Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: CS3 and PhotoKit Sharpen?  (Read 21878 times)
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #20 on: December 26, 2006, 06:01:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Correction. . .they are intended to -TRY- to match PK Sharpener...they don't. There's some nice complicated processes...but they aren't backed up by the research nor do they have "the numbers" (that were arrived at by the research).

[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff's assertion about these magic numbers has been made before and have been responded to by Glen Mitchel, the author of TRL sharpening on this forum. Glen has done quite a bit of his own research. See this link:
[a href=\"http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10775&view=findpost&p=66607]Glen's Response[/url]

For more information on various sharpening techniques see this thread.
Sharpening Test (systems compared)

I note that Mitch was prompted to write his sharpening scripts because he found certain Pixel Genius partners to be insufferable online (see the post on the 1st of Jan, 2005, 03:10 pm). I have also experienced some of their venom  

Bill
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #21 on: December 26, 2006, 08:01:52 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I note that Mitch was prompted to write his sharpening scripts because he found certain Pixel Genius partners to be insufferable online (see the post on the 1st of Jan, 2005, 03:10 pm). I have also experienced some of their venom   

Bill
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92339\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

The last thing I would find myself doing is spending time creating new technology and tools because I've had a spat with some of the people who developed the pre-existing set. This is downright childish. If, however,  I thought I could develop a better mousetrap to deliver visibly superior results - now THAT would be good reason to do it, and despite what Glen said in his Jan 2005 post, which I also read, it would be nice to believe that technical progress and intellectual curiosity were his primary motivation. But that's his concern.

As for "venom", I have carried quite a bit of technical correspondence with Bruce Fraser, Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney about the use and characteristics of PK Sharpener, colour managament and raw processing - and they have all been correct and helpful to a fault. Sure - sometimes the discussion can be lively, but "venom" - never. Not my experience FWIW.

It is fine for Glen Mitchel to donate the fruits of his labour to the digital imaging community; it is also fine for Pixel Genius to charge a fee for their efforts. There is obviously a market for both and it doesn't make the one any more or less virtuous or technically superior than the other. The only things that count are results and support. I've used PK Sharpener from the time it came to my attention on this website and on both counts they get an A+.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2006, 06:42:36 PM by MarkDS » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5411


WWW
« Reply #22 on: December 26, 2006, 03:45:32 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I note that Mitch was prompted to write his sharpening scripts because he found certain Pixel Genius partners to be insufferable online (see the post on the 1st of Jan, 2005, 03:10 pm). I have also experienced some of their venom   
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

That's Mitch's version of the events...my recollections (backed up by PDFs made from the Adobe Photoshop forums circa Feb 2004) differ.

"Mitch" as you call him joined the Adobe forums in early 2004 for the purpose of promoting his web site and tutorials. He posted about tutorial for B&W conversions using dual Hue & Sat layers. Another forum member (not part of PG) mentioned that Russell Brown had introduced the technique. This other member, Cygnus merely said (quoted from the PDF I have):
----------------------------------------------------------
CygnusX1 - 08:23am Feb 20, 2004 Pacific(# of 33)1
 I believe Russell Brown introduced this technique.
"Seeing in black & white"
[a href=\"http://www.russellbrown.com/body.html]http://www.russellbrown.com/body.html[/url]
----------------------------------------------------

Dr. Mitchell wrote back the following:
---------------------------------------------
Glenn Mitchell - 08:59am Feb 20, 2004 Pacific(# of 33)2
This is really wearisome.

Why is it that every time I try to help people with this one technique, up crops this message from someone (Russell?) using a moniker?

I did not learn this technique from Russell Bropwn [his misspelling]. I was happily ignorant of his name until I posted my tutorial a couple of months ago. I find his presentations to be so hammy -- reminiscent of Roberto Benini's Academy Award acceptance -- that I do not bother with them. I don't need cornball humor, a la a Mathew Lesko commercial, along with instruction about PS.

This is the only technique I am aware of that someone tries to assert they originated and then label with their own name. It's a BS claim, too!

(1) Russell Brown is not the only smart person around in PS. There are a number of people who spend a lot of time working with PS. Maybe, just maybe, they can discover similar techniques *INDEPENDENTLY*.

(2) Where is the evidence that Russell Brown originated the technique. First tutorial on the Web *OF WHICH YOU ARE AWARE* does naot make one the originator. How do you know that Russell Brown did not read about the technique elsewhere, have someone suggest it at a training session, etc.? You do not!

(3) Does Russell Brown credit others for techniques he describes which predate his tutorials? Not that I have seen. Why not?

I have no problem lauding Russell Brown for his efforts to help people. Although I loathe his schtick, I find him to be well-informed. Certainly, he spends a lot of time, energy, and resources trying to help people. That is worthy of praise. But, guess what!!! He's not the only one who does that.

This reply about Russell Brown is too systematic. Always worded the same. Etc.

Behavior is motivated. People do things for a reason -- like always implying that one particular technique described by Russell Brown was stolen from him *AND* providing no evidence whatsoever for that silly and insulting claim.

Let Russell Brown worry about whether he gets due recognition. In the meantime, suggest to him that he give credit for techniques he describes that predate his tutorials.

Cheers,
Mitch
----------

Just to give you a framework for what has since transpired...the good Dr. seems hellbent on behaving badly and responding out of all proportions to any perceived slight-actually implying that CygnusX1 was actually Russell Brown running around the internet claiming "Mitch" stole his idea.

The -ONLY- reason I got drawn into the dustup was the fact I know for an absolute fact -WHEN- Russell Brown developed -HIS- technique because I exchanged email with Russell while he was working on it and I know for a fact when Russell first demoed it because I was on stage with him at Seybold, 2001 when he demoed that technique for the first time.

