Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Curves  (Read 104650 times)
laughfta
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #80 on: July 21, 2007, 07:03:34 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, I suppose I've processed more images through Camera Raw and Lightroom than most "experts" or "gurus" and I'm here to tell ya the ONLY reasons one wouldn'd be getting really excelent output from Camera Raw or Lightroom is if you don't know what you are doing or the images you run through are crap to start with.

I am absolutely convinced that one can get excellent output from CR and LR. I'm not  convinced that the output is identical—and workflow will certainly be different. I think the workflow is easier in CR and LR, but if some prefer PS's curve due to long standing experience and success with it, well, that makes sense, too.  And sometimes images are crap to start with...


Quote
The "guru" in question ain't even a photographer...


He don't even take pictures?  

Quote
... CR/LR's curve is NOT a composite RGB curve ala Photoshop...it's a hue locked, saturation tuned luminance based curve.


Understood. It's a different curve.

This CR/LR curve cannot be tweaked per channel as PS's curve can, and it can't be tweaked per point, which may be important to those who have successfully built that into their workflow. The two curves work differently. CR/LR curve can give excellent raw processing results. So can the advice to go lightly on raw processing and complete the work in PS—and there is little point in disparaging those who choose this well-worn path. Which is what prompted my reply.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #81 on: July 21, 2007, 09:08:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I imagine the guru to whom you are referring is one who has carefully and precisely shown the benefits of adjusting curves by the channel in PS instead of using the composite curve that is available in CR and LR. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129244\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Really? Would you care to share how this was proven? I think you'll find, depending on image content and more importantly, the design of the curves in Photoshop by the authors, this isn't either a benefit nor necessary.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #82 on: July 21, 2007, 09:29:04 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am absolutely convinced that one can get excellent output from CR and LR.

The guru in question doens't believe this and calls CR a "non professional tool". He also said he can prove this after he created a spreadsheet that revels the exact math involved:

Quote
I also scripted a routine to batch open multiple variants and spreadsheet the results, to reveal the exact mathematics behind the command.

Multiple requests by multiple readers for proof by submission of said spreadsheet went unanswered for weeks and continues to be ignored. Do you really think said guru really could produce the exact mathematics by examining a few processed files?

Quote
I'm not  convinced that the output is identical—and workflow will certainly be different. I think the workflow is easier in CR and LR, but if some prefer PS's curve due to long standing experience and success with it, well, that makes sense, too.

Agreed entirely.

Quote
This CR/LR curve cannot be tweaked per channel as PS's curve can, and it can't be tweaked per point, which may be important to those who have successfully built that into their workflow. The two curves work differently. CR/LR curve can give excellent raw processing results. So can the advice to go lightly on raw processing and complete the work in PS—and there is little point in disparaging those who choose this well-worn path. Which is what prompted my reply.

No one (here) is arguing they are different. The questions are: Is it necessary or correct to not imply but outright state that the curves in Photoshop are inferior despite the intended design? Are the experience of tens of thousands of users working with the PS curves as designed, without any issues (reather than using them as described by the guru) problematic for anything but a small group of images (or that using a luminosity mode would easily adjust for these differences)? Or that the curves in CR are non professional and that users should leave the default rendering as set and then do the work in a gamma corrected, 8-bit, rendered image within Photoshop because of this behavior? Or that the guru even has a camera capable of producing a Raw file? (also a question gone unanswered).

It goes back to the saying about everything looking like a nail when all you know is a hammer. The guru only has a hammer in his toolbox, he's fine saying a screw driver or hack saw is a non professional tool because he tried to use one to hammer a nail, thus he has proof of this but will not share the proof, something that honest and professional peer review requires. Or course, some readers will take whatever is said as proof without actually testing the waters.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
laughfta
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #83 on: July 21, 2007, 11:53:26 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Multiple requests by multiple readers for proof by submission of said spreadsheet went unanswered for weeks and continues to be ignored. Do you really think said guru really could produce the exact mathematics by examining a few processed files?


