Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Josh-H on December 22, 2006, 04:54:37 am
-
Anyone tried it?
CS3 is Beta - so not supported by Pixel Genius - But has anyone tried it?
-
Anyone tried it?
CS3 is Beta - so not supported by Pixel Genius - But has anyone tried it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It works, but on a PPC machine. if you use an Intel powered Mac and need to use PPC plug-ins you must run Photoshop CS 3 in Rosetta...
Edit: on a PC, I don't know but there was a heated discussion here on the LL forums a few days ago about PS/PKS/Vista
-
Try Magic Sharpener. It supports CS3 for Win.
30 day free trial is
http://www.imageskill.com/magicsharpener/M...pener_Setup.exe (http://www.imageskill.com/magicsharpener/MagicSharpener_Setup.exe)
It allows to get dramatically improved the look of images without color halos and increased color noise.
-
Maybe you already know this, but CS3 now has Smart Filter masks, which use seperate layers, so you may not want/need to use third party sharpeners any more. There's a bunch of tutorials here:
http://movielibrary.lynda.com/html/modPage.asp?ID=327 (http://movielibrary.lynda.com/html/modPage.asp?ID=327)
-
Anyone tried it?
CS3 is Beta - so not supported by Pixel Genius - But has anyone tried it?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91885\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
All should run fine on PPC and Windows. Intel users will need to wait a week or so (from what I've been told) for an Intel (universal binary) version OR they can run in Rosetta in the meantime.
The comment about no need for this due to smart filter layers is of course way off the mark.
-
Photokit Sharpener works just fine on a PC. If it didn't I'd dump CS3 in a heartbeat.
PK Sharpener is far and away the best sharpening add-in available and the best $99 I've ever spent to improve by printed images.
-
The comment about no need for this due to smart filter layers is of course way off the mark.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
The reason I said this is that I do not find that the files from current Canon cameras coming out of DPP need much sharpening at all. I use PixelGenius sharpening mostly because of the seperate layers.
All I.M.O.
-ron
-
The comment about no need for this due to smart filter layers is of course way off the mark.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91927\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I've been playing around with combined capture/creative sharpening of luminosity layers converted to smart objects and the results and overall flexibility look promising ... though I think it will take a computer upgrade to make it workable with my larger images. PhotoKit Sharpener 1.x is pretty inflexible with regards to workflow, I find. It may be worth considering a cut down (and cheaper) version of Sharpener that just does (throwaway) output sharpening. I'd buy this. The current "Inkjet 360 Glossy" routine is ideal, less so "Inkjet 360 Matte" on my papers ... IMHO.
-
Photokit Sharpener works just fine on a PC. If it didn't I'd dump CS3 in a heartbeat.
PK Sharpener is far and away the best sharpening add-in available and the best $99 I've ever spent to improve by printed images.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=91929\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I agree. With this tool there is nothing else to muck-around with and no advantage doing so.
-
I'll add my support for PK Sharpener. Works for me on a PC.
-
I have recently been trying out the sharpening scripts from the lights right studio. Written by Glenn Mitchel I think they are intended to match PK Sharpener feature for feature.
I found that they are not as quick but that they introduced less noise artifacts. While I haven't done multiple print comparisons they are well worh a go.
Oh yes, they are free....
Find them here http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/TLRPro...ningToolkit.htm (http://www.thelightsrightstudio.com/TLRProfessionalSharpeningToolkit.htm)
Ian
http://www.colourperfect.co.uk (http://www.colourperfect.co.uk)
-
I have recently been trying out the sharpening scripts from the lights right studio. Written by Glenn Mitchel I think they are intended to match PK Sharpener feature for feature.
http://www.colourperfect.co.uk (http://www.colourperfect.co.uk)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92257\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
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).
Just to let people know, PG will have beta versions of PhotoKit, PhotoKit Sharpener and PhotoKit Color 2 available to test later this week for people running CS3 on MacIntel. These will be "beta" versions that will work using your registered serial number from previous versions.