I pointed this out to "Mitch" and received a typical out of proportion response from him. And yes, a dustup with me ensued.

Later in the same thread, "Mitch" accused me of "failing to credit Russell" with certain techniques using Lighten and Darken layers in PixelGenius' PhotoKit Sharpener-this was somehow used as a defense of his failing to credit Russell.

Bruce Fraser (bless him) showed up to point out that Mitch had mischaracterized how PhotoKit Sharpener works and pointed out we don't use a Lighten only or Darken only blend in Sharpener...Bruce pointed out that he had written about how Sharpener works on CreativePro...Bruce went on to said:

---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Bruce Fraser- 01:42pm Feb 20, 2004 Pacific(#  of 33)19

In point of fact, PhotoKit SHARPENER does not use Lighten and Darken layers to do sharpening, in any of the modules.

In our seminars, workshops, and publications, we demonstrate all the techniques that are incorporated in SHARPENER — see, for example, determine what http://www.creativepro.com:80/story/feature/20357-2.html

The value proposition of SHARPENER is the huge amount of empirical research we did to numbers to stick into the various dialog boxes at different parts of the process. If someone would rather
build their own sharpening routines, I've told them how to do so. All they need to do is figure out which numbers to use in a given situation.

All the PhotoKit products are available as fully-functional 7-day demos. Anyone who doesn't find them worth the money is encouraged not to buy them—we have no desire to be in the shelfware business.

We've all had the experience of stumbling upon this, that, or the other technique, getting very excited, then finding someone who says, "hey, I've been doing that for the past two years." We generally have the good grace to give credit where it's due.

Everyone who uses Photoshop owes Russell Brown a significant debt of gratitude. He's had far more influence over the evolution of Photoshop than he would ever claim, and unlike you he isn't an ill-informed wannabe with a bad attitude who attempts to use this forum for self-promotion... I suggest you get used to the fact that when you promote techniques, you'll get people saying, "yeah, Russell Brown showed us that one in 1998," because it'll happen.
-------------------------------------------------

Therein started a long running feud between Dr. Glenn E. Mitchell III and members of PixelGenius. I guess since Bruce called Mitch an "ill-informed wannabe with a bad attitude" Mitch has made it his life's work to somehow adversely impact PixelGenius by trying VERY HARD to copy what we do (while failing to match our results). The feud moved to the old Rob Gailbrath forums where Mitch was banned and occasionally shows up on DR Review. The dustups even occurred here at LL in the forums a few years ago when he wrote an article incorrectly attributing red channel clipping to Michael's approach to Expose to the Right.

If you want to be a fan of "Mitch" Mr. Janes, you go right ahead...but you really should know who you are backing. He's really not a very nice guy and his motives for "giving away" his stuff is to drive traffic to his site where he solicits PayPal donations...so it's actually a bit more accurate to call his stuff "Donation-ware", not free-ware.

I suppose some would accuse me of using "venom" when replying to people whose insinuations offend me (or otherwise get my ire), but ya gotta ask yourself if your champion of free stuff, the good Dr. Glenn E. Mitchell II is really worthy of your worship. Me? Not so much...And yes, Mitch has said that he was motivated to create his sharpening stuff because he was ill-treated by Bruce Fraser (if you can image that) and other members of PG such as Andrew Rodney and myself.

The only reason I bothered to post this entire message was to clarify-without a shadow of a doubt-both the reasons why PG members don't like "Mitch" and to point out that it was Bruce Fraser, the Buddhist, vegetarian, Scotsman who seemed to get under Mitch's skin. Bruce is now no longer with us to give his side of this long running saga...but I have total documentation of Mitch's behavior on the Adobe Forums, his disrespect for industry leaders such as Russell Brown and Bruce Fraser and his irrational loathing of PixelGenius. If you want copies of the PDFs I have, let me know and I can post them somewhere...I have the proof of "Mitch's" behavior...you seem to only hear what he says. So, ya wanna worship him? Go right ahead...you seem motivated to get into dustups with myself and Andrew...why? What's your motive? Don't like the way I've treated you? Grow a thicker skin...just do Bruce the honor of not mischaracterizing the reality of the situation. OK? Mitch ain't the "good guy" in this saga...
« Last Edit: December 26, 2006, 03:50:36 PM by Schewe » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5411


WWW
« Reply #23 on: December 26, 2006, 03:58:32 PM »
ReplyReply

BTW. . .if there are a few volenteers who would like to beta test the new UB version of PhotoKit Shaprener that will work in Photoshop CS3, give me an email at "jeff at pixelgenius dot com". The first 6 people who have CS3 running on MacIntels (and already have a license for PK Sharpener) will get an email with a beta version to test...
Logged
picnic
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 574


« Reply #24 on: December 26, 2006, 06:45:25 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I agree. With this tool there is nothing else to muck-around with and no advantage doing so.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91987\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Agreed.  I've been using  PSCS3 since I dled the beta.  Not a problem in any way (PC, BTW).   I find it extremely flexible--layers, you know LOL (oh, plus lots of ways to use it---I no longer use the first sharpening with the 5D files, but find the 'creative' layer a better way of working for me.  I also lower the opacity of the final sharpening also---but this is why I love PKS---I can use it as I find best.).

Diane
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #25 on: December 26, 2006, 07:26:31 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Agreed.  I've been using  PSCS3 since I dled the beta.  Not a problem in any way (PC, BTW).   I find it extremely flexible--layers, you know LOL (oh, plus lots of ways to use it---I no longer use the first sharpening with the 5D files, but find the 'creative' layer a better way of working for me.  I also lower the opacity of the final sharpening also---but this is why I love PKS---I can use it as I find best.).