No, I think he exaggerated. Let's hang him. Or, as generous and knowledge-seeking human beings, let's try to understand the point he was making.

Quote
Is it necessary or correct to not imply but outright state that the curves in Photoshop are inferior despite the intended design?


No, but it is a legitimate point to question. Was this something he said on his forum, to his readers?

Quote
Are the experience of tens of thousands of users working with the PS curves as designed, without any issues (reather than using them as described by the guru) problematic for anything but a small group of images


No, though not being problematic does not mean better.

Quote
(or that using a luminosity mode would easily adjust for these differences)?


I don't know. There doesn't seem to be a consensus there. So far the LR curve has produced great results for me,though I would never go so far as to say that it is unequivocally the best way to get the best image every time. So why not try to understand other methods used by other experts?

Quote
Or that the guru even has a camera capable of producing a Raw file? (also a question gone unanswered).


What is the point here? One can only work on files from one's own camera?

Quote
The guru only has a hammer in his toolbox...


Clearly an exaggeration, and therefore impossible to respond to except with sarcasm.

Quote
Or course, some readers will take whatever is said as proof without actually testing the waters.


I suspect you are talking about this reader, but regardless: I think most readers are trying to wade through a lot of information, and are having varying degrees of difficulty doing so. Testing is time consuming and difficult to do thoroughly, though to many of us it is an ongoing and fascinating process. We will all eventually find a workflow that makes sense personally.

Quote
Really? Would you care to share how this was proven? I think you'll find, depending on image content and more importantly, the design of the curves in Photoshop by the authors, this isn't either a benefit nor necessary.

 
Maybe that's the problem—it's a little hard to prove something that is both subjective in nature and different from image to image. But many examples of these comparisons are available for readers to compare and think about.
Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #84 on: July 21, 2007, 12:11:36 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
No, I think he exaggerated. Let's hang him. Or, as generous and knowledge-seeking human beings, let's try to understand the point he was making.

The point he clearly made was he had the exact math used. We don't need to hang him but he could have said on any number of occasions when asked "no that's not what I meant". Instead, in typical fashion when asked to clarify his findings or explain his science, he ignores the issue. That's not a good sign!

Quote
No, but it is a legitimate point to question. Was this something he said on his forum, to his readers?

No, he's wrong about the curve behavior in CR and LR despite his (apparently bogus) math analysis. So first he says the curves behave a certain way (which the author of the software says isn't so), then he tries to back up his claims with a spreadsheet that disappears from the evidence room, then when asked about the proof (spreadsheet) he ignores the request. Sounds suspiciously kooky to me.

Quote
No, though not being problematic does not mean better.

He's saying its problematic to such a point the tool isn't fit for pro use. His words. And what does 'better' mean? How do you define it?

Quote
I don't know. There doesn't seem to be a consensus there. So far the LR curve has produced great results for me,though I would never go so far as to say that it is unequivocally the best way to get the best image every time. So why not try to understand other methods used by other experts?

Some what like the guru, you're trying to tilt the argument. NO ONE said its better. Said guru said it's a non professional tool that can be proven using the exact math based on some technique that cannot be varied. You're trying to turn the burden of proof on the guru by suggesting someone is implying that using the CR curves are better. That's not the topic or argument nor has anyone said that. We could open that up to discussion but at this time, it would only deter the point made by the guru so lets settle that first, then get onto which is 'better' OK?

Quote
What is the point here? One can only work on files from one's own camera?

He could clearly say he used this or that person's camera or even provide information about the file type. He didn't. He again ignored the questions from posters trying to get clarity on what he did. Again, that's highly suspicious. It is up to the person making the claim to back up the claim, not the other way around.

Quote
Testing is time consuming and difficult to do thoroughly, though to many of us it is an ongoing and fascinating process. We will all eventually find a workflow that makes sense personally.

Fine, then don't make blanket claims and expect everyone to accept them as proof without the proof. I can say the moon is made of cheese and I have to backup that claim unless everyone wants to automatically believe this based on my personal background (which I would suggest is a bad idea).

