better Kodak reorganization

[Dale]

I read that Kodak is going to focus on printing, packaging and software

I read they are selling their film business but keeping their motion
picture business

what the strategic planners their should do is

1) map out ALL the imaging workflows
2) indicate all participations, systems or products
3) identify customers and partners
4) build business cases


and don't forget

5) ask why there aren't participations
6) keep up with changes in workflows
7) central system offerings are best to vie
8) create better workflows


--
Dale

[Bowser]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 04:50:47 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid>
wrote:

Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <q0nfo8lurfirdh98a...@4ax.com>, Bowser says...

> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.

... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
devise to kill digital photography?
--

Alfred Molon
------------------------------
Olympus E-series DSLRs and micro 4/3 forum at
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/MyOlympus/
http://myolympus.org/ photo sharing site

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2bf203339...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred

Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> > Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
> > These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
> > kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
>
> ... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
> devise to kill digital photography?

they invented it and they knew it would replace film, they just didn't
expect it would be so quick.

[Martin Brown]

On 06/05/2013 18:13, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <q0nfo8lurfirdh98a...@4ax.com>, Bowser says...
>> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
>> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
>> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
>
> ... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
> devise to kill digital photography?

That is a slightly unkind caricature but unfortunately is also not too
wide of the mark. I was an early adopter of Kodaks Pro PhotoCD scanning
service which at the time was incredible. Drum scanning was a real PITA.

Then they launched Kodak PictureCD which was ISTR a sub 2Mpixel poxily
compressed JPEG with no redeeming features. Most users of PhotoCD bought
a Nikon scanner after one experience of getting useless dealer PictureCD
confusion after asking for PhotoCD and *NEVER* went back.

Kodak marketing was brilliant at shooting itself in the foot with both
barrels. I bought my newly released DC-120 digicam as remaindered stock
because they launched the numerical permutation DC-210 only weeks later.

If you wanted to sow confusion it is hard to imagine a better strategy.

The film guys really were in control and didn't want digital spoiling
their party. They failed to spot that the winds of change were coming.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Steven_Lord]

*snip*

Ladies and gentlemen, this doesn't have anything to do with MATLAB, so
please remove comp.soft-sys.matlab from the newsgroups list when you reply
to this thread. Thanks!

--
Steve Lord
sl...@mathworks.com
To contact Technical Support use the Contact Us link on
http://www.mathworks.com

[Martin Brown]

On 06/05/2013 18:13, Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <q0nfo8lurfirdh98a...@4ax.com>, Bowser says...
>> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
>> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
>> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
>
> ... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
> devise to kill digital photography?

That is a slightly unkind caricature but unfortunately is also not too
wide of the mark. I was an early adopter of Kodaks Pro PhotoCD scanning
service which at the time was incredible. Drum scanning was a real PITA.

Then they launched Kodak PictureCD which was ISTR a sub 2Mpixel poxily
compressed JPEG with no redeeming features. Most users of PhotoCD bought

a Nikon scanner after one experience of getting useless PictureCD

[Bowser]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <q0nfo8lurfirdh98a...@4ax.com>, Bowser says...
>> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
>> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
>> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
>
>... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
>devise to kill digital photography?

I did read the article, so I'll see if I can dig it up for you. Yes,
Kodak tried to stave off digital to save their film business.

[Bowser]

On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
<alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

>In article <q0nfo8lurfirdh98a...@4ax.com>, Bowser says...
>> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
>> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
>> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
>
>... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
>devise to kill digital photography?

OK, not a CEO, but a product manager:

http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/kodak_eulogy.shtml

Still, what a moron...

[Alfred Molon]

In article <%7Uht.18093$MS1....@newsfe05.iad>, Martin Brown says...

> Most users of PhotoCD bought
> a Nikon scanner after one experience of getting useless PictureCD
> confusion after asking for PhotoCD and *NEVER* went back.

I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is now catching dust on a
cupboard. Haven't used it for years, because using it is so complicated
and the quality is poor compared to digital.