Diane
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92429\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly - the flexibility it offers to customize the sharpening approach for each image is truly remarkable and to the best of my knowledge unparalleled in respect of the the kind of control it offers relative to the effort required. Plus, on my new PC with this Xeon 5160 Dual Core processor, it takes certainly less than 5 seconds to complete on a 65 MB file. I should measure it for good measure! (but it is so fast it is hardly wirthwhile bothering.)

Somewhere up this thread there was a comment about sharpening artifacts. I don't know what kind of artifacts to which that poster was referring, but this is one of the matters which I discussed at some length with Bruce Fraser quite a while ago.

He was so gracious and forthcoming about it. I offered to send him prints and screen captures demonstrating the issue I was referring to and he expressed real interest in seeing it - sent me all the information for getting this material to him for examination.

The first thing I discovered in preparing the material to send him is that these so-called artifacts were mainly visible on the monitor - more so at 100% than at 50% magnification, but just very hard to detect in prints. Of course it is only the latter that matter.

The second thing I hit upon is that the artifacts were primarily a function of image processing technique - not anything wrong with the software - two aspects here: (i) choosing the wrong edge sharpener relative to the subject matter, and (ii) more important - once the image contains more than a certain amout of noise (can't say exactly how much of which type) one is sharpening the noise along with the rest of the image and the artifacts are essentially sharpened noise.

This becomes apparant by performing some careful noise reduction on a duplicate image layer (say using dedicated software such as Noise Ninja or Noiseware) running PK Capture Sharpen, and then repeating the same thing without the noise reduction layer. It isn't that the noise reduction smothers the artifacts - it is the other way around - the reduction of noise prevents the artifacts when sharpening after noise reduction - which is the logical sequence. Discussing this with Bruce, he agreed this factor could be one explanation for what I was seeing, but we agreed all in all the effect was trivial on paper.

So bottom line in my opinion - great tool - great people to do business with - and sharpening artifacts depend on the image and the usage rather than anything inherent to the program.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2006, 07:29:22 PM by MarkDS » Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Eric Myrvaagnes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 7789



WWW
« Reply #26 on: December 26, 2006, 07:30:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's Mitch's version of the events...my recollections (backed up by PDFs made from the Adobe Photoshop forums circa Feb 2004) differ.
<snip>
...
 Mitch ain't the "good guy" in this saga...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92394\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Thanks for providing the context, Jeff, and doing so in an amazingly restrained manner. My respect for you guys at Pixel Genius has just risen another notch.

My first serious introduction to a digital workflow was at a one-day workshop given by Bruce in the summer of 2003. I owe him (and the rest of you) a lot. I wish I could thank him in person.
Logged

-Eric Myrvaagnes

http://myrvaagnes.com  Visit my website. New images each season.
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5411


WWW
« Reply #27 on: December 26, 2006, 08:26:15 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just switched from Windows to a Mac and I see that there is no cross platform license provision, so I will need to repurchase. When CS3 releases and you have your official release of the UB PK Sharpener, will there be a charge for this upgrade, or will it be covered under the Mac version free update path? Just trying to decide if I should hold off on the purchase.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Use the [a href=\"http://www.pixelgenius.com/support.html]CUSTOMER SUPPORT FORM[/url] and request the 33% cross-platform discount if you want to buy the Mac version-and the UB version update to the current PhotoKit Sharpener 1.2.4 will be free to registered users...the PhotoKit Sharpener 2.0 upgrade (don't know when that will happen now that Bruce is gone) will be a small upgrade charge.
Logged
bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #28 on: December 26, 2006, 08:32:17 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That's Mitch's version of the events...my recollections (backed up by PDFs made from the Adobe Photoshop forums circa Feb 2004) differ.

If you want to be a fan of "Mitch" Mr. Janes, you go right ahead...but you really should know who you are backing. He's really not a very nice guy and his motives for "giving away" his stuff is to drive traffic to his site where he solicits PayPal donations...so it's actually a bit more accurate to call his stuff "Donation-ware", not free-ware.

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92394\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,

I've never met Mitch nor have I communicated with him. I did download his sharpening scripts, which are obviously an attempt to reverse engineer PG's sharpener, but I have not really used them much since I do not like the interface.  I was not aware of the controversies you have documented. FWIW, I continue to use PhotoKit Sharpener, which I think is an excellent product and well worth the money.

Quote
The only reason I bothered to post this entire message was to clarify-without a shadow of a doubt-both the reasons why PG members don't like "Mitch" and to point out that it was Bruce Fraser, the Buddhist, vegetarian, Scotsman who seemed to get under Mitch's skin. Bruce is now no longer with us to give his side of this long running saga...but I have total documentation of Mitch's behavior on the Adobe Forums, his disrespect for industry leaders such as Russell Brown and Bruce Fraser and his irrational loathing of PixelGenius. If you want copies of the PDFs I have, let me know and I can post them somewhere...I have the proof of "Mitch's" behavior...you seem to only hear what he says. So, ya wanna worship him? Go right ahead...you seem motivated to get into dustups with myself and Andrew...why? What's your motive? Don't like the way I've treated you? Grow a thicker skin...just do Bruce the honor of not mischaracterizing the reality of the situation. OK? Mitch ain't the "good guy" in this saga...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92394\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

God bless Bruce and may his soul rest in peace. I never met Bruce, but I think I have all of his Real World books and have learned much from them. With the new version of Camera Raw now in beta, I certainly will miss the third edition of his ACR book. Presumably, Martin Evening's new Lightroom book will have a decent section applicable to ACR (since the new interface is quite similar). As to my motive, I merely find you pompous and unpleasant.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5411


WWW
« Reply #29 on: December 26, 2006, 08:44:34 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
As to my motive, I merely find you pompous and unpleasant.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92448\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ah, so, to get at me, you post links to stuff written by Glenn E. Mitchell II PhD.?
Ok. . .that makes total sense to you?