Quote
Maybe that's the problem—it's a little hard to prove something that is both subjective in nature and different from image to image. But many examples of these comparisons are available for readers to compare and think about.

Its not hard to explain the math. Especially when you tell people you have the exact math to prove your point but then don't want to provide the math. It smells fishy to say the least!
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
laughfta
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #85 on: July 21, 2007, 01:02:09 PM »
ReplyReply

I see this has already been explored elsewhere, and one of the final comments made by said guru was this:

"In Photoshop CS2, I felt that the answer was clearly to be conservative in view of the range-handling issues. With the improvements in the current version this may no longer be the case, and if it is not, I would welcome the development."

Doesn't sound quite as extreme as you have portrayed it.

I think you have a point about proving blanket statements, but on the other hand, you make many of them in your own responses. I am going back on the sidelines to listen and learn.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #86 on: July 21, 2007, 01:23:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Its not hard to explain the math. Especially when you tell people you have the exact math to prove your point but then don't want to provide the math. It smells fishy to say the least!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129326\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, I think it is hard to explain the math. The math we're talking about here is complex stuff, and there is obviously much happening inter-actively that would make it very difficult to explain easily.

One can talk about relationships between inputs and outcomes, but that isn't the math. Setting that aside,  these tools were designed for professional use, and they are being used by countless numbers of professionals, and the market is accepting what they do with them, otherwise we would have heard about it loud and clear by now - from more people than said guru.

Laughta's 1:02 PM post isolates one of said guru's quotes, but not others which leave quite a different impression about his views of the "merits" of Camera Raw 4. But that's fine - at a technical level this is a discussion that can be very revealing and rewarding. At some point one would hope for a generally accepted view of the relative merits of these tools.
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
****
Online Online

Posts: 5415


WWW
« Reply #87 on: July 21, 2007, 01:24:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I am absolutely convinced that one can get excellent output from CR and LR. I'm not  convinced that the output is identical—and workflow will certainly be different.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129282\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Well, both Thomas Knoll and Mark Hamburg say the results from Camera Raw 4.1 and Lightroom 1,1 are the same, so take it up with them. I'm inclined to believe them over somebody else-since they wrote the friggin' code...yes, Lightroom doesn't give you access to a point curve editor like Camera Raw does (but it CAN process point curve data from Camera Raw) and Camera Raw doesn't have the TAT tools that LR has...but equal settings in either will produce exactly the same output from either...

Quote
Maybe that's the problem—it's a little hard to prove something that is both subjective in nature and different from image to image. But many examples of these comparisons are available for readers to compare and think about.

Well, the "guru" said he had the EXACT MATH behind the Camera Raw curves function and said it was the same as Photoshop's, and thus not a pro level tool. The author of the math said he was wrong, That's not very subjective...either one is right or one is wrong. And Thomas also went on toe say that the EXACT MATH behind Camera Raw's code is actually available in the DNG SDK available to anybody-which kinda made the claims made by the "guru" that he deduced the code by running tests and plotting them in a spreadsheet pretty pointless–considering he was wrong.

This particular "guru" (Dan Margulis) gets his jollies off by making outrageous claims on his own private list where by his ground rules, he controls the nature of the discussion-it ain't a free and open environment like here. In fact Andrew is now banned from his list because of his "negative" approach (the actual reasons go a bit further but that's a generally accurate reason, right Andrew?).

So, to take Dan's position, anybody using Camera Raw for processing can't be a "professional" since Camera Raw ain't a pro level tool. Cause it doesn't have a pure luminance curve...see Dan is kinda attached to doing stuff in Lab since he wrote a book on it. And Camera Raw doesn't work in Lab (Pro Photo RGB chromaticities and a linear gamma) so obviously, to somebody like Dan (who ain't a photographer) Camera Raw just isn't a tool a pro would use...and by extension, same with Lightroom.

