Ad
Ad
Ad
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Bottom of Page
Print
Author Topic: Blend if  (Read 12418 times)
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #20 on: November 14, 2007, 02:18:49 PM »
ReplyReply

Another tutorial on blend-if,  basic (just the sliders), but well laid out...  

http://www.ronbigelow.com/articles/bend-if/blend-if.htm
Logged
Neil Hunt
Jr. Member
**
Offline Offline

Posts: 59


WWW
« Reply #21 on: November 14, 2007, 03:40:51 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I believe you are referring to the 2004 article by Glen Mitchell here: Blend If
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152602\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

You're right I was thanks, apologies for mis-attributing it.
Logged

bobrobert
Guest
« Reply #22 on: November 15, 2007, 04:26:28 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, of course, that's the way Glenn operates...take the work of others and regurgitate and claim it as his own. That's his MO. And, in some cases, the phraseology was so close as to be near plagiarism.

In fact, I can't recall Glenn EVER writing about a concept that was truely his own...(not sure he ever had one)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


Don't all authors to a certain extent do the same? They read up on what has gone before them Quote it Agree with it Debunk it Change the style of writing and publish a "new" book that is 95% of what has already been done?
Logged
Tim Gray
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2002



WWW
« Reply #23 on: November 15, 2007, 07:52:30 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Don't all authors to a certain extent do the same? They read up on what has gone before them Quote it Agree with it Debunk it Change the style of writing and publish a "new" book that is 95% of what has already been done?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=153004\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


...and credit the source...
Logged
gmitchel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


WWW
« Reply #24 on: March 22, 2008, 01:28:09 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Well, of course, that's the way Glenn operates...take the work of others and regurgitate and claim it as his own. That's his MO. And, in some cases, the phraseology was so close as to be near plagiarism.

In fact, I can't recall Glenn EVER writing about a concept that was truely his own...(not sure he ever had one)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=152739\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I have been off all of the forums for several months as I finished both an e-book and video tutorials on sharpening photographs.

This sort of comment is unfortunate. Jeff persistently attacks me, whenever anyone references my tutorials, my scripts, etc. I'm not going to replay that history here or elsewhere.

I have stated before here on this forum and elsewhere, and I'll restate this: Jeff, you need to move past your hostility towards me. It does not do the digital photography world any good at all. Focus your energy on improving your products and teaching people about Photoshop tools and techniques *AND* stop the attempts at character assassination.

I never claimed originality to the discussion of the Blend If sliders. I don't think anyone can, except the Adobe Help authors (and they're anonymous).

What I claim is original is my style of presentation. I don't know who did the presentation in RealWorld Photoshop, David Blatner or Bruce Fraser, but I found it to be the most confusing prose description in a book that is very well written. Baskets catching eggs was an extended metaphor that left me confused.

Which Photoshop author goes through a long recitation of every book chapter and trade magazine articles they've read on something like Blend If sliders? No one.

I make references to the works of others, where such references are warranted. That is true in my tutorials. It is certainly true in my e-book and my video tutorials on sharpening. There are many references to Bruce Fraser, Michael Reichmann, Dan Margulis, Scott Kelby, Dave Cross, Matt Kloskowski, Deke McClelland,  Ben Willmore, Katrin Eismann, Barry Haynes, Wendy Crumpler, Sean Duggan, and others. There are even references to Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney in both the eBook and the video tutorials.

Cheers,

Mitch
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5417


WWW
« Reply #25 on: March 22, 2008, 07:11:28 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I make references to the works of others, where such references are warranted.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183540\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Uh huh. . .well, lookie at who showed up again after all this time.

In the grand scheme of things, you and your "references" and the way you work is simply not something particularly important anymore. With Bruce's passing, I suppose you are free to "characterize" history any way you want, but, I remember the way you behaved and I'll not forget (I actually have saved PDFs of the Adobe Forums posts you made and your outlandish behavior so I can remember and quote you if need be).

But to respond at length to you would give you far more relevance that is deserved...so, rather, I'll just add you to my Ignore User list here on LL.
Logged
Peter_DL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


« Reply #26 on: March 23, 2008, 04:26:08 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have been off all of the forums for several months as I finished both an e-book and video tutorials on sharpening photographs.

This sort of comment is unfortunate....
... you need to move past your hostility towards me. It does not do the digital photography world any good at all.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183540\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Mitch,

In a neutral sense: I think you will have to decide if you want to contribute here again on a regular basis.

Peter

--
Logged
stamper
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 2520


« Reply #27 on: March 23, 2008, 06:17:55 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mitch,

In a neutral sense: I think you will have to decide if you want to contribute here again on a regular basis.

