Digital BW, The Print

From Merriam-Webster dictionary...

maniac - "a person characterized by an inordinate or ungovernable 
enthusiasm for something"

jihad - "a crusade for a principle or belief" (my note: while "jihad" 
can have Islamic religious connections it is not the only use of the 
word nor was that how it was used here)

>On Topic, I do beleive that any photoshop printing issues as 
mentioned below and as they 
> relate to printing are rightly described here 

I fully agree, which is why I said, but you apparently missed, the 
following: (...I appreciate and have no problem with having a post 
informing people that CS3 may have printing problems.  However..."


John

--- In 
DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "tariqgibranstudio" 
<tariqgibranstudio@...> wrote:
>
> Talk about attacking the messanger.  A "maniac"?  I also find the 
use of the word jihad way 
> over the top, inappropriate, prejudice and much more offensive than 
any rant about 
> Photoshop.  Geez, why reply at all if it bothers you so much.  I 
think the moderator should 
> remove that post.
> 
> On Topic, I do beleive that any photoshop printing issues as 
mentioned below and as they 
> relate to printing are rightly described here and this is exactly 
where that discussion 
> belongs IMHO.  For most here, Photoshop is so inseperatable to the 
process of Digital BW 
> that any discussion about Photoshop is relevant if it relates to 
the above.  Major issues 
> would relate.
> 
> --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "jrschwaller" 
<jrs2@> wrote:
> >
> > I don't know about anyone else, but I am tired of this ranting 
maniac.
> > 
> > I appreciate and have no problem with having a post informing 
people 
> > that CS3 may have printing problems.  However, if I was 
experiencing 
> > problems, I would search/post on the Adobe forums and find out 
about 
> > this fairly easily.
> > 
> > The problem is I am seeing these ranting, argumentative posts 
FROM 
> > THIS ONE PERSON on just about every forum I read relative to 
printing.
> > 
> > I don't care if he is making money or not.  He is on a form of 
jihad 
> > and I would appreciate if he took it "offline".
> > 
> > John
> > 
> > BTW...I would never have a problem with PS' printing as I never 
use 
> > it.  Even when it worked it was weak in function.  I use Qimage.  
Not 
> > necessarily for it's better quality, which it does have, but 
because 
> > of its function and that it makes the printing process easy.  For 
> > that same reason, I don't use PS' noise and sharpening tools.  
Noise 
> > Ninja and Focal Blade (or similar tools) are so much better than 
the 
> > current PS capabilities.
> > 
> > --- In DigitalBlackandWhiteThePrint@yahoogroups.com, "Editor 
P.O.V. 
> > Image Service" <editor@> wrote:
> > >
> > > donbga wrote:
> > > 
> > > >Eric,
> > > >
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > >>Keith you seem to be on a personal war
> > > >>path here.
> > > >>    
> > > >>
> > > >
> > > >Just read Keith's e-mail signature. That will tell you the 
whole 
> > story.
> > > >
> > > >Don Bryant
> > > > 
> > > >  
> > > >
> > > Don,
> > > 
> > > I don't often call people simply ignorant.  But:
> > > 
> > > 1) I'm not an attorney
> > > 
> > > 2)  I have a history of getting people back money in the inkjet 
& 
> > > printing biz for products that don't perform as advertised.
> > > 
> > > That history started with getting thousands of people millions 
of $ 
> > back 
> > > around the world when EPSON  promised (with the 1280) series, 
and 
> > > endorsed by the PPA,  "Professional prints that last as long as 
> > > traditional silver prints."  EPSON refunded not only the cost 
of 
> > > individual printers, BUT also the cost of consumables 
(including 
> > > expended ones) WORLDWIDE, because of the work Bob Meyer, Laurie 
> > Solomon, 
> > > others and I did - Bruce Fraser even eventually joined with us. 
And 
> > we 
> > > received not a dime...
> > > 
> > > Try this link from 2000 for starters:
> > > http://www.p-o-v-image.com/epson/links.htm
> > >  
> > > So, whether or not, you, care to recognize it or like it, those 
> > others 
> > > and I ARE considered experts in the digital printing field.
> > > 
> > > 3) Large corporations have inordinate advantages in preventing 
> > consumers 
> > > from learning the failures of their products. Read most of the 
> > reviews 
> > > at most photo or pc publications - everything is great - 
especially 
> > when 
> > > it comes from a MAJOR established player in the field. Right 
now, 
> > Adobe 
> > > is the only real digital imaging/editing game in town. They 
surely 
> > > aren't going to publicize shortcomings themselves.
> > > 
> > > 4)  That signature line was added so that I didn't have EPSON 
and 
> > other 
> > > vendors suing ME when I told the truth about their products. 
I'm 
> > not 
> > > making a cent off of this and never did. However, I'm not about 
to 
> > let 
> > > lawyers hit me with a SLAPP lawsuit to shut the truth down. 
(feel 
> > free 
> > > to google "SLAPP lawsuit")
> > > 
> > > Part of it was also added because I had a MAJOR institutional 
> > client 
> > > take sample images that had been emailed and violate copyright.
> > > 
> > > Don't believe any of the preceding?  Ask this list's own Paul 
Roark.
> > > 
> > > 5)  You've seen the posts on here by others confirming 
personally 
> > some 
> > > of the problems.
> > > 
> > > 6)  Finally, Adobe's new 18 month "ready or not" product cycle 
and 
> > the 
> > > new "extended" pricing model (which many discussed here in late 
> > April 
> > > and early May), means they are forcing more $ from consumers 
and 
> > > breaking the former Adobe paradigm.  When you break the 
paradigm, 
> > you 
> > > have a responsibility to produce a MUCH BETTER product. (Which 
is, 
> > by 
> > > the way, what they promised.) 
> > > 
> > > Instead, they've produced what longtime aficionados and lovers 
of 
> > Adobe 
> > > software have called "The Worst Photoshop Release Ever."  
That's 
> > > bass-ackwards and it deserves to be highlighted at least once.  
> > Adobe is 
> > > using their name and reputation to convince people to buy into 
an 
> > > upgrade that should not have yet shipped. It's a cash-stream 
play, 
> > pure 
> > > and simple.
> > > 
> > > So, please, feel free to blow your ill-informed pontification 
out 
> > of 
> > > whatever bodily orifice you prefer.
> > > 
> > > Oh, and don't you, or didn't you used to, work for a large 
> > international 
> > > manufacturer of traditional photo supplies as a sales manager?  
If 
> > so, 
> > > you wouldn't have any particular axe to grind on behalf 
> > of "unfairly 
> > > maligned corporations" when they produce products that get poor 
> > > reviews?  Nah...
> > > 
> > > Don, if you have a personal issue or wish to continue this, I 
> > suggest 
> > > you email me offlist. I'm not going to debate this part of it 
> > further 
> > > onlist.
> > > 
> > >  
> > > Keith Krebs
> > > 
> > > "Just some guy," caretaker of the Multiverse's largest EPSON 
> > printer 
> > > User Community (highly recommended by Vogon Poets and MegaDodo 
> > > Publications), at:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/EPSON_Printers/
> > > and  the Multiverse's largest Canon printer User  Community at:
> > > http://groups.yahoo.com/group/Canon-printers
> > > "For the rest of you out there, the secret is to bang the rocks 
> > together 
> > > guys"
> > > 
> > >  
> > > 
> > > ****************************************************************
> > > CONFIDENTIALITY & COPYRIGHT NOTICE:
> > > This e-mail message, including attachments and contents, is © 
> > Copyright, 
> > > Keith Krebs, 2001-2007, All Rights Reserved. It is expressly 
for 
> > the 
> > > sole use of the intended recipient and may contain confidential 
and 
> > > privileged information. Absent the express written 
authorization of 
> > the 
> > > author, any unauthorized review, use, disclosure, transfer, or 
> > > distribution is explicitly prohibited and taken at your own 
risk. 
> > If you 
> > > are not, or are unsure whether you are, the intended recipient, 
> > please 
> > > contact the sender immediately and destroy all copies of the 
> > original 
> > > message. Violations will be prosecuted to the FULL extent 
allowed 
> > under 
> > > applicable civil and criminal law. Imagery published or 
distributed 
> > in 
> > > violation of these conditions shall be subject to a $1500/image 
> > > liquidated damages charge, in addition to any applicable 
Copyright 
> > > violation penalties.
> > > 
> > > POV IMage Service Banner
> > > ****************************************************************
> > > { The P.O.V. Image Service Website is still at http://www.p-o-v-
> > image.com/ }
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > 
> > > [Non-text portions of this message have been removed]
> > >
> >
>