So, on one had you have Dan and the other hand you have Thomas Knoll who coauthored Photoshop and Camera Raw (and now controls the raw processing pipeline in Lightroom). Pick your side...I choose to back the horse with a winning record, (your milage may vary).
« Last Edit: July 21, 2007, 01:27:58 PM by Schewe » Logged
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #88 on: July 21, 2007, 01:55:35 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Doesn't sound quite as extreme as you have portrayed it.

I'm not trying to portray anything, I'm providing quotes from the guru. A few more (this isn't a paraphrase, its exact word by word quotes):

Quote
Master-type corrections are undesirable because they increase and/or decrease saturation in ways that the user can't control. [AR despite this is how the tool was designed and most people prefer to see the results]
When a picture is being lightened by a master correction, saturation has to increase because the lightest channels are being hurt proportionally more than the dominating darker ones. Often that makes the image look better, but it's clearly the wrong policy to implement as a general rule--a serious user needs to make the decision of whether to saturate or not on a case-by-case basis.

Yes it makes it look better because that's how it was designed AND what nearly all users want. And its wrong because guru says its wrong? And this can be controlled if so desired, the saturation can be lowered to produce roughly the results of the individual curve method using a luminosity blend adjustment in PS or using additional tools in CR.

Quote
2) Those people who still use master RGB curves or, worse, levels, might take this occasion to discard these primitive tools (or limit them to very small moves, where the harm they do is unlikely to be noticeable). This image is a spectacular example of why channel-by-channel is better, but even images that superficially look good can benefit from proper color handling, which master adjustments don't offer.

Primitive? One guru's opinion but just that, an opinion without backing.
Better? Why, if it doesn't look better?

Quote
I studied whether there were any circumstances under which image-by-image manipulations in Camera Raw followed (if necessary) by manipulations in Photoshop would ever yield superior quality to a conservative, damage-free Camera Raw acquisition followed by Photoshop manipulation. After testing around 100 images, I concluded that in some cases opening the range in Camera Raw actually damaged the image to the point that it was no longer possible to get a good result without excessive effort, if it was possible at all. In most cases the impact was small. There were no cases I could identify where one could get better image-by-image results by using any of Camera Raw's functionality.

Damaged how? Never explained. Was the damage the "if necessary" manipulation in Photoshop after (on an 8-bit file)? Don't know.

My favorite quote:

Quote
It does, however, beg the question: if saving time is so important that quality compromises need to be made, why is the raw format being used at all? With rare image-specific exceptions, essentially anybody who is not a beginner will get better final results by shooting JPEG and correcting in Photoshop than an expert can who shoots raw but is not allowed to do any manipulation outside of the acquisition module. And in less time, too. The idea of a raw module is to *empower* the image-manipulation program, not replace it.

And

Quote
We are interested in good but not great quality. We will correct images individually in the raw module to make them look as best we can, but that's going to be it. It doesn't matter if we could do more in Photoshop
afterwards--we're just not going to do it, because the extra quality isn't worth the time.

Lastly:

Quote
Every other professional-level program gives us several options of how to establish range. But with ACR, you are getting more saturated colors, whether you like it or not--no way to bypass it. That's not acceptable for a professional user, and that's why the routine is inferior.

Not true as will soon be demonstrated. Of you can try on your own in CR or LR, the tools are there.

So working on an 8-bit JPEG is the way to go, not using CR? Must be due to the math of which we have yet to see proof (or for that matter, images). Anyone here who's worked on edited JPEGs and a good Raw converter buy this?

OK, my portrayal is we have a guru that seriously doesn't understand how Raw modules work or why, sees Photoshop as the only hammer in his tool chest and when asked to prove the short comings of a initial Raw converter rendering workflow (its not correction, its rendering, something else he fails to recognize), guru ignores requests for proof.

He's used similar tactics to dismiss high bit workflows or wide gamut working spaces. Since most users, other than those who believe everything he says, has moved past those two points, and adopted these techniques the next whipping boy is CR and LR specifically (Adobe products, which he loves to whale on).