Peter

--
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183680\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

I don't know what went on before but doesn't most authors refer to previoisly published material and see if they can "debunk" or "improve" it I have over twenty ps books and I see in a few of them material which is similar or the same If someone accuses someone else of copying material is it not difficult to prove and the laws of libel come into play? Can any author put their hands on their heart and say that their books are original?
Logged

Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #28 on: March 23, 2008, 08:09:13 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know what went on before but doesn't most authors refer to previoisly published material and see if they can "debunk" or "improve" it I have over twenty ps books and I see in a few of them material which is similar or the same If someone accuses someone else of copying material is it not difficult to prove and the laws of libel come into play? Can any author put their hands on their heart and say that their books are original?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183688\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Stamper, much information is open source public domain stuff which doesn't need any acknowledgement. Beyond that, it is normal and accepted professional ethics, which you will find implemented in a great many of these books and articles, that authors acknowledge the source of ideas they borrowed them from others. I think that's the main point at issue here.
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
gmitchel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


WWW
« Reply #29 on: March 23, 2008, 12:47:48 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Mitch,

In a neutral sense: I think you will have to decide if you want to contribute here again on a regular basis.

Peter

--
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

If I do understand you, I'm not about to let Jeff drive me off. Nor do I intend to let his presence moderate my comments.

I believe I was a contributor here before Jeff Schewe. I intend to continue to contribute here and even submit articles for Michael Reichmann to consider.

I don't intend to pick fights with Jeff. I replied on this thread because Jeff made a scurrilous personal attack. I wanted anyone who reads this forum to know that I do acknowledge previous authors in my Photoshop articles, tutorials, and videos.

If Jeff would stop the personal attacks, I'd give him no thought at all. He attacked me here when I had not even visited this site in several months. Jeff erupts like this somewhere every few months -- and like this with no precipitating message from me.

The interesting point is Jeff's chutzpah and hypocrisy on the very point for which he scolds me. Let me give you a couple of links from his own site:

[a href=\"http://www.pixelgenius.com/tips/schewe-color-bw.pdf]http://www.pixelgenius.com/tips/schewe-color-bw.pdf[/url]
http://www.pixelgenius.com/tips/schewe-sharpening.pdf

Was Jeff the first to propose using the Channel Mixer for B&W conversion? It would appear so. Jeff is certainly silent about anyone else having the idea.

Or, how about using the Luminosity information from L*a*b? Clearly not. Even Jeff says, "As some have recommended, the Lightness channel of a Lab mode image can have useful infromation for grayscale use." Who says that?! Jeff doesn't tell readers. Why not? If we're going to use the norms of scholarship, no peer-review process would allow that anonymous gesture. If we can agree that behavior is motivated, why would Jeff not mention names instead of saying "As some have recommended . . ."?

Likewise, was Jeff Schewe or Bruce Fraser the first to use or recommend an edge mask for USM sharpening? I can remember discussions and even tools like the actions from Fred Miranda that predated Bruce Fraser's articles for the creativepro.com site. Jeff makes no mention of the intellectual history for edge mask sharpening. If we apply Jeff's logic, that leaves the impression that he and Bruce were the first to write about the technique.

Or how about the occasional reference to anonymous engineers at Adobe that Jeff makes in his writings. If we're going to give due credit, why not mention the names of the engineers? One can argue that intellectual honesty requires those details. The citation rules for scholarship certainly do.

Now, I'm not arguing that the norms for citing other works is the same for trade publications as it is for scholarship. Or even that they should be the same. It is the comments of Jeff Schewe that I have been deficient in that regard. So I do believe it is fair to apply those same standards to Jeff's authorship and the published work of other Photoshop authors.

Even the umbrage that Jeff expresses over my forum comments is another example of hypocrisy. Just look at his comments yesterday on this forum about Dan Margulis, LCE, and HiRaLoAm sharpening. He certainly could have been more tactful in his comments. I don't quarrel about Jeff's interpretation that Dan Margulis was not the first to describe the technique and HiRaLoAm is not a great name. But, was it necessary to call is silly and stupid? Jeff frequently uses inflammatory language like that *AND* then has the gall to initiate a five year harrassment campaign against me because he didn't like my comments about Russell Preston Brown's campy presentation style!?

I have no control over Jeff's periodic eruptions on this or other forums. I can promise you that I have no intention of initiating such personal attacks. I will be sure, however, that forum readers do understand that I have been willing to acknowledge the ideas of others in my Photoshop articles, tutorials, and videos. Even those of Jeff Schewe! LOL.

You can now expect Jeff to point you to the archived comments from years ago. They were not and are not relevant to this thread, but Jeff I expect that will be aching to justify his personal attack that generated this controvery.

This is all regrettable. Jeff's personal attack had no place here. He has good ideas. We'd all be better off if he stuck to positive contributions.

(Oh, that's right. No worry. I'm irrelevant and on his ignore list. LOL.)

I've said enough on this point. I do have projects where time is better spent.  But do expect my voice on this forum -- occasionally sometimes, because I really do have a lot of ongoing projects.

Cheers,

Mitch
Logged
Schewe
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 5417


WWW
« Reply #30 on: March 23, 2008, 07:52:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Was Jeff the first to propose using the Channel Mixer for B&W conversion? It would appear so. Jeff is certainly silent about anyone else having the idea.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183770\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]


I'll make an exception from my ignore rule to answer this one question and let it stand as an example for some of the other questions raised and the ignorance of this individual...

Yes, I probably was the first person (outside of Adobe) to use Channel Mixer for B&W conversions after the feature engineer, Chris Cox of Adobe, put it in an early alpha build of Photoshop 6 back in the 1999 time frame. As I recall, the Monochrome checkbox wasn't in an early build and discussions with Chris resulted in the Monochrome button being put in specifically to do B&W conversions. The original design was to do color correction by blending color channel %'s that offered more flexibility than Apply Image and Calculations.

This is but one example of a newcomer to the industry not having a clue about what has gone on in the past and who has been involved in what development and who has developed what techniques. I've been doing this stuff since Aug 16, 1992 (I didn't actually start using Photoshop until version 2.0). The people I read and learned from were David Biedny and Bert Monroy (both who have become friends–I recently shot Bert's portrait for his new book). I met Bruce Fraser at a Seybold the week Photoshop 3 was released Sept 1994. I learned a lot from Bruce's Real World Photoshop 3 book coauthored with David Blatner which was released in 1996. BTW, it was on page 244 where Bruce first suggested a two-pass sharpening workflow approach.

As far as the Blend slider (to remain somewhat on topic) I remember Katrin Eismann teaching how to use blending option during a Photoshop Conference (sometime in 1997 I think using Photoshop 4) and how to use them to target the levels of the image when blending retouching and restorations.

The people this individual claims to credit in his writing (note, I've not read anything by him in a couple of years when he WASN'T so conscientious-I still have those early PDFs where he DOESN'T reference anybody else) are all friends and people with whom I share a collegial relationship–one in which we've all learned from each other over the years as well as learning at the feet of the engineers who actually write the code.

On the other hand Glenn E. Mitchell II, Ph.D. does not have a  collegial relationship (that I'm aware of) with them and certainly didn't have a collegial relationship with Bruce Fraser (who "Mitch" tended to antagonize over the years–it's pretty hard to piss of a Buddhist but he did) and this whole animus started on the Adobe Forums where "Mitch" attacked other forum users (not even me, mind you) for the mention that Russell Brown had developed a dual Hue & Sat layer B&W conversion technique before him. Seems "Mitch" doesn't much care for Russell and seemed to accuse Russell of having stolen the technique from somebody else–which since I was involved with Russell working on that technique the summer of 2001 before a joint Seybold appearance together in the weeks following 9-11, I knew to be false.

From that point on I've maintained an extreme dislike for this fellow...and yes, we do tend to have dustups from time to time. So be it. I can live my life knowing I'll never be friendly with him and make sure I point out to people just exactly who he is and how he operates. He's all loving and warmth while he's "giving" his knowledge away and people flower him with praise for his generosity but he turns very nasty very quickly if you question him. He's publicly stated that his motivation (or at least one of them) for the Lights Right Sharpening was to take Bruce's philosophies about sharpening and create a competing "product" to give away. I presume to have taught Mr. Fraser a lesson because Bruce was "mean" to him in an exchange on the Adobe Forums (and to have a negative impact on PixelGenius because he doesn't like any of us).

The fact that "Mitch" can't conceive of anybody actually being the first to create a technique gives you a clue as to how he thinks. Since he's not known for having broken new ground with new and innovative Photoshop techniques, he presumes everybody has simply taken from others. Which to a degree is true, but those early Photoshop pioneers actually knew and liked each other and shared freely amongst themselves and the synergy of working together has helped move this industry forward. So, it was more a sharing not a taking...

There is such a group, many of them Photoshop alpha testers who have developed what was then, new techniques–often while working with the engineers who developed features with the group's input–and going out and teaching those techniques in books and seminars over the years. By their standards, Glenn E. Mitchell II, Ph.D. doesn't fit in.

I'll try REAL HARD not go get further drawn into to a pissing match with this guy for the sake of the forums. But, you should know that it's not my experience that a Leopard can change his spots...
Logged
gmitchel
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 151


WWW
« Reply #31 on: March 23, 2008, 09:12:27 PM »
ReplyReply

Let's be clear about this. I did not go to the effort of creating the TLR Sharpening Toolkit because of comments from Bruce.

(The Buddhist maneuver is cute, BTW. I've known several Buddhist converts with anger management issues. If you do much research on motivations for Buddhist conversion, anger management is a fairly common reason. Buddhists are not even universally non-violent, let alone unemotional. Just look at Sri Lanka.)