If you honor -ANYTHING- about Bruce's contribution to this industry, may I suggest you refrain from gleefully pointing people to this pretender's site?

You have an issue with me, bring to me...apparently you don't live far from me-I'm more than willing to speak to you face to face...but my on-line demeanor isn't about to change after all these years merely because -YOU- find me "pompous and unpleasant". That, I can live with...thinking that Glenn E. Mitchell II PhD. is something other than what he actually is, I can't.
« Last Edit: December 26, 2006, 08:45:29 PM by Schewe » Logged
colourperfect
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


WWW
« Reply #30 on: December 27, 2006, 03:12:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

Is there a chance that you comment on the differences between PKSharpener and Glenn Mitchell's script's when applied to images.

Can you highlight the differences seen in prints between the two solutions ?
A few examples would be good

At this time it may be a good idea for everybody to park their other feelings somewhere more appropriate and respectful.

Ian

http://www.colourperfect.co.uk


Quote
Ah, so, to get at me, you post links to stuff written by Glenn E. Mitchell II PhD.?
Ok. . .that makes total sense to you?

If you honor -ANYTHING- about Bruce's contribution to this industry, may I suggest you refrain from gleefully pointing people to this pretender's site?

You have an issue with me, bring to me...apparently you don't live far from me-I'm more than willing to speak to you face to face...but my on-line demeanor isn't about to change after all these years merely because -YOU- find me "pompous and unpleasant". That, I can live with...thinking that Glenn E. Mitchell II PhD. is something other than what he actually is, I can't.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92449\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #31 on: December 27, 2006, 09:09:27 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Jeff,

Is there a chance that you comment on the differences between PKSharpener and Glenn Mitchell's script's when applied to images.

Can you highlight the differences seen in prints between the two solutions ?
A few examples would be good

At this time it may be a good idea for everybody to park their other feelings somewhere more appropriate and respectful.

Ian

http://www.colourperfect.co.uk
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Ian - I agree with you fully that this is no place for venting personality issues.

Turning to the technical issues, while I'd be curious to see how Jeff responds to your question, I think in the final analysis users curious enough about the practical differences in results between the two sharpening programs should simply try them both under their own operating environments and see which is more suitable. This would depend not only on a comparison of prints, but also on usability - interfaces, speed, etc. When there are choices, an overall judgment about what software to use so often depends not only on the inherent quality of the programs, but also on individual operational conditions (image types, computing and printing environments, etc.) and personal preferences.
Logged

Mark D Segal (formerly MarkDS)
Author: "Scanning Workflows with SilverFast 8....." http://www.luminous-landscape.com/reviews/film/scanning_workflows_with_silverfast_8.shtml
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5411


WWW
« Reply #32 on: December 27, 2006, 12:08:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Is there a chance that you comment on the differences between PKSharpener and Glenn Mitchell's script's when applied to images.
http://www.colourperfect.co.uk
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92480\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, no. I really can't comment other than to say that without major tweaking of the settings for TLR sharpening, the end results don't produce optimal results.

Oh, he takes and uses our terms-our EXACT terms mind you-it's not like he's even tried to alter Bruce's concepts or our naming conventions...and wraps them up in a Javascript as opposed to an automate plug-in-but the problem is that you, the user, must still decide what settings to apply in each and every situation. Well, considering the fact that a computer display is a low resolution devise and unsuitable for the evaluation of sharpening high resolution data, how the heck are you supposed to determine what numbers go where? Bruce did the required empirical testing. "Mitch" claims he's done the testing but then also says he can't find the right numbers and rejects the concept that there are knowable presets-so the user is left to their own determination. Kinda defeats the purpose, don't ya think? He has recipes, we have results-of course, that's just my opinion.

I could go on and talk about how his returned results of layer blending is less than optimal-the blend settings for light/dark contours don't produce optimal results-again, another set of numbers that disagree with Bruce's testing...but Mitch doesn't like "presets", remember? I wonder why?

As for his scripts, since you can't examine the exact process unless you go into the script I can't comment on their efficiency...I can say that on his original actions he released, his steps were often very inefficient-taking many additional steps to accomplish what should be less steps. Perhaps he's learned efficiency when he wrote the scripts? Don't know...There is also the issue that recorded as an action, the scripts can not be used in a batch operations, the scripts themselves will often produce errors-for example, the capture sharpening produces a set of layers in a group that is open. If you then try to try to run an output sharpen you get an error that the output sharpening routine can't run while a layer group is open. Makes usability pretty suboptimal if your desire is to automate the process in your workflow.

I guess it comes down to perceived value-his stuff is donation-ware, PhotoKit Sharpener is a commercial product. PixelGenius is an Adobe developer as well as Apple and Microsoft developers...Mitch? Not so much. He's not even a beta tester for Photoshop. For the members of PixelGenius, Photoshop is our day job. We work with Adobe on the development of Photoshop and more recently Lightroom. We teach and write about Photoshop. Bruce and I are both in the Photoshop Hall of Fame (Martin should be). Our original engineer, Mike Skurski has been writing plug-ins since Photoshop version 1.0-he got a hand written floppy disk from Thomas Knoll with the "SDK" on it-for what it was worth back then. Seth and I have worked on behalf of the photo industry-Seth was a founding member and president of EP, I was national president of APA. Between the members of PixelGenius, we have six books published on or about Photoshop-seven when Martin's Lightroom book comes out and countless articles. Seth and I are Canon Explorers of Light and I'm an Epson Stylus Pro. I think it's fair to say we are "experts"?