The tactics he uses, are clearly demonstrated and have been for years with respect to his High Bit challenge:

http://www.brucelindbloom.com/index.html?DanMargulis.html

Its interesting to see how a true scientist views these tactics. Again, he says the moon is made of cheese, and we are not the ones that should disprove the notion, he has to prove the point. He didn't do it here with respect to high bit capture and editing, he didn't do it with Raw processing. My portrayal is he doesn't use good science, he uses religion. Some of us don't care to drink that koolaid.

On the other hand, IF he really did have math to prove his point, he could provide this as a  benefit to the imaging industry for people like Thomas Knoll. I suggested his role here could be useful to the industry but that's not on his radar. Or maybe the so called math is a figment of his imagination?
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
digitaldog
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8581



WWW
« Reply #89 on: July 21, 2007, 02:24:53 PM »
ReplyReply

The first ban on Dan's site I got was arguing with him about the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile in Photoshop. Since its a Photoshop supplied profile and of course an ICC profile, its bad, bad bad.

His take was that on EVERY device, the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile shifts blues to magenta. He used the Photoshop info palette to provide numbers that show this despite the fact that, when you send the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile to a device that expects these numbers, you get no shift. You get blue. This was demonstrated at a Seybold Seminar by Chris Murphy (with myself and Bruce Fraser) years ago in front of an audience. Using a SWOP proofing that did conform to TR001 (of which the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile describes), this profile provided the best output even when compared to custom build ICC profiles (built by Chris to the same proofing device).

Its convenient to say that the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile always does this or that. I questioned Dan about how he could say this when A, he couldn’t possibly test this profile on every CMYK device known to man and B, he didn't output tests to an actual device that DOES conform to TR001. In Dan's world, he's right based on whatever metric he wants to post. Ask him to send the CMYK numbers to a TR001 defined deivce and tell you what the blues look like, or better actually measure it (that would require he have a dreaded Spectrophotometer making him as he calls many of us, "calibrationists" an insulting term), he again ignores the request for scientific proofing methods. Being that I had seen the results and know lots of users who work with the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile and don't automatically, always get shifted blues, I pushed him to the point he could do nothing more than say I was being nasty (that's the pot calling the kettle black, I have many posts backing up his nastyness to Chris, Jeff and others), his only recourse was to silence the dissenter. That was for 6 months.

With the CR and LR nonsense he posted, he got tired of me requesting actual proof and the math.

Funny, the heat was just too great for him as he wrote me this about the reason for the lifetime ban:

Quote
We do this not because of any specific thread or because we believe you
cannot make a constructive contribution to the list. Indeed, some of your posts
have contributed valuable information. However, for every useful post we find an
unacceptably large mutliple of posts that we consider to be counterproductive
because they fall into one of the following categories:

*Personal attacks on others, containing no useful technical content.
*Gratuitous plugs for Adobe products, without useful discussion.
*Aggressive, rote repetition of arguments that you have made many times
previously, without new content.

The 'We' by the way isn't Dan, he would never allow censorship. Its his 5 moderators.

Am I upset by this? No, not really. Jeff and one or two other regular posters know of this history but this is the first (and should be last time) I've discussed it. Since Jeff brings it up and since some have asked "where you been on the ACT list" the cat's out of the bag.

Again, when good science and rational thinking don't apply and someone asks for clarity of rational thought, and you don't want this idea expressed, the best tactic if possible is to ban the discussion. That's what Dan has done.

Note too that until the 2nd cat was out of the bag, I went out of my way to refrain from using anyone's name here, simply using the term guru. Its not personal. I've known Dan for many years, I've dined with him, I run into him from time to time. I think in person he's a charming fellow. I think he has a LOT to contribute and I've learned a lot from him. I own all his books (paid with my own money<g>). It makes all this the more frustrating that he has such an enormous BS factor. He really doesn't need to slam Adobe or be controversial to direct attention to himself and yet, that's been his MO for years. Its a shame. Instead of truly contributing to the imaging industry, providing useful, not mean spirited suggestions to Adobe or making up imaginary spreadsheets, he could be working for the good of imaging-kind.
Logged

Andrew Rodney
Author “Color Management for Photographers”
http://digitaldog.net/
Ray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 8847


« Reply #90 on: July 23, 2007, 04:50:54 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
The first ban on Dan's site I got was arguing with him about the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile in Photoshop. Since its a Photoshop supplied profile and of course an ICC profile, its bad, bad bad.