I created the TLR Sharpening Toolkit and decided to give it away because of comments by Jeff. The comments were not even directed at me in any way. Jeff quipped one day on DPReview, that if people did not like the way he and Bruce conduct business, they could go and read Bruce's articles and create their own tools.

I decided Jeff was right. I could read Bruce's articles and create my own tools. I could go one step further and give them away. Jeff knows all of this full well, too! It's just another attempt to demonize me through historical revisionism.

What happened here was a "dust up" that Jeff initiated. PERIOD. I had not even been active here for many months. I was not participating on this thread. Someone mentioned an article I wrote and Jeff Schewe used that as an opportunity to make a personal attack. He was settling an old score.

Regardless of what might have happened elsewhere long ago, I believe it is inexcusable for someone to drag stuff up from another forum and on a completely unrelated topic just to pick a fight!

Notice how Jeff still cannot promise not to do it AGAIN here. Even Jeff knows that he cannot moderate his behavior.

I can make that promise. If Jeff Schewe keeps his mouth off of me, I will not pick a personal fight with him. We might disagree on technical issues, etc. but those disagreements will be expressed with civility.

Cheers,

Mitch
Logged
DarkPenguin
Guest
« Reply #32 on: March 23, 2008, 09:26:57 PM »
ReplyReply

Who cares?  Take it outside, ladies.
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #33 on: March 23, 2008, 09:54:14 PM »
ReplyReply

Nah! They should "Blend If";  
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
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #34 on: March 23, 2008, 10:42:07 PM »
ReplyReply

Quote
............(The Buddhist maneuver is cute, BTW. I've known several Buddhist converts with anger management issues. If you do much research on motivations for Buddhist conversion, anger management is a fairly common reason. Buddhists are not even universally non-violent, let alone unemotional. Just look at Sri Lanka.)...........

[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183843\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Joking aside, I find this diversion into amateur psycho-analytics on Buddhism to be of very questionable relevance to matters photographic, comments on the situation in Sri Lanka even less so, and these references in the context of this discussion both tasteless and disrespectful.
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
kikashi
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 3907



« Reply #35 on: March 24, 2008, 03:26:41 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I'll make an exception from my ignore rule to answer this one question and let it stand as an example for some of the other questions raised and the ignorance of this individual...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183833\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

As someone of enormous perception wrote a while ago,

Quote
Both of you yahoos go stand in the friggin' corner...

If you don't have something useful to say, keep your friggin' fingers off the keyboard.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=140467\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Jeremy
Logged
Peter_DL
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 421


« Reply #36 on: March 24, 2008, 05:24:14 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
Who cares?  Take it outside, ladies.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183844\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
That’s what I meant: take it outside, but stay in here, and for the time being try to comment or answer questions in a friendly and unagitated manner.

Peter

--
Logged
bernie west
Full Member
***
Offline Offline

Posts: 132



« Reply #37 on: March 24, 2008, 07:37:01 AM »
ReplyReply

I don't know anyone's history in all this, but to me, Jeff is like a redneck hillbilly, sitting on his porch, wildly taking pot shots at anything that comes by.  Half of what Jeff says isn't related to photography, so why should his victims have to live by different rules?

Anyway, if nothing else, Jeff's sprays are usually a bloody good laugh!
Logged
Mark D Segal
Contributor
Sr. Member
*
Offline Offline

Posts: 6818


WWW
« Reply #38 on: March 24, 2008, 08:08:11 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I don't know anyone's history in all this, but to me, Jeff is like a redneck hillbilly, sitting on his porch, wildly taking pot shots at anything that comes by.  Half of what Jeff says isn't related to photography, so why should his victims have to live by different rules?

Anyway, if nothing else, Jeff's sprays are usually a bloody good laugh!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183900\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

Before you paint people as redneck hillbillies taking pot-shots (and I can see any "hillbillies" reading this being outraged) maybe you should immerse yourself in the history so you'll have a better understanding of who created what over time. I find Jeff's account of this development indeed relevant to photography, unlike comments about anger management, Buddhism and the civil struggle in Sri Lanka. Sorry.
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
Chris_T
Sr. Member
****
Offline Offline

Posts: 541


« Reply #39 on: March 24, 2008, 08:08:18 AM »
ReplyReply

Quote
I have been off all of the forums for several months as I finished both an e-book and video tutorials on sharpening photographs.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=183540\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]

To the users, how you arrive at your sharpening tool is irrelevant. What is relevant is how it measures up againts the Gurus'. Assuming that you are offering it as freeware, and would like users to try it, provide some links. Let them decide for themselves, and promote it for you if they should like it. It is far more effective than engaging in verbal battles, which benefit neither you nor the potential users.
Logged
Pages: « 1 [2] 3 »   Top of Page
Print
Jump to:  

Ad
Ad
Ad