Mitch? Not so much. He has a PhD in Political Science. He's an Associate Research Professor at the University of South Florida and Director, State Data Center on Aging. His day job has nothing to do with photography, digital imaging nor Photoshop. He's an amateur...he takes the work of others and regurgitates it as his own. As can be seen from the examples of his online posts, he's not so good at playing well with others. Of course, bjanes thinks I'm "pompous and unpleasant" so your milage may vary...

So, I really can't comment much on his sharpening scripts except to say that in life, there are often true originals....and then there are cheap knock-offs...you usually get what you pay for.
Logged
colourperfect
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 75


WWW
« Reply #33 on: December 27, 2006, 04:10:42 PM »
ReplyReply

Jeff,

I would hate to think that your blood pressure was in anyway as high as the angst in your posting (reading between the lines of course)

 You need to see Mitch's efforts as a back handed complement. Based on his CV he seems to have done reasonably well at scripting. As you are a commercial and very professional outfit I am quite surprised you have not done any competitive analysis. If you believe your product is better then publishing some comparisons seems the best way forward.

As far as your opinions on donation ware, remember that there are some real pearls (such as QuadTone RIP) that operate on this basis. The internet provides individuals the opportunity to compete with large corporations. I dont expect you see yourself in that way, but with Mitch playing David and you sounding like Goliath........

I appreciate that some of Mitch's activities may seem to undermine you commercial success, but in the era of the internet thats life.

I have huge respect for your work and that of the other PixelGenius guy's but I think perhaps telling people how good you all are sometimes grates a little. Maybe absolutely true, but even so ....

Happy holidays ;-)


Quote
Well, no. I really can't comment other than to say that without major tweaking of the settings for TLR sharpening, the end results don't produce optimal results.

Oh, he takes and uses our terms-our EXACT terms mind you-it's not like he's even tried to alter Bruce's concepts or our naming conventions...and wraps them up in a Javascript as opposed to an automate plug-in-but the problem is that you, the user, must still decide what settings to apply in each and every situation. Well, considering the fact that a computer display is a low resolution devise and unsuitable for the evaluation of sharpening high resolution data, how the heck are you supposed to determine what numbers go where? Bruce did the required empirical testing. "Mitch" claims he's done the testing but then also says he can't find the right numbers and rejects the concept that there are knowable presets-so the user is left to their own determination. Kinda defeats the purpose, don't ya think? He has recipes, we have results-of course, that's just my opinion.

I could go on and talk about how his returned results of layer blending is less than optimal-the blend settings for light/dark contours don't produce optimal results-again, another set of numbers that disagree with Bruce's testing...but Mitch doesn't like "presets", remember? I wonder why?

As for his scripts, since you can't examine the exact process unless you go into the script I can't comment on their efficiency...I can say that on his original actions he released, his steps were often very inefficient-taking many additional steps to accomplish what should be less steps. Perhaps he's learned efficiency when he wrote the scripts? Don't know...There is also the issue that recorded as an action, the scripts can not be used in a batch operations, the scripts themselves will often produce errors-for example, the capture sharpening produces a set of layers in a group that is open. If you then try to try to run an output sharpen you get an error that the output sharpening routine can't run while a layer group is open. Makes usability pretty suboptimal if your desire is to automate the process in your workflow.

I guess it comes down to perceived value-his stuff is donation-ware, PhotoKit Sharpener is a commercial product. PixelGenius is an Adobe developer as well as Apple and Microsoft developers...Mitch? Not so much. He's not even a beta tester for Photoshop. For the members of PixelGenius, Photoshop is our day job. We work with Adobe on the development of Photoshop and more recently Lightroom. We teach and write about Photoshop. Bruce and I are both in the Photoshop Hall of Fame (Martin should be). Our original engineer, Mike Skurski has been writing plug-ins since Photoshop version 1.0-he got a hand written floppy disk from Thomas Knoll with the "SDK" on it-for what it was worth back then. Seth and I have worked on behalf of the photo industry-Seth was a founding member and president of EP, I was national president of APA. Between the members of PixelGenius, we have six books published on or about Photoshop-seven when Martin's Lightroom book comes out and countless articles. Seth and I are Canon Explorers of Light and I'm an Epson Stylus Pro. I think it's fair to say we are "experts"?

Mitch? Not so much. He has a PhD in Political Science. He's an Associate Research Professor at the University of South Florida and Director, State Data Center on Aging. His day job has nothing to do with photography, digital imaging nor Photoshop. He's an amateur...he takes the work of others and regurgitates it as his own. As can be seen from the examples of his online posts, he's not so good at playing well with others. Of course, bjanes thinks I'm "pompous and unpleasant" so your milage may vary...

So, I really can't comment much on his sharpening scripts except to say that in life, there are often true originals....and then there are cheap knock-offs...you usually get what you pay for.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92524\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5411


WWW
« Reply #34 on: December 27, 2006, 05:35:41 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
You need to see Mitch's efforts as a back handed complement. Based on his CV he seems to have done reasonably well at scripting. As you are a commercial and very professional outfit I am quite surprised you have not done any competitive analysis. If you believe your product is better then publishing some comparisons seems the best way forward.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

No, I see Mitch's efforts as a blatant attempt to hijack Bruce's work of over 10 years culminating in both PhotoKit Sharpener as well as [a href=\"http://www.peachpit.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0321449959&rl=1]Real World Image Sharpening[/url], the recently released book. Bruce has devoted a large portion of his life towards improving this industry and I want to make sure people respect that.