-
Jeff:
I've been using PK and PK sharpener since day one on both and love them. Two of my five color printers work best when fed 600ppi files (the Canon ipf5000 and HP 9180). I realize you guys have put a lot of work into matching the ppi with your sharpening routines. Since they only go up to 480 will the next version have a 600ppi option, or should we just use 480 and hope for the best?
-
Just another PKSharpener satisfied customer. I had no problems installing the PC version on CS3. In fact, all of my PK tools work just fine on the PC. There are many sharpening routines out there but PKSharpener is bar none, my choice to use.
-
Since they only go up to 480 will the next version have a 600ppi option, or should we just use 480 and hope for the best?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92270\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Pretty sure that's what Michael has found...I've sent him a UB beta so he can do some tests...we'll be making the UB version for CS3 under MacIntel available "soon'ish".
Jeff
-
Pretty sure that's what Michael has found...I've sent him a UB beta so he can do some tests...we'll be making the UB version for CS3 under MacIntel available "soon'ish".
Jeff
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92274\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Will this new version of PK Sharpener work with CS3 UB running on PowerPC? I'm one of the holdouts with my creaking G4 tower!
Ditto--best and easiest sharpening around.
-
Will this new version of PK Sharpener work with CS3 UB running on PowerPC? I'm one of the holdouts with my creaking G4 tower!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yes.
-
Will this new version of PK Sharpener work with CS3 UB running on PowerPC? I'm one of the holdouts with my creaking G4 tower!
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92292\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Actually, the current version should run on PPC and Windows...we only need to rev the plug-in to get a Universal Binary to run on MacIntels...all plug-ins will need to be rev'ed to Universal Binary compiles in order to run on CS3 running natively on MacIntel.
-
I've got a screenshot and small examples from PK Sharpener here (http://www.plugsandpixels.com/photokitsharpener.html).
-
Actually, the current version should run on PPC and Windows...we only need to rev the plug-in to get a Universal Binary to run on MacIntels...all plug-ins will need to be rev'ed to Universal Binary compiles in order to run on CS3 running natively on MacIntel.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92298\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Have been using PK Sharpener and love it... thanks for providing it. 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.
Thanks,
Jim
-
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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=92265\")
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) (http://photography-on-the.net/forum/archive/index.php/t-51964.html)
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
-
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+.
-
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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=92339\")
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 (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...
-
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...
-
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
-
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.
-
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.
-
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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=92334\")
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.
-
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.
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.
-
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.
-
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 (http://www.colourperfect.co.uk)
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]
-
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 (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.
-
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 (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.
-
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 ;-)
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]
-
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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=92547\")
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 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10775&view=findpost&p=64602) and the topic was sharpening using a layer, ah ha! (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10775&st=0)
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).
-
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 (http://www.peachpit.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0321449959&rl=1), 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 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10775&view=findpost&p=64602) and the topic was sharpening using a layer, ah ha! (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10775&st=0)
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
-
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 (http://www.peachpit.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0321449959&rl=1), 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 (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10775&view=findpost&p=64602) and the topic was sharpening using a layer, ah ha! (http://luminous-landscape.com/forum/index.php?showtopic=10775&st=0)
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
-
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 (http://www.peachpit.com/bookstore/product.asp?isbn=0321449959&rl=1), 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] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=92556\")
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
-
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.
-
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.
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).
-
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 :~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92660\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
These numbers (actually 30, 59, 11) were well known ages ago. I used them myself in a product over a decade ago. As also was the practice of multipass sharpening. I remember a conversation with the guy I bought my Imacon scanner from advocating such a technique. All this was well before PixelGenius was even thought of. Anyway, I'm sure you're familiar with Newton's metaphor "standing on the shoulders of giants", apparently also borrowed from Bernard of Chartres from much earlier.
-
These numbers (actually 30, 59, 11) were well known ages ago. I used them myself in a product over a decade ago.[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92669\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well. . .the ACTUAL numbers are fractions, not whole numbers-and Thomas told me what the numbers were for Photoshop 5 alpha which would have been about 1997. I was referring to my article, published in 2002 and referring to Mitch's article published in 2003 which he uses the EXACT same "rounded" numbers (I had rounded the %'s). So, where did Mitch get his numbers? He doesn't say...
As also was the practice of multipass sharpening. I remember a conversation with the guy I bought my Imacon scanner from advocating such a technique.
Yep...Bruce wrote about multi-pass sharpening for his Real World Photoshop 3 book-the first time that I can recall -ANYBODY- breaking from the pack that said to "sharpen only at the end". It was on pages 237-256, published in 1996 (although it was written in 1995-and yes, I have the book in front of me if you wish me to cite the passages...). In it Bruce also identified the practice of achieving a sharpening halo of between 1/50 - 1/100 of an inch for output sharpening-another thing Mitch has failed to credit to Bruce.
And, Bruce consulted with Imacon and advocated only light sharpening if any, in the scanner-or turning sharpening OFF (remember the controversy about having to plug in a MINUS sharpening setting to actually turn it off? That was Bruce and Andrew who discovered that and I was also involved with Imacon at that time) and additional sharpening after in Photoshop. So, that's where -YOUR- guy got it from.
You all can try to claim that this stuff is old and known. . .yes, it is. And almost ALL of it derived from Bruce's own research and writings from so long ago, nobody remembers it was Bruce who first wrote it. That's what makes some "johnny-come-lately" like Glenn E. Mitchell II Ph.D who regurgitates the work of others, so galling...
I've been doing this stuff since late 1991 (a LONG time ago in computer/software years) and I've known all the major players (authors, engineers and experts) for years. I know EXACTLY who wrote what and when...all the major authors and experts are -VERY- careful about giving respect and credit where credit is due...Mitch? Not so much...
Look folks. . .you -ALL- owe a very serious debt of gratitude to the work of Bruce Fraser...unless you known for a FACT that somebody else first wrote or advocated something, you would do yourselves a favor and pretty much assume that Bruce, or some of the other early authors such as Biedny , Deke, Monroy, Russell Brown, Blatner, Eismann DID originate the concepts and principles...
Anyway, I'm sure you're familiar with Newton's metaphor "standing on the shoulders of giants"
Yep. . .and it's nice when you can keep their names straight, huh?
Now, ya wanna keep quibbling?
-
A post of Bruce's (notice the date):
•---- COMPUSERVE #1, 7/19/93, 7:17:22 PM, Adobe Forum ----•
¶FB¶MF
Message: #78248, S/16 Photoshop
Date: Mon, Jul 19, 1993 5:15:04 PM
Subject: #78128-"Usual" UnshMsk Settings
From: Bruce Fraser [MacWEEK] 72511,131
To: Kelvin Olson 75140,726
Kelvin,
The reason there are no defaults for USM is that you really need to use different settings for different images, and even for the same image at different resolutions. It's complicated.
USM is essentially a contrast function. Suppose you have an edge in the image. A plot of the pixel values might look something like this:
What USM does is to boost the contrast around the edges to make it more like:
The Amount setting is f
-
Something about Andrew's post clipped off the ending...
--------------------
The Amount setting is fairly self-explanatory. The pixel radius setting deals with width of the "bump" that exaggerates the edges. The threshold setting is primarily for avoiding the introduction of noise where there's a small contrast difference between adjacent pixels that doesn't represent an edge.
There aren't any canned settings for USM that will mimic Sharpen and Sharpen More: you'll just have to experiment. You can try either copying a small portion of the image into a new document and trying different settings, or just work with a small selection: in either case, do the USM then hit Undo, until you find something you like.
Oh yes, one other thing: final output size also has an impact on USM -- an image being reproduced small will probably require less sharpening than one reproduced at a larger size.
Someone should write something about this, sometime, when they have a spare year...