[nospam]

In article <MPG.2bf38433f...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred

Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is now catching dust on a
> cupboard. Haven't used it for years, because using it is so complicated
> and the quality is poor compared to digital.

try different software, such as vuescan. nikon's software was pretty
bad.

[Scott Schuckert]

In article <MPG.2bf38433f...@news.supernews.com>, Alfred
Molon <alfred...@yahoo.com> wrote:

> I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is now catching dust on a
> cupboard. Haven't used it for years, because using it is so complicated
> and the quality is poor compared to digital.
> --
>
> Alfred Molon

Well, then., sell it to me or put it on eBay. The Nikon scanners (all
except the lowest-end model) are sought after. Used with Vuescan or
Silverscan, they do a great job.

[RichA]

On May 7, 12:48 pm, Bowser <id...@think.so> wrote:
> On Mon, 6 May 2013 19:13:46 +0200, Alfred Molon
>

> <alfred_mo...@yahoo.com> wrote:
> >In article <q0nfo8lurfirdh98ais1o8p1kv39opv...@4ax.com>, Bowser says...

> >> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
> >> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
> >> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
>
> >... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
> >devise to kill digital photography?
>
> OK, not a CEO, but a product manager:
>
> http://www.luminous-landscape.com/essays/kodak_eulogy.shtml
>
> Still, what a moron...

There are numerous examples of large companies being wholly and
illogically resistant to change. Sony, GM, Bell, the list of
casualties and soon-to-be casualties goes on.

[Martin Brown]

On 07/05/2013 21:36, Alfred Molon wrote:
> In article <%7Uht.18093$MS1....@newsfe05.iad>, Martin Brown says...

>> Most users of PhotoCD bought
>> a Nikon scanner after one experience of getting useless PictureCD
>> confusion after asking for PhotoCD and *NEVER* went back.
>
> I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is now catching dust on a
> cupboard. Haven't used it for years, because using it is so complicated
> and the quality is poor compared to digital.

But without a full frame sensor you can't easily use your slide
duplicator with a digital camera without cropping the source image. I
grant you that it is a lot easier to do this and that the Nikon software
was a bit quirky as was the hardware from time to time.

But the point I was making here was Kodak pretty much set out to annoy
and alienate its high value customers by muddying the waters with two
products of radically different quality both acronymed to PCD!

Had they called the new consumer grade "PictureCD" say "ImageCD" or
"SnapshotCD" the confused dealer problem would never have arisen.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Neil Ellwood]

On Wed, 08 May 2013 09:02:49 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:

> But without a full frame sensor you can't easily use your slide
> duplicator with a digital camera without cropping the source image. I
> grant you that it is a lot easier to do this and that the Nikon software
> was a bit quirky as was the hardware from time to time.

You could have a look at the Ohnar side copier. It is available in two
versions - full frame and aps-c.
--
Neil
Reverse ‘a’ and ‘r’
Remove ‘l’ to get address.

[Anton Shepelev]

Alfred Molon:

> I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is
> now catching dust on a cupboard. Haven't used it
> for years, because using it is so complicated and
> the quality is poor compared to digital.

Is it really so bad? Here's some of my scans, using
a Nikon Coolscan at 2900 dpi:

https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey02.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey26.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey29.jpg
https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey36.jpg

And no, it is not complicated once you learn to use
it.

--
() ascii ribbon campaign - against html e-mail
/\ www.asciiribbon.org - against proprietary attachments

[Martin Brown]

On 08/05/2013 10:20, Neil Ellwood wrote:
> On Wed, 08 May 2013 09:02:49 +0100, Martin Brown wrote:
>
>> But without a full frame sensor you can't easily use your slide
>> duplicator with a digital camera without cropping the source image. I
>> grant you that it is a lot easier to do this and that the Nikon software
>> was a bit quirky as was the hardware from time to time.
>
> You could have a look at the Ohnar side copier. It is available in two
> versions - full frame and aps-c.