The -ONLY- reason I'm going on at length is to compare and contrast the behavior of the parties involved in this "feud" and to show the genesis of Glenn E. Mitchell II PhD.'s motives, his background and to make it perfectly clear what's really going on.

I didn't say we haven't done comparison testing...how do you think I discovered his "product's" shortcomings? But why would we (PixelGenius) even give him the time of day-let along acknowledge TLR Sharpener as a competitive product? It ain't...we've got the numbers, he doesn't...and those numbers have real value as you may see in the not so distant future.

I'll leave off on this subject with Bruce's own words (from a thread here on LL that bjanes mentioned in a previous post)

Bruce said:
I have no problem with people using or building free alternatives—in fact, I've published a great deal of the information people need to do so, both on creativepro.com and in Real World Photoshop—and I AM actively working on improving the software. But when the choice comes down to what I know I want vs what someone else thinks they want, I'm going to go with what I know I want. That's just the way we do things, and I'm not under the illusion that it will work for everyone. But I draw some small comfort from the demonstrated fact that when it works for me, it works for a fairly large number of others.

Here's Bruce's post and the topic was sharpening using a layer, ah ha!

The only "angst" that I have is the knolwedge that Bruce didn't think his work was done and now the industry has lost a good fellow. He did however, think his work with "image detailing" (his description) was actually more important than his work on color management and general Photoshop education. No, Bruce has given the industry a lot...Mitch? Not so much (in my opinion).
Logged
jlmwyo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #35 on: December 28, 2006, 02:53:45 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, I see Mitch's efforts as a blatant attempt to hijack Bruce's work of over 10 years culminating in both PhotoKit Sharpener as well as Real World Image Sharpening, the recently released book. Bruce has devoted a large portion of his life towards improving this industry and I want to make sure people respect that.

The -ONLY- reason I'm going on at length is to compare and contrast the behavior of the parties involved in this "feud" and to show the genesis of Glenn E. Mitchell II PhD.'s motives, his background and to make it perfectly clear what's really going on.

I didn't say we haven't done comparison testing...how do you think I discovered his "product's" shortcomings? But why would we (PixelGenius) even give him the time of day-let along acknowledge TLR Sharpener as a competitive product? It ain't...we've got the numbers, he doesn't...and those numbers have real value as you may see in the not so distant future.

I'll leave off on this subject with Bruce's own words (from a thread here on LL that bjanes mentioned in a previous post)

Bruce said:
I have no problem with people using or building free alternatives—in fact, I've published a great deal of the information people need to do so, both on creativepro.com and in Real World Photoshop—and I AM actively working on improving the software. But when the choice comes down to what I know I want vs what someone else thinks they want, I'm going to go with what I know I want. That's just the way we do things, and I'm not under the illusion that it will work for everyone. But I draw some small comfort from the demonstrated fact that when it works for me, it works for a fairly large number of others.

Here's Bruce's post and the topic was sharpening using a layer, ah ha!

The only "angst" that I have is the knolwedge that Bruce didn't think his work was done and now the industry has lost a good fellow. He did however, think his work with "image detailing" (his description) was actually more important than his work on color management and general Photoshop education. No, Bruce has given the industry a lot...Mitch? Not so much (in my opinion).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff, a couple points if you don't mind.

1. I personally think PK is the best thing going. It just plains works, at least for ME. different people have different tastes I suppose or different levels of criticality.

2. Perhaps you have a valid reason for having animosity towards Mr. Mitchell, however I guess it would just be nice if everyone could get along here. Alas, the world is an imperfect place and maybe I'm just a pipe dreamer. Rise above? I'm not singling you out btw, there are some others here that could tone it down as well.

3. I TOTALLY understand why you want to make sure people respect Bruce's contribution to the industry, especially in light of his recent loss. His books were absolutely brilliant. He didn't know me from Adam and was nice enough to respond to a question (which escapes me at the moment) via email. I thought that was very kind of him to do so. Martin Evening did so as well, and I'm sure both were hella busy.

4. However, I'm not so sure its fair to say that Squire Mitchell has tried to 'hijack' Bruce's hard work, since it was put out into the public domain for everyone to use and analyze. The other point I would make here is that, by your own assertion, he didn't do a very good job (I cannot empirically verify that MYSELF because quite frankly I didn't spend much time with TLR because well...it didn't suit MY needs
and PK did). Perhaps I'm missing something here. I just want to know for MY own clarification, did or did he not credit Bruce for the techniques for the genesis of his
product? If it doesn't work nearly as well, what got 'hijacked'?

Happy New Year to you are yours  
Logged

Images of Wyoming

Link To My Gallery

jlmwyo
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 78


« Reply #36 on: December 28, 2006, 02:54:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, I see Mitch's efforts as a blatant attempt to hijack Bruce's work of over 10 years culminating in both PhotoKit Sharpener as well as Real World Image Sharpening, the recently released book. Bruce has devoted a large portion of his life towards improving this industry and I want to make sure people respect that.

The -ONLY- reason I'm going on at length is to compare and contrast the behavior of the parties involved in this "feud" and to show the genesis of Glenn E. Mitchell II PhD.'s motives, his background and to make it perfectly clear what's really going on.

I didn't say we haven't done comparison testing...how do you think I discovered his "product's" shortcomings? But why would we (PixelGenius) even give him the time of day-let along acknowledge TLR Sharpener as a competitive product? It ain't...we've got the numbers, he doesn't...and those numbers have real value as you may see in the not so distant future.

