site review request

Barry Pearson wrote:

Nikolaos Giannopoulos wrote:

I simply stated a fact. I see no point in continuing this discussion.

Likewise.

I am in
the solution business, not the debating business. While I recognise that you
know a lot about your subject matter, I can't see that this discussion will
contribute towards a solution for me.

No problem.

For some reason, you are pushing your proposal at me without attempting to
identify whether it actually matches my requirements. Then when I say it
doesn't, you dispute my response, rather than take the trouble to see why
there is a difference between your view and mine.

No. You were presented with an alternative solution - being in the
"solutions business" I imagine you can appreciate this - that IMO
mitigates "extra effort in downsizing images" BUT keep making erroneous
claims about the suitability of the solution whilest clearly
demonstrating you know very little about it, have zero experience with
it, yet claim to know about it (after the fact).

I wonder if you have an agenda that I am unaware of? Do you have a reason for
convincing me (and perhaps others) that your proposal is "the way to go"?

None that "I" know about ;-)

I certainly appear to have inadvertently triggered an emotional response in you!

Well, when you keep making false claims it does get aggravating - even
if the solution is not palatable for you it may be for others. Letting
false claims slide just doesn't seem fair to others reading this thread
down the road IMO.

Perhaps we will be able to discuss other topics on a better footing. But I see
no future in this discussion. Until the next topic, then!

Sure. Why not.

Thanks for your effort.

Your welcome and likewise.

--Nikolaos

Nothing like beating a dead horse but...

My understanding of what Barry did was going between the unsharp mask and
the compression screens repeatedly to achieve the final result. Now
certainly my experience with ImageReady is limited but I always understood
the droplets to be a batch process in that it did step 1, then 2, then 3
without the ability to go back a step.

Jonathan


--
http://www.snook.ca/