His take was that on EVERY device, the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile shifts blues to magenta. He used the Photoshop info palette to provide numbers that show this despite the fact that, when you send the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile to a device that expects these numbers, you get no shift. You get blue. This was demonstrated at a Seybold Seminar by Chris Murphy (with myself and Bruce Fraser) years ago in front of an audience. Using a SWOP proofing that did conform to TR001 (of which the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile describes), this profile provided the best output even when compared to custom build ICC profiles (built by Chris to the same proofing device).

Its convenient to say that the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile always does this or that. I questioned Dan about how he could say this when A, he couldn’t possibly test this profile on every CMYK device known to man and B, he didn't output tests to an actual device that DOES conform to TR001. In Dan's world, he's right based on whatever metric he wants to post. Ask him to send the CMYK numbers to a TR001 defined deivce and tell you what the blues look like, or better actually measure it (that would require he have a dreaded Spectrophotometer making him as he calls many of us, "calibrationists" an insulting term), he again ignores the request for scientific proofing methods. Being that I had seen the results and know lots of users who work with the U.S. Web Coated (SWOP) v2 profile and don't automatically, always get shifted blues, I pushed him to the point he could do nothing more than say I was being nasty (that's the pot calling the kettle black, I have many posts backing up his nastyness to Chris, Jeff and others), his only recourse was to silence the dissenter. That was for 6 months.

With the CR and LR nonsense he posted, he got tired of me requesting actual proof and the math.

Funny, the heat was just too great for him as he wrote me this about the reason for the lifetime ban:
The 'We' by the way isn't Dan, he would never allow censorship. Its his 5 moderators.

Am I upset by this? No, not really. Jeff and one or two other regular posters know of this history but this is the first (and should be last time) I've discussed it. Since Jeff brings it up and since some have asked "where you been on the ACT list" the cat's out of the bag.

Again, when good science and rational thinking don't apply and someone asks for clarity of rational thought, and you don't want this idea expressed, the best tactic if possible is to ban the discussion. That's what Dan has done.

Note too that until the 2nd cat was out of the bag, I went out of my way to refrain from using anyone's name here, simply using the term guru. Its not personal. I've known Dan for many years, I've dined with him, I run into him from time to time. I think in person he's a charming fellow. I think he has a LOT to contribute and I've learned a lot from him. I own all his books (paid with my own money<g>). It makes all this the more frustrating that he has such an enormous BS factor. He really doesn't need to slam Adobe or be controversial to direct attention to himself and yet, that's been his MO for years. Its a shame. Instead of truly contributing to the imaging industry, providing useful, not mean spirited suggestions to Adobe or making up imaginary spreadsheets, he could be working for the good of imaging-kind.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129351\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Andrew,
I find it difficult to believe that such a knowledgeable chap such as yourself should be banned from any site. I think you have a lot to contribute and I find it disturbing in general that opposing points of view should be censored on any site.. It happens of course. It happens in America, the land of the free with an impressive constitution that is often only paid lip service to.

I'm all for letting it all hang out. Let the facts prevail.
Logged
laughfta
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #91 on: July 23, 2007, 07:16:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I find it disturbing in general that opposing points of view should be censored on any site..



This is something to consider...when opinions are presented in anger and with a strong personal bias the message is diluted and the veracity unclear. This thread started with someone expressing his version of the truth, and he was banned from this site.

There is a lot of information out here, and I appreciate Andrew's contribution. I also appreciate Dan's. I would like unbiased, or at least less biased help in sorting it out.