I'll leave off on this subject with Bruce's own words (from a thread here on LL that bjanes mentioned in a previous post)

Bruce said:
I have no problem with people using or building free alternatives—in fact, I've published a great deal of the information people need to do so, both on creativepro.com and in Real World Photoshop—and I AM actively working on improving the software. But when the choice comes down to what I know I want vs what someone else thinks they want, I'm going to go with what I know I want. That's just the way we do things, and I'm not under the illusion that it will work for everyone. But I draw some small comfort from the demonstrated fact that when it works for me, it works for a fairly large number of others.

Here's Bruce's post and the topic was sharpening using a layer, ah ha!

The only "angst" that I have is the knolwedge that Bruce didn't think his work was done and now the industry has lost a good fellow. He did however, think his work with "image detailing" (his description) was actually more important than his work on color management and general Photoshop education. No, Bruce has given the industry a lot...Mitch? Not so much (in my opinion).
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92556\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff, a couple points if you don't mind.

1. I personally think PK is the best thing going. It just plains works, at least for ME. different people have different tastes I suppose or different levels of criticality.

2. Perhaps you have a valid reason for having animosity towards Mr. Mitchell, however I guess it would just be nice if everyone could get along here. Alas, the world is an imperfect place and maybe I'm just a pipe dreamer. Rise above? I'm not singling you out btw, there are some others here that could tone it down as well.

3. I TOTALLY understand why you want to make sure people respect Bruce's contribution to the industry, especially in light of his recent loss. His books were absolutely brilliant. He didn't know me from Adam and was nice enough to respond to a question (which escapes me at the moment) via email. I thought that was very kind of him to do so. Martin Evening did so as well, and I'm sure both were hella busy.

4. However, I'm not so sure its fair to say that Squire Mitchell has tried to 'hijack' Bruce's hard work, since it was put out into the public domain for everyone to use and analyze. The other point I would make here is that, by your own assertion, he didn't do a very good job (I cannot empirically verify that MYSELF because quite frankly I didn't spend much time with TLR because well...it didn't suit MY needs
and PK did). Perhaps I'm missing something here. I just want to know for MY own clarification, did or did he not credit Bruce for the techniques for the genesis of his
product? If it doesn't work nearly as well, what got 'hijacked'?

Happy New Year to you and yours  
Logged

Images of Wyoming

Link To My Gallery

bjanes
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2756



« Reply #37 on: December 28, 2006, 06:44:44 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, I see Mitch's efforts as a blatant attempt to hijack Bruce's work of over 10 years culminating in both PhotoKit Sharpener as well as Real World Image Sharpening, the recently released book. Bruce has devoted a large portion of his life towards improving this industry and I want to make sure people respect that.

The -ONLY- reason I'm going on at length is to compare and contrast the behavior of the parties involved in this "feud" and to show the genesis of Glenn E. Mitchell II PhD.'s motives, his background and to make it perfectly clear what's really going on.


I'll leave off on this subject with Bruce's own words (from a thread here on LL that bjanes mentioned in a previous post)

Bruce said:
I have no problem with people using or building free alternatives—in fact, I've published a great deal of the information people need to do so, both on creativepro.com and in Real World Photoshop—and I AM actively working on improving the software. But when the choice comes down to what I know I want vs what someone else thinks they want, I'm going to go with what I know I want. That's just the way we do things, and I'm not under the illusion that it will work for everyone. But I draw some small comfort from the demonstrated fact that when it works for me, it works for a fairly large number of others.


The only "angst" that I have is the knolwedge that Bruce didn't think his work was done and now the industry has lost a good fellow. He did however, think his work with "image detailing" (his description) was actually more important than his work on color management and general Photoshop education. No, Bruce has given the industry a lot...Mitch? Not so much (in my opinion).
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeff,

Bruce's sharpening workflow as documented in the CreativePro articles, Real World Photoshop, and now in his sharpening book is ingenious. If he invented the process, I'm surprised he did not apply for a process patent (after all, E-Bay was able to patent the process of one click ordering), but rather than being greedy, he placed his concepts in the public domain.

An interesting parallel from history is the introduction of ether as an anesthetic:[a href=\"http://ajp.psychiatryonline.org/cgi/content/full/158/12/2103]Ether Day[/url]

Dr. Morton, generally credited with introducing ether, was a rascally dentist who had been run out of Baltimore and St. Louis. After having demonstrated the use of ether, Morton tried to disguise the ingredients of his agent and patent it, rather than bequeath it to medicine. In the end, he never made any money from his invention and his life was consumed with squabbles with others. Of course, there were other claimants to the process. One (a Dr. Wells) was arrested for throwing acid on a prostitute and killed himself in jail. Another claimed that he had given Samuel Morse the idea for the telegraph and eventually died in a lunatic asylum.

I think that the best way to preserve Bruce's legacy would be to continue to produce a superior product. You and your colleagues are acknowledged experts in digital photography and have professional programming staff. You also have colleagues well placed in the digital imaging community who recognize your expertise. "Mitch" is an amateur photographer working from his basement.

I don't know "Mitch", but if he is the rascal you see him to be, I doubt that he will be successful in his competition with PixelGenius. Have a glass of wine and get back to work.    

Bill
« Last Edit: December 28, 2006, 07:00:06 AM by bjanes » Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5411


WWW
« Reply #38 on: December 28, 2006, 12:32:30 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I just want to know for MY own clarification, did or did he not credit Bruce for the techniques for the genesis of his product? If it doesn't work nearly as well, what got 'hijacked'?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92605\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

When he originally released his sharpening actions, in May/June'ish, 2004, no he did -NOT- credit Bruce, nor anybody else...I have his "Putting a Fine Edge on Sharpening" PDF dated June 13, 2004. If you read it and compare it to Bruce's Creative Pro article, there is a STRIKING simularity...

In a later version of his PDF, he did actually mention Bruce:
"Bruce Fraser, one of the authors of "Real World Adobe Photoshop" series of book and another highly respected "Photoshop Pro", advocates sharpening as an ongoing process during image editing rather than a single activity in the workflow. Sharpening, in his opinion is best implemented both early and late in your digital image workflow, and if done with care, you can also do additional rounds of creative sharpening on particular features of you photographs.

The TLR Professional Sharpening Toolkit reflects the three-pass sharpening philosophy of Bruce Fraser."

He goes on to say, in the end:
I also owe a big thanks to Bruce Fraser, Andrew Rodney and Jeff Schewe. Although is was not their intent, they motivated me to create the original sharpening action set."

So, he "credits" Bruce for the 3 pass sharpening concept (actually, is he crediting Bruce or using Bruce as validation?) and he mentions Bruce, Andrew and myself for "motivating" him (even though it wasn't our intent).

However, even though he is an academic by profession (and should and does know better in HIS profession), he doesn't bother to footnote his PDF nor include a bibliography...and some of the phrases he uses are almost word for word matches to Bruce's Creative Pro article...

So, he "credits" Bruce for the concept of the 3 pass sharpening (although to be accurate, he even questioned whether Bruce actually originated it in certain online posts circa 2004) but he doesn't credit Bruce's techniques nor the terminology...naw, he's not real good spreading around credit.

Other people, notably Richard Lynch (Photoshop/Elements author) and several people on DP Review have discovered the fruits of their labor showing up in Mitch's writings as well.

I've had some of my writing appropriated. An article I did (in 2002 on Color to B&W conversions) was, well, let's just call it "appropriated". I quoted Thomas Knoll as telling me that Photoshop's default grayscale conversion was 30% Red, 60% Green and 10% blue channel calculations and went on to explain how to use channels to make custom B&W conversions...in his 2003 article "Split Your Channels for Improved B&W", he writes those exact same numbers...30, 60 10. He doesn't reference my article and I happen to know for a fact that Photoshop's default conversion %'s is -NOT- documented anywhere...I got it from the horse's mouth-Thomas Knoll. But he writes it as though -HE- discovered those numbers all by himself (ya see, numbers CAN be valuable :~)

So, "Mitch" has a long record, dating back to the time when Bruce called him a "ill-informed wannabe with a bad attitude", of trying to ding Bruce and PixelGenius...

If not "hijack" what term would YOU use? Read Mitch's PDF and read Bruce's Creative Pro article...what term pops into YOUR head? There are several that occur to me...and "hijack" is pretty mild. Of course, that's just my opinion...other people may think differently.
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5411


WWW
« Reply #39 on: December 28, 2006, 01:05:01 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Bruce's sharpening workflow as documented in the CreativePro articles, Real World Photoshop, and now in his sharpening book is ingenious. If he invented the process, I'm surprised he did not apply for a process patent (after all, E-Bay was able to patent the process of one click ordering), but rather than being greedy, he placed his concepts in the public domain.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92614\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Bruce wasn't so much interested in patents...as well as being a Buddhist / vegetarian / Scotsman, he was a borderline socialist (well, at least he was real friggin' liberal) and didn't like the Federal Government so much...but he did value "original intellectual work" and would NEVER take the work of others without scrupulously crediting them. And, while he was real proud of the work he did creating PhotoKit Sharpener (although I did have to teach him how to write actions), he never failed to show people how he did what he did or explain why in seminars and books.

Quote
I think that the best way to preserve Bruce's legacy would be to continue to produce a superior product. You and your colleagues are acknowledged experts in digital photography and have professional programming staff. You also have colleagues well placed in the digital imaging community who recognize your expertise. "Mitch" is an amateur photographer working from his basement.

I don't know "Mitch", but if he is the rascal you see him to be, I doubt that he will be successful in his competition with PixelGenius. Have a glass of wine and get back to work.

Oh, PixelGenius is moving on...even though we lost Mike Skurski (our engineer-we're now working with Mike Kepple who worked with Skursky for over 10 years) last year and Bruce very recently...Martin Evening, Seth Resnick, Andrew Rodney and I will carry on Bruce's work (although with a degree of melancholy due to Bruce's passing). PixelGenius should have some big news soon'ish, something that will greatly validate Bruce's "numbers", but I really can't talk about it yet. We should also be releasing Universal Binary versions of our products shortly-to bring the discussion back on topic.

Bruce had also worked on PhotoKit Sharpener 2.0...and I think we can implement what Bruce wanted to do...it won't be easy and it will take longer without him, but we're committed to do it for Bruce's legacy as well as to ensure that Bruce's wife Angela benefits from Bruce's work.

As for "Mitch", I really -DON'T- care what he does...but when somebody gleefully points out "Mitch's" work as "being free", I generally consider it an obligation to point out that PhotoKit Sharpener is a product and his stuff ain't. My keeping evidence of "Mitch's" past behavior is really just to document the past in the event he tries to create some revisionist history or becomes litigious...

As for sitting down with a glass of wine...yes, but some times, it's a glass of single-malt Scotch-Bruce finally taught me how to drink it last year as we traveled together for the Epson Print Academy-the trick is to blend enough water to allow one to taste the full flavors (instead of drinking it straight and having it taste like battery acid).
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 4 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad