37:53 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jh.gra...@verizon.net writes:
Speaking of Steamhammers...and piledrivers, I am still using PSE3. I am
limited to adobe Camera Raw 3.6 (which I have installed)by PSE3. I have
not seen any picture processing tools in any of the
In a message dated 4/3/2009 8:13:49 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time, a...@mawz.ca
writes:
The Lightroom management UI is based around keywording. Yes I don't
like it, no its not nonsense. I don't like it because it makes _more_
work for me, not less. Which annoys me. I can see the value in the
On Apr 3, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
If I want to work on some files of a scanned job via LR while the
scanner is still scanning, I'd have to use a watched directory or
import multiple times. Since I'm usually working this way (Due to my
120 holder requiring me to flip/rotate scans to
racing.
Night.
DS
2009/4/3 William Robb war...@gmail.com:
- Original Message - From: Adam Maas
Subject: Re: RAW software
There's zero nonsense involved.
Grasshopper, you have strayed from the one true path to file system nirvhana
and must be shamed until you see the light
In a message dated 4/3/2009 8:19:17 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
war...@gmail.com writes:
Grasshopper, you have strayed from the one true path to file system nirvhana
and must be shamed until you see the light and allow it to guide you back to
the one true path, from which you must not
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:41 PM, John Francis jo...@panix.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 11:22:20AM -0400, Adam Maas wrote:
No, I don't like LR's file management and am explaining why . . .
I have to agree with Godfrey here. Your reasons for disliking it
appear to be partly based on
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:17 PM, William Robb war...@gmail.com wrote:
Your canoe is in the mail.
Thanks. I'll use it to pound stakes in the ground.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
http://pdml.net/mailman/listinfo/pdml_pdml.net
to UNSUBSCRIBE from the PDML, please visit the link
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
If I want to work on some files of a scanned job via LR while the
scanner is still scanning, I'd have to use a watched directory or
import multiple times. Since I'm usually
Tada
Finally said well - If you want an End to End System, Lightroom is
among the best. If you want just a raw converter then Lightroom will
probably get in your way.
--
Bruce
Friday, April 3, 2009, 8:24:05 AM, you wrote:
snip
GD if all you wanted was RAW conversion, use Camera Raw.
I use LR 2, and I don't use keywords at all. I didn't like
it in Elements
organizer, I don't like it in LR. I have it just reflect my
files on disk. So
one doesn't HAVE to use keywords, collections or metadata.
(I prefer not to
have to know TWO files organization systems -- I know
Marnie,
Thank you. That is interesting. I haven't done much Black and White
since I put film in the closet. Take a look at the stairs in my Wedding
set on Flickr.
http://www.flickr.com/photos/jhg2/3383123133/in/set-72157615743020001/
Is that the sort of picture you would touch?
PS, I was
In a message dated 4/3/2009 10:17:30 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
jh.gra...@verizon.net writes:
Marnie,
Thank you. That is interesting. I haven't done much Black and White
since I put film in the closet. Take a look at the stairs in my Wedding
set on Flickr.
On Apr 3, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
I'm still not seeing the supposed workflow efficiency boost here.
Since you are disinclined to understand and use LR's features, I
didn't suppose you would.
G
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
In a message dated 4/3/2009 10:17:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
p...@web-options.com writes:
It's obviously a matter of opinion, but I hate hierarchical file systems,
and I loathe having to know how things are organised on the disk. This may
be because I'm something of a purist about
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:43 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 9:58 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
I'm still not seeing the supposed workflow efficiency boost here.
Since you are disinclined to understand and use LR's features, I didn't
suppose you would.
G
I do
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:47 PM, Adam Maas a...@mawz.ca wrote:
snip but they aren't a panacea.
Fortunately, they have drugs for that now...
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
This didn't seem to go through, so sorry if you see it twice.
--
In a message dated 4/3/2009 10:17:37 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
p...@web-options.com writes:
It's obviously a matter of opinion, but I hate hierarchical file systems,
and I loathe having to know how things are
On Apr 3, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
I do understand the features in question. Just don't like working with
them, they get in my way rather than improving efficiency. Keywords
can be a powerful tool, but they aren't a panacea.