Gloria
Logged
john beardsworth
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2642



WWW
« Reply #92 on: July 23, 2007, 08:41:36 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
This is something to consider...when opinions are presented in anger and with a strong personal bias the message is diluted and the veracity unclear. This thread started with someone expressing his version of the truth, and he was banned from this site.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129499\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

He wasn't banned for expressing his version of the truth, but for saying "Go fuck yourself." Not the most effective way to discuss the issue.

John
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #93 on: July 23, 2007, 08:51:01 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
He wasn't banned for expressing his version of the truth, but for saying "Go fuck yourself." Not the most effective way to discuss the issue.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129506\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Exactly
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
laughfta
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 89


« Reply #94 on: July 23, 2007, 11:07:00 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
He wasn't banned for expressing his version of the truth, but for saying "Go fuck yourself." Not the most effective way to discuss the issue.

John
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129506\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

  Good point.  

I had a point about effective communication, as well. Which brings me full circle:

Quote
These kind of comments are just as offensive to me as the language that was banned earlier in the thread—and actually feel less honest. When experts disagree it would be helpful if it were not in the form of a potshot.


Maybe I was over-reacting, myself. I'll just let it go.

Gloria
Logged
sinc
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 28



WWW
« Reply #95 on: July 25, 2007, 07:07:41 PM »
ReplyReply

I'm using Photoshop CS2. Does CS3 have the tools you're discussing? Is Camera Raw 4.0 part of CS3?
Logged

Joseph T. Sinclair, Author
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #96 on: July 25, 2007, 07:37:43 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'm using Photoshop CS2. Does CS3 have the tools you're discussing? Is Camera Raw 4.0 part of CS3?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129916\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Yes and yes
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
macgyver
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 510


« Reply #97 on: July 26, 2007, 12:28:35 AM »
ReplyReply

Holy crap, stop the maddness.
Logged
DaHen
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 31


« Reply #98 on: July 27, 2007, 07:55:37 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Holy crap, stop the maddness.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=129942\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Can't. We live on maddness. lol.

 
Logged

My System: Windows8. Intel Core i7-3770 CPU 3.40GHz 8GB Ram
C Drive: WD SATA 1TB. and an external WD USB 640GB.
LR 4.2 & 5.2 & CS6
Epson R220, HP 7960 Printer
sgs8r
Newbie
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 3


« Reply #99 on: July 27, 2007, 08:04:47 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
That seriously isn't the way to try to move Adobe...pointing to OTHER products is a sure way to watch them shut down and quit listening. They seriously couldn't care less what other products do and will go out of their way to innovate around or beyond the competition.

Bringing up the competition is like the kiss of death in an argument.
And while true, would make little impact on their thinking...you have to understand that Hamburg in particular is really and truley trying to do new things. So, they will bust their butts to do something in a manner and approach that is new–even if it's a lot more work–than to do the expected and comfortable.

No, you really need to make the arguments only on the basis of optimal image output...that's the one area where proving better results will make them blink because regardless of ALL the other factors, it's really all about image quality. That's the one driving force behind their commitment where you can get traction.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=127844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

This (and similar) comments are a bit dismaying. You've heard of the "not invented here syndrome"? Dogmatically refusing to consider even good ideas because they're not yours? It's a difficult line to walk, I suppose. Pay too much attention to what others think and do and it becomes hard to think enough outside the box to do something really innovative (and hopefully good). But ignore everything completely and you become limited, no matter how great a genius you may be. Like Microsoft, Adobe's de facto monopoly on photo processing gives it substantial license to ignore users and competitors and any good ideas they may have.  But sooner or later there will come a tipping point that lets someone else into the game (maybe if/when photography become a subset of video as some are claiming is already starting to happen). Then Adobe/Photoshop/Lightroom might go down like the Titanic (c.f. Wang, DEC, Polaroid, Kodak(?)...). Meantime, their software won't be as good as it might be otherwise.
Logged
Pages: « 1 ... 3 4 [5] 6 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad