From: Eric Stevens <>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Full headers:
X-Received: by with SMTP id d185mr4327265qkc.38.1513809360631;
Wed, 20 Dec 2017 14:36:00 -0800 (PST)
From: Eric Stevens <>
Subject: Re: Adobe Stock Images pays photo $0.18 for using his photo
Message-ID: <>
References: <> <p0rg46$1tqe$> <131220171132354803%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <181220171608156123%nospam@nospam.invalid> <> <p19er6$101g$> <> <p19rj5$1fqt$> <> <p1dv0l$1cnf$>
User-Agent: ForteAgent/
MIME-Version: 1.0
Lines: 46
Organization: Forte -
X-Complaints-Info: Please be sure to forward a copy of ALL headers otherwise we will be unable to process your complaint properly.
Date: Thu, 21 Dec 2017 11:36:02 +1300
X-Received-Bytes: 2949
X-Received-Body-CRC: 801695785
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Content-Transfer-Encoding: 7bit
X-Original-Bytes: 2805
Print Article
Forward Article
On Wed, 20 Dec 2017 10:17:29 -0500, "Mayayana"<mayayana@invalid.nospam> wrote:

>"PeterN" <"peter,newdelete"> wrote
>| It's all a matter of personal preference and use. Although I am strictly
>| an amateur, I find myself using the newer features. Although I am not
>| certain when each new feature came out, I find myself using and poking
>| around with liquefy, defog, distort, color selection improvement, etc.
>| Not everybody does, but that is their choice. I know I can get some of
>| the effects cheaper, but how I chose to spend my money is only my concern.
>  That's the first time I've seen anyone actually
>say, specifically, what they found worthwhile in
>buying new versions of software. I've never
>heard of liquefy and defog. I'll have to look
>those up.
>   I used to do some things like 3-D borders or
>customizing text logos with "wind", various
>outlines, etc. I certainly don't see any reason
>not to have fun with those.  But I do wonder how
>many people are actually using new features
>and how many simply assume, without thinking,
>that they'll need the very latest version of
>Adobe's most expensive product in order to do
>the job right.
>  Eric implied that in his post -- that he thought
>he had to keep buying updates for a software
>product to continue being useful. I see that as a
>bill of goods that's been sold to the public in order
>to maintain corporate viability: Once a giant company
>has been established to maintain a successful
>product like Photoshop, they're under a great deal
>of pressure to produce must-have updates on a
>regular basis. Without them the company folds.
I buy updates when they contain enhancements which incorporate
features in which I am interested.


Eric Stevens