I don't know where you get the idea that keywords are
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 1:59 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 10:47 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
I do understand the features in question. Just don't like working with
them, they get in my way rather than improving efficiency. Keywords
can be a powerful tool, but they
On Apr 3, 2009, at 09:58 , Adam Maas wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 12:48 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com
wrote:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 8:43 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
I always use a Macintosh. I always use Aperture. I like lasagna. They
are the best.
Anyone who uses any other hardware or
God Bob, you're old then! I mean seriously old!
IBM?
On Apr 3, 2009, at 10:16 , Bob W wrote:
I started
programming at a time when you literally had to decide exactly which
platter, sector, cylinder etc. of which disk you wanted to put your
file on,
and later read it from, so all that
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
snip
Sleep in your own feces...
I've been reading this thread, and I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no
good reason to to this. I mean I understand ~how~ to do this (large
quantities of alcohol or drugs help), but for me
In a message dated 4/3/2009 11:30:48 A.M. Pacific Daylight Time,
knarftheria...@gmail.com writes:
I've been reading this thread...
[snip]
...but for me it just isn't the
most efficient way to accomplish my tasks.
cheers,
frank (PC user)
==
That was your first mistake.
Marnie
On 3/4/09, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Find me a person who actually wants to put petrol in a pram and you'll
convince me it's not a false analogy.
Er
--
Cheers,
Cotty
___/\__
|| (O) | People, Places, Pastiche
||=|http://www.cottysnaps.com
I've been playing with virtualbox and it seems to do a good job for
running windows on top of linux.
--
The fastest way to get your question answered on the net is to post
the wrong answer.
Larry Colen l...@red4est.comhttp://www.red4est.com/lrc
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss
frank theriault wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
snip
Sleep in your own feces...
I've been reading this thread, and I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no
good reason to to this. I mean I understand ~how~ to do this (large
quantities of alcohol or
On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
First you say:
I don't know where you get the idea that keywords are some kind of
panacea
or are essential to LR operation. They're neither.
in response to my statement
Keywords can be a powerful tool, but they aren't a panacea.
You must
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:37 PM, Mark Roberts msrobert...@ysu.edu wrote:
You're WRONG, WRONG, WRONG! It's far and away the best way for *everyone* to
do this! And if you ask for a form of sleeping that doesn't involve the in
feces bit you're being too demanding and/or not using it for its
On 4/3/09, frank theriault knarftheria...@gmail.com wrote:
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:22 PM, Joseph McAllister pentax...@mac.com wrote:
snip
Sleep in your own feces...
I've been reading this thread, and I'm sorry, but I see absolutely no
good reason to to this. I mean I understand ~how~
Cotty wrote:
On 3/4/09, Mark Roberts, discombobulated, unleashed:
Find me a person who actually wants to put petrol in a pram and you'll
convince me it's not a false analogy.
Er
Yeah. I'd forgotten about Bill Robb.
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
PDML@pdml.net
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:43 PM, Scott Loveless sdlovel...@gmail.com wrote:
You just need the correct size rubber sheets. You obviously haven't
though this through.
Mmm, rubber!
cheers,
frank
--
Sharpness is a bourgeois concept. -Henri Cartier-Bresson
--
PDML Pentax-Discuss Mail List
On Fri, Apr 3, 2009 at 2:40 PM, Godfrey DiGiorgi godd...@mac.com wrote:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
First you say:
I don't know where you get the idea that keywords are some kind of
panacea
or are essential to LR operation. They're neither.
in response to my statement
On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:49 , Adam Maas wrote:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 11:21 AM, Adam Maas wrote:
First you say:
Am I going to have to put an Adam Maas filter on my email rules to
join the JCO filter?
Take a 'lude, dude
Joseph McAllister
pentax...@mac.com
http://gallery.me.com/jomac
On Fri, Apr 03, 2009 at 08:30:59AM -0700, Godfrey DiGiorgi scripsit:
On Apr 3, 2009, at 8:17 AM, Mark Roberts wrote:
Pointing out that software can't do something which it easily *could*
do, and is desired by some users, is not an exercise in futility. It
is, in fact, how good, responsive
1 - 100 of 246 matches
Mail list logo