I still have one of the old 35mm design (hence the 70% crop). It is less
of a faff than firing up tetchy SCSI peripherals on an old machine.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Martin Brown]

On 06/05/2013 18:13, Alfred Molon wrote:

> In article <q0nfo8lurfirdh98a...@4ax.com>, Bowser says...
>> Keep one thing in mind: Kodak's past management wasn't very bright.
>> These are they guys who once tasked their people with finding a way to
>> kill the digital revolution to protect their film business.
>
> ... really they did? Almost too funny to be true. What plan did Kodak
> devise to kill digital photography?

That is a slightly unkind caricature but unfortunately is also not too
wide of the mark. I was an early adopter of Kodaks Pro PhotoCD scanning
service which at the time was incredible. Drum scanning was a real PITA.

Then they launched Kodak PictureCD which was ISTR a sub 2Mpixel poxily

compressed JPEG with no redeeming features. Most users of PhotoCD bought

a Nikon scanner after one experience of getting useless PictureCD
confusion after asking for PhotoCD and *NEVER* went back.

[nospam]

In article <KEnit.41344$Zw....@newsfe21.iad>, Martin Brown

<|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote:

> >> Most users of PhotoCD bought
> >> a Nikon scanner after one experience of getting useless PictureCD
> >> confusion after asking for PhotoCD and *NEVER* went back.
> >
> > I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is now catching dust on a
> > cupboard. Haven't used it for years, because using it is so complicated
> > and the quality is poor compared to digital.
>
> But without a full frame sensor you can't easily use your slide
> duplicator with a digital camera without cropping the source image. I
> grant you that it is a lot easier to do this and that the Nikon software
> was a bit quirky as was the hardware from time to time.

what does a full frame sensor have to do with using a scanner?

if you're thinking of slide duplicators (lens, bellows, slide holder),
those work on fx or dx, but it's not as good as a scanner.

> But the point I was making here was Kodak pretty much set out to annoy
> and alienate its high value customers by muddying the waters with two
> products of radically different quality both acronymed to PCD!
>
> Had they called the new consumer grade "PictureCD" say "ImageCD" or
> "SnapshotCD" the confused dealer problem would never have arisen.

having both photocd and picturecd was stupid.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <20130508141142.2cb3...@gmail.com>, Anton
Shepelev says...

>
> Alfred Molon:
>
> > I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is
> > now catching dust on a cupboard. Haven't used it
> > for years, because using it is so complicated and
> > the quality is poor compared to digital.
>
> Is it really so bad? Here's some of my scans, using
> a Nikon Coolscan at 2900 dpi:
>
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey02.jpg
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey26.jpg
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey29.jpg
> https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey36.jpg
>
> And no, it is not complicated once you learn to use
> it.

Here is an example scan from the Nikon scanner:
http://www.molon.de/images/F21_35.jpg

[Bowser]

On Wed, 8 May 2013 00:24:01 -0700 (PDT), RichA <rande...@gmail.com>
wrote:

Yeah, and that moron at Kodak was probably representative of the
culture of the company. Kodak never "got it." Until now, that is.
worst part is that they were really well positioned for digital, but
choose to screw it up. Morons.

[J. Clarke]

In article <79bf218c-4aab-4dce-8f0c-
209381...@s18g2000yqg.googlegroups.com>, rande...@gmail.com says...

Bell was not done in by "change", it was done in by lawyers.

[J. Clarke]

In article <MPG.2bf4ad735...@news.supernews.com>,
alfred...@yahoo.com says...

>
> In article <20130508141142.2cb3...@gmail.com>, Anton
> Shepelev says...
> >
> > Alfred Molon:
> >
> > > I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is
> > > now catching dust on a cupboard. Haven't used it
> > > for years, because using it is so complicated and
> > > the quality is poor compared to digital.
> >
> > Is it really so bad? Here's some of my scans, using
> > a Nikon Coolscan at 2900 dpi:
> >
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey02.jpg
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey26.jpg
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey29.jpg
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey36.jpg
> >
> > And no, it is not complicated once you learn to use
> > it.
>
> Here is an example scan from the Nikon scanner:
> http://www.molon.de/images/F21_35.jpg

I think your scanner is busticated. It looks like the green on the left
side of that shot is way, way out of register.

[Martin Brown]

Not sure it is the scanners fault so much as the original source
material never having been in good focus. Take a look at top right and
edge where there is scratch damage to the slide - that is tack sharp.

When I got my Nikon Coolscan I compared it against PCD scans and found
that it was very slightly better than the 6Mpixel 16 base scans. eg

http://www.nezumi.demon.co.uk/photo/pcd/photob.htm

The auto white balance tended to over correct to "true" white but that
was easily fixed in a manual adjustment. Scans using default settings.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[Anton Shepelev]

Alfred Molon:

> > Is it really so bad? Here's some of my scans,
> > using a Nikon Coolscan at 2900 dpi:
> >
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey02.jpg
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey26.jpg
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey29.jpg
> > https://dl.dropboxusercontent.com/u/59075928/sergey36.jpg
> >
> > And no, it is not complicated once you learn to
> > use it.
>
> Here is an example scan from the Nikon scanner:
> http://www.molon.de/images/F21_35.jpg

Accept my envy on having a 4000-dpi scanner. Your
whole scan looks absolutely out-of-focus: for I see
no sign of grain which must be present at this reso-
lution in the form of brightness-and-color noise.
Your scanner seems to have been not focused proper-
ly. Scanner software (Nikkon's and VueScan) usually
has a setting to disable autofocus and let the user
choose the exact point whereupon he wishes to set
the focus. This may be preferred for two reasons:

1. To choose a spot on which it is easier to fo-
cus. It should have some medium contrast,
rather than being high-contrast or monotone.

2. To compensate for film curl by focusing at
different points, noting the suggested set-
tings and finally setting the focus manually
to a value somewhere between the extremes.
With some experience you'll learn how to de-
termine which deviations of the film from a
plane are incompatible with sharp scanning.
In this case a frame or glass holder should be
used instead of the standard strip holder, or
you should flatten the film, for which several
techniques exist. Or focus on the most impor-
tant object, sacrificing the backgroud and
what's already out of focus on the shot.

But even with autofocus the result must be way bet-
ter.

I liked the photo, especally after cropping it a bit
from both top and bottom.

[Anton Shepelev]

J. Clarke:

> > Here is an example scan from the Nikon scanner:
> > http://www.molon.de/images/F21_35.jpg
>
> I think your scanner is busticated. It looks like
> the green on the left side of that shot is way,
> way out of register.

This has nothing to do with the scanner itself. It
only has a linear CCD array accepting light from
red, green, and blue LEDs, whose intensity may be
individually adjusted so that, say, a near-transpar-
ent region on the film scans as nearly white (245,
245, 245). This gives a good starting point for
white balance and allows for a more effective use of
the scanner's dynamic range in all channels.

But the device has no knowledge of color spaces and
converts the result to a user-selectable color space
using some "film profile". I avoid it and scan into
linear RGB, without any color-space conversions.
Vuescan lets me do it. The result is an RGB image
obtained by downmixing raw data from the CCD.

To open that image properly in Photoshop, a linear
(gamma=1.0) color space should be defined. Note,
that inverting a negative is not a linear operation
and should be done as:

y = 1 / x.

[Anton Shepelev]

Martin Brown:

> Not sure it is the scanners fault so much as the
> original source material never having been in good
> focus. Take a look at top right and edge where

> there is scratch damage to the slide -- that is
> tack sharp.

No, what you see there a pixel-sharp artifact of the
scratch-removal algorithm, digital ICE. That
scratch/tear was too wide for it. It uses a fourth,
infrared, channel to detect scrathces and retouch
them. You can scan in four channels and use IR in-
formation later in Photoshop to do the job better.

[Anton Shepelev]

[Followup-to: rec.photo.darkroom]

Alfred Molon:

> I also bought a Nikon scanner years ago which is
> now catching dust on a cupboard. Haven't used it
> for years, because using it is so complicated and
> the quality is poor compared to digital.

What is the exact model of your scanner? Asking in
the hope that, maybe, you could sell it me, if it's
working and little used. Feel free to reply e-mail.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <20130509131602.161d...@gmail.com>, Anton
Shepelev says...

> Your
> whole scan looks absolutely out-of-focus:

That's possible. The scan was done in 2004, but somehow I remember that
the scanner had focus issues, or perhaps we couldn't manage to get it to
focus properly.

[Alfred Molon]

In article <20130509131602.161d...@gmail.com>, Anton
Shepelev says...

> Accept my envy on having a 4000-dpi scanner.

... they don't sell/make them anymore?

[Anton Shepelev]

Alfred Molon:

> > Accept my envy on having a 4000-dpi scanner.
>
> ... they don't sell/make them anymore?

Seems so to me :-(

[J. Clarke]

In article <20130509134148.9cb2...@gmail.com>,
anto...@gmail.com says...

So what? Your discussioin of color spaces has nothing to do with
anything that I said or with the problem I see in that image.

[Anton Shepelev]

J. Clarke:

> > > I think your scanner is busticated. It looks
> > > like the green on the left side of that shot
> > > is way, way out of register.
> >
> > This has nothing to do with the scanner itself.

> > [...]

>
> So what? Your discussioin of color spaces has
> nothing to do with anything that I said or with
> the problem I see in that image.

I thought that the defect you talk about is that of
the scanner software rather than hardware. What do
you mean by "out of register"?

[Martin Brown]

On 09/05/2013 18:41, Anton Shepelev wrote:
> J. Clarke:
>
>>>> I think your scanner is busticated. It looks
>>>> like the green on the left side of that shot
>>>> is way, way out of register.
>>>
>>> This has nothing to do with the scanner itself.
>>> [...]
>>
>> So what? Your discussioin of color spaces has
>> nothing to do with anything that I said or with
>> the problem I see in that image.
>
> I thought that the defect you talk about is that of
> the scanner software rather than hardware. What do
> you mean by "out of register"?

It is most obvious in the green inner fringes on highlights in
the left of the image, but also present as green inner and purple
outer fringes on highlights in the right top corner. Most easily
seen in the trees just past the roof line of the barn. Zoom in...

Looks to me like uncorrected lateral colour aberration.
(ie a lens used to take the image flaw)

Put simply the green image is slightly smaller than red and blue!
I don't see how this can be a scanner fault.

--
Regards,
Martin Brown

[J. Clarke]

In article <20130509214110.df37...@gmail.com>,
anto...@gmail.com says...

>
> J. Clarke:
>
> > > > I think your scanner is busticated. It looks
> > > > like the green on the left side of that shot
> > > > is way, way out of register.
> > >
> > > This has nothing to do with the scanner itself.
> > > [...]
> >
> > So what? Your discussioin of color spaces has
> > nothing to do with anything that I said or with
> > the problem I see in that image.
>
> I thought that the defect you talk about is that of
> the scanner software rather than hardware. What do
> you mean by "out of register"?

Look on the left side of the picture. You'll see a stick. Look
closely. You'll see the green part of the image of that stick displaced
far enough from the red and green that there is a visible gap between
them. That's not a software problem.

[Robert Coe]

On Mon, 06 May 2013 04:50:47 -0400, Dale <inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:
: I read that Kodak is going to focus on printing, packaging and software
:
: I read they are selling their film business but keeping their motion
: picture business
:
: what the strategic planners their should do is
:
: 1) map out ALL the imaging workflows
: 2) indicate all participations, systems or products
: 3) identify customers and partners
: 4) build business cases
:
:
: and don't forget
:
: 5) ask why there aren't participations
: 6) keep up with changes in workflows
: 7) central system offerings are best to vie
: 8) create better workflows

I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. But if it's that they should
develop and market a competitor for Photoshop, I'll bet that would take more
money than Kodak could get their hands on.

Bob

[Dale]

On 05/11/2013 12:51 PM, Robert Coe wrote:
> I'm not sure I understand what you're proposing. But if it's that they should
> develop and market a competitor for Photoshop, I'll bet that would take more
> money than Kodak could get their hands on.

no choices is not a good idea either, Gimp, for free, is really getting
there

--
Dale

[nospam]

In article <6kdtus....@news.alt.net>, Dale

<inv...@invalid.invalid> wrote:

> no choices is not a good idea either, Gimp, for free, is really getting
> there

now it's only 10 years behind the times rather than 15 years.

it *still* lacks adjustment layers, smart objects and so much more.

even the $60 photoshop elements does more than the gimp does.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

nospam wrote:
> now it's only 10 years behind the times rather than 15 years.
>
> it *still* lacks adjustment layers, smart objects and so much more.
>
> even the $60 photoshop elements does more than the gimp does.

Considering that Adobe "accidently" released CS/2 to the world, that seems
the better choice.

Geoff.

--
Geoffrey S. Mendelson, N3OWJ/4X1GM/KBUH7245/KBUW5379
It's Spring here in Jerusalem!!!

[nospam]

In article <slrnkqpn1...@cable.mendelson.com>, Geoffrey S.

Mendelson <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:

> > now it's only 10 years behind the times rather than 15 years.
> >
> > it *still* lacks adjustment layers, smart objects and so much more.
> >
> > even the $60 photoshop elements does more than the gimp does.
>
> Considering that Adobe "accidently" released CS/2 to the world, that seems
> the better choice.

consider that it's for legitimate cs2 owners only.

[Savageduck]

Yup!
Adobe is not giving CS2 away.
...and for Mac users out there, CS2 will not run on Intel Macs, only
G4, or G5 Macs. That was my reason for upgrading at that time.
< http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/ >

--
Regards,

Savageduck

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

nospam wrote:
> consider that it's for legitimate cs2 owners only.

They made no attempt at all to limit it to legitimate cs2 owners.

When it was announced, before the direct download links were published, you
could go to their website, and sign up for their free downloads, which
included CS2.

The "it was only for licensed users" was published in a blog, not on the
official website.

[Geoffrey S. Mendelson]

Savageduck wrote:
> ...and for Mac users out there, CS2 will not run on Intel Macs, only
> G4, or G5 Macs. That was my reason for upgrading at that time.
>< http://www.adobe.com/downloads/cs2_downloads/ >

Probably 99% of the people that downloaded it are Windows users, and it
runs perfectly well under Windows 7 and in an XP virtual machine under
MacOS.

Since you posted the link, I suggest that people go to it and read the
disclaimer.

[nospam]

In article <slrnkqpn1...@cable.mendelson.com>, Geoffrey S.

Mendelson <g...@mendelson.com> wrote:

> > now it's only 10 years behind the times rather than 15 years.
> >
> > it *still* lacks adjustment layers, smart objects and so much more.
> >
> > even the $60 photoshop elements does more than the gimp does.
>
> Considering that Adobe "accidently" released CS/2 to the world, that seems
> the better choice.

they didn't accidentally release cs2 to the world. it's for legitimate
cs2 owners.

it is *not* a free ticket for anyone to download a copy and run it.
that's piracy.

[Dale]

Kodak and others should consider using open system solutions to their
workflows until they can develop proprietary ones

gimp might not be totally there yet, but its GNU licensed and can be
edited/improved

same thing with ghostscript and inkscape

I don't think postscript will survive SVG


--
Dale

[Dale]

On 05/09/2013 04:32 PM, Martin Brown wrote:
> Put simply the green image is slightly smaller than red and blue!
> I don't see how this can be a scanner fault.

if the CCD is encoded with something other than plain RGB then it might
be the scanner

some CCD filtration prioritizes green

--
Dale

[Dale]

look at the way Sun and now Oracle use openoffice to develop Star
Office, this is a model of how proprietary companies can develop open
system solutions

--
Dale