Bruce
---------------------
-
So can I take from this the thought that BF's new sharpening book (the one that just got tech book of the year at the online photographer) is definitely worth picking up?
-
So can I take from this the thought that BF's new sharpening book (the one that just got tech book of the year at the online photographer) is definitely worth picking up?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92689\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Yep...of course, some might think I'm biased...
:~)
-
Well. . .the ACTUAL numbers are fractions, not whole numbers-and Thomas told me what the numbers were for Photoshop 5 alpha which would have been about 1997. I was referring to my article, published in 2002 and referring to Mitch's article published in 2003 which he uses the EXACT same "rounded" numbers (I had rounded the %'s). So, where did Mitch get his numbers? He doesn't say...
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92675\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Personally, I think you're a bit paranoid and probably overestimate your own contribution in all this. There's been a lot of stuff kicking around, most of which doesn't make it into books, magazine articles or products. The great thing is that we've ALL progressed through the sharing of information, tricks learnt etc.
Anyway, you can keep up this mystique about only PK Sharpener having the secret sauce, but the reality is that there's any number of solutions that will deliver the same or even better results. Now that the more useful techniques and "magic numbers" are in the public domain, thanks to Bruce's openness in his book on Sharpening, it's all fairly moot anyway.
-
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.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92664\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
It's interesting for people like me (ie, removed from the cutting edge of 'image manipulation' development) to get the inside story. I wasn't aware that Bruce Fraser was a Buddhist. This fact alone strikes some resonance within me. I've been very much influenced by the Buddhist idea that everything we see is essentially an illusion. Such ideas sit comfortably with Western Physics which describes matter as mostly (relatively) empty space.
I remember the occasion well, when I first attended a computer exhibition in the very early 90's, where Photoshop 3 was being demonstrated. Digital photography was very new to me. I knew virtually nothing about it. Didn't even own a computer.
But I knew enough to be able to ask a few questions, one of which was, 'Show me how Photoshop can change the color of a single pixel?' The Photoshop demonstrator proceeded to zoom in to maximum magnification and changed a greenish pixel to a reddish one. He then zoomed out, to fit the full image on the screen (it was probably a low res jpeg) and I could clearly see a tiny speck of red that wasn't there before.
I was truly impressed. Wow!, wow!, wow!. The Buddhists are right?? It's all an illusion.
Continue with the inside story.
-
Personally, I think you're a bit paranoid and probably overestimate your own contribution in all this. There's been a lot of stuff kicking around, most of which doesn't make it into books, magazine articles or products.
Uh huh. . .don't have a response regarding Bruce probably being involved with teaching multi-pass sharpening to your Imacon guy, huh?
No, I don't think I overestimate Bruce's contribution to the industry-if anything, due to Bruce's modesty, I think it's vastly understated by many people, including you.
Since you aren't from the US (Australia, right?) I suspect you've never been to a Macworld, a Photoshop Conference or a Photoshop World and seen Bruce speak? You've never seen the crowds hanging on every word and following him wherever he went. You've never experienced his dry whit and unique ability to take a boring, complicated subject and make it fun and easy to understand?
Bruce did go on the road to Australia for GretagMcBeth. . .did you ever get the chance to see him speak? If not, it's your loss...
During Bruce's trip to Australia, he fell in love with Australian wine and bought more than a few cases but had a dickens of a time getting it back to the States...I'm not sure he EVER got all of it.
Now that the more useful techniques and "magic numbers" are in the public domain, thanks to Bruce's openness in his book on Sharpening, it's all fairly moot anyway.
Well, no, not really...Bruce has been totally open about the "process" but he kept the "magic numbers" pretty close to his vest...do you know the DPI that human vision can resolve for an 8 x 10 print? Bruce did. . .he calculated that for an 8 x 10 print held about 12 inches from your eyes, your vision-assuming normal 20/20 vision-resolved about 355DPI (and this isn't secret, since he wrote about this publicly). 20/20 vision resolves about one minute of one degree arc...one can translate that to actual DPI...But...
Exactly what sharpening numbers do you need to plug into a sharpening routine to provide optimal image sharpness for an 8 x 10 matte print? Or an 8 x 10 glossy print? Don't know? See...it's the numbers to plug into the routine that are important. And, it's those numbers that "Mitch" doesn't grok...he still thinks that "presets" can't be determined and suggests rolling your own.
I'm not saying that other products can't do an excellent job of image sharpening...heck, even Photoshop CS2's Smart Sharpen is a pretty fancy tool and good old USM (written by John Knoll in 1989) can do a swell job. But, since you can't trust the display to tell you how much to sharpen, how are you going to use the display to determine the numbers to plug in?
Since you ain't from around here, I'll give you the benefit of the doubt...but don't doubt Bruce's contribution to this industry both publicly as well as behind the scenes working with Adobe, Apple, Kodak & MSFT as well as the color management companies such as the old GretagMcBeth and X-rite. You do yourself an injustice if you fail to comprehend what Bruce has done and what this industry has lost...
-
No, I don't think I overestimate Bruce's contribution to the industry-if anything, due to Bruce's modesty, I think it's vastly understated by many people, including you.
Exactly what sharpening numbers do you need to plug into a sharpening routine to provide optimal image sharpness for an 8 x 10 matte print? Or an 8 x 10 glossy print? Don't know? See...it's the numbers to plug into the routine that are important. And, it's those numbers that "Mitch" doesn't grok...he still thinks that "presets" can't be determined and suggests rolling your own.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92731\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I have (had) a lot of respect for Bruce, but it wasn't him who I was talking about.
As for the "magic numbers" for an 8x10, PK Sharpener doesn't currently take the print size into account (nor for that matter the gamma of the working space to generate the Blend If numbers) ... I've done my own tests ... so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
-
I have (had) a lot of respect for Bruce, but it wasn't him who I was talking about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This thing ain't about me, bud. . .it's about being absolutely, perfectly clear what Bruce meant to all of us. Do you understand that?
And yes, gamma sensitive blends is on the docket for Sharpener 2.0...we already have that tech in PhotoKit Color 2.0.
-
It's interesting for people like me (ie, removed from the cutting edge of 'image manipulation' development) to get the inside story. I wasn't aware that Bruce Fraser was a Buddhist. This fact alone strikes some resonance within me. I've been very much influenced by the Buddhist idea that everything we see is essentially an illusion. Such ideas sit comfortably with Western Physics which describes matter as mostly (relatively) empty space.
I was truly impressed. Wow!, wow!, wow!. The Buddhists are right?? It's all an illusion.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=92723\")
The concept that much of our existence might be an illusion is not unique to eastern thought and [a href=\"http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave]Aristotle's[/url] allegory of the cave presents a similar concept. But remember that an illusion is a disordered perception, and there still must be someone around to have that perception, and the ultimate nature of our existence remains unexplained. Cogito, ergo sum, (I think, therefore I am), expressed by Descartes, is a practical philosophy for many of us. Bruce's success as a writer is due in part to his ability to take complex subjects and express them in a readily understood manner, without going into minutiae and convoluted discourse.
Continue with the inside story.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=92723\")
If you are interested in some more background on Bruce, Dan Margulis' comments, which are quoted on [a href=\"http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/in_memoriam_bru.html]John Nack's[/url] web site might be of interest.
Bill
-
I have (had) a lot of respect for Bruce, but it wasn't him who I was talking about.
As for the "magic numbers" for an 8x10, PK Sharpener doesn't currently take the print size into account (nor for that matter the gamma of the working space to generate the Blend If numbers) ... I've done my own tests ... so I'm not sure what you're talking about.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92733\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
In his Real World Sharpening with PSCS2, Bruce gives blend if numbers for gamma 1.8 (that of his preferred working space, ProPhotoRGB) and also gives the numbers for gamma 2.2 I'm not sure which numbers PK uses, but it would be a simple matter to open up the sharpening layer and look at the sliders and adjust them as necessary. As for print size, I think Bruce considered the angular limit of human perception and related this to the final resolution in the print in pixels per inch. If you assume a normal viewing distance, then the size of the print is implicit.
I don't really think that this is the appropriate time to antagonize Jeff. He as lost a dear friend and business partner and may be somewhat distraught.
Bill
-
If you are interested in some more background on Bruce, Dan Margulis' comments, which are quoted on John Nack's (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2006/12/in_memoriam_bru.html) web site might be of interest.
You'll get a lot more insight about Bruce on PSN that says more about Bruce and less about the persons writing it IMHO.
-
As for print size, I think Bruce considered the angular limit of human perception and related this to the final resolution in the print in pixels per inch. If you assume a normal viewing distance, then the size of the print is implicit. [a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92761\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Correct. . .normal viewing distance is "generally" thought of as being backed off to see the entire image in the field of vision (although Bruce liked to say that for photographers, the viewing distance was limited only by the length of their nose).
So, based upon what vision can resolve, you need to determine the optimal resolution for the viewing distance and re-ratio the image size/ppi resolution for optimum final print size resolution. Using "native file" resolution (without resampling) is optimal as long as the ppi falls between 180ppi for large prints and under 720ppi for small prints (although we've never found that over 480ppi is useful). If the native file is OVER 720ppi for the print size, you're better off down sampling...
Once you set the ratio for size/ppi, THEN you run the output sharpening based upon the image's current pixel/inch (or CM) as Bruce determined that sharpening isn't really impacted by viewing distance, only pixel density of the printed file.
-
You'll get a lot more insight about Bruce on PSN that says more about Bruce and less about the persons writing it IMHO.
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=92763\")
Here's a direct link to the story Andrew mentioned with over 160 comments-many from people who didn't know Bruce personally (and some that did)...
[a href=\"http://photoshopnews.com/2006/12/14/bruce-frasers-serious-illness/]Bruce Fraser's Serious Illness[/url]
Add your own comments if you wish...we'll be holding a industry tribute to Bruce this coming Jan 10th at Macworld in San Francisco-if you are in the Bay area, attendance is free (registration required-more info on PSN shortly).
-
You'll get a lot more insight about Bruce on PSN that says more about Bruce and less about the persons writing it IMHO.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92763\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Andrew,
I read on the Adobe Color Management (person's identity won't be mentioned here ) that Dan's comments were self serving. Like Ray, I am very much at the periphery of the digital imaging circles, but I do know that Dan and you have disagreed about matters concerning the necessity of bit depth and that Dan often clashed with Bruce. Most of the comments on PSN are from Bruce's fans and I thought that comments from someone commonly thought of as a Bruce antagonist would be of interest.
Bill
-
The concept that much of our existence might be an illusion is not unique to eastern thought and Aristotle's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave) allegory of the cave presents a similar concept.
Bill,
Why have you written Aristotle when the link you refer to is about Plato. The cave allegory is Plato's, is it not?
Yes, of course, ideas travel around, but Buddha lived quite a few years earlier than Plato and millions of people in the meantime have made a religion from his teachings, whereas the legacy of Socrates, Plato and Aristotle seems to be mainly a curiosity of early philosophical development, except perhaps some of Aristotle's logic. Much of what they had to say we now know is simply wrong. I mean, who in his right mind would want to live in a Plato's Republic?
Anyway, this is the wrong forum for such discussions.
-
Bill,
Why have you written Aristotle when the link you refer to is about Plato. The cave allegory is Plato's, is it not?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92785\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Excuse me, the allegory is from Plato. Yes, I agree this is not the proper time and forum for such discussions, but why did you bring up the topic in the first place?
Bill
-
Yes, I agree this is not the proper time and forum for such discussions, but why did you bring up the topic in the first place?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92788\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Because Jeff mentioned that Bruce Fraser was a Buddhist and that fact sort of resonated with me for the reasons given. If you believe that ultimately everything we see is an illusion (and I think we can say with some certainty that the perception of the color green does not have an external existence outside of the the mind of the perceiver), then I tend to think it becomes easier, from a philosophical standpoint, to work on cleverer and more sophisticated methods of image manipulation.
Conversely, a person who believes in the absolute reality of the external world as perceived by the senses, is more likely to have a moral objection to any form of image manipulation.
-
So can I take from this the thought that BF's new sharpening book (the one that just got tech book of the year at the online photographer) is definitely worth picking up?
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92689\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This book is a unique and valuable contribution to our understanding about the fundamentals underlying image sharpening and a number of related variables concerning image characteristics and image quality. There's a fair bit of stuff here you find, or you won't find as coherently presented, anywhere else. I think it is one of the most important volumes in my library of Photoshop reference books. FWIW from me - highly recommended.
-
Sold! I'll pick it up next time I'm at Borders.
-
The concept that much of our existence might be an illusion is not unique to eastern thought and Aristotle's (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Allegory_of_the_cave) allegory of the cave presents a similar concept.
A minor point but since this thread is largely about attribution, I think you meant Plato , not Aristotle.
Ref The Republic, Book 7 (from memory)
Cheers
Brian
www.pharoseditions.com.au
-
Sorry, I didn't mean to rub it in, I skipped P3.
I'll just go out and order that book.
Actually it would be a good thing for all LL members to do so too..
Cheers
Brian
PS I'm happy to enter into a conversation about Plato, Aristotle , Descartes and photography, but not in this thread.
BG
-
PS I'm happy to enter into a conversation about Plato, Aristotle , Descartes and photography, but not in this thread.
BG
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92954\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
This thread started out discussing the use of PK Sharpener with PSCS3, but it later developed into a testimonial for Bruce, which is fine with me. I bought Bruce's sharpening book when it first came out and would recommend it highly to anyone interested in the subject. It is a first edition, and I hope that Jeff or another of the PG group will update it as Bruce's concepts evolve. To the best of my knowledge, nothing else in print comes close to Bruce's treatment of this important subject.
Bill
PS: as an indication of his sense of fair play and modesty, Bruce does have a disclaimer about PK Sharpener in the forward. The book is not about PKS, but personally I would like to see some material about how the concepts are applied in PKS, but perhaps they don't want to divulge trade secrets.
-
This thread started out discussing the use of PK Sharpener with PSCS3, but it later developed into a testimonial for Bruce, which is fine with me. I bought Bruce's sharpening book when it first came out and would recommend it highly to anyone interested in the subject. It is a first edition, and I hope that Jeff or another of the PG group will update it as Bruce's concepts evolve. To the best of my knowledge, nothing else in print comes close to Bruce's treatment of this important subject.
Bill
PS: as an indication of his sense of fair play and modesty, Bruce does have a disclaimer about PK Sharpener in the forward. The book is not about PKS, but personally I would like to see some material about how the concepts are applied in PKS, but perhaps they don't want to divulge trade secrets.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92982\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
I'm about to go looking for any of Bruce's books that I don't already own.
If I run across any of Plato's books on digital photography, I'll be sure to let you folks know.
-
If I run across any of Plato's books on digital photography, I'll be sure to let you folks know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Well. . .knowing all the major authors & experts out there, I can tell you that Bruce comes about as close as you are likely to find...Bruce wasn't Greek. . .but he comes the closest to being what I would call a "Digital Imaging Philosopher"...
:~)
-
Well. . .knowing all the major authors & experts out there, I can tell you that Bruce comes about as close as you are likely to find...Bruce wasn't Greek. . .but he comes the closest to being what I would call a "Digital Imaging Philosopher"...
:~)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92996\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
From that one workshop and all I've read since, I'll have to agree 100%.
-
Other people, ... 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 :~)
If not "hijack" what term would YOU use?
[{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a] (http://index.php?act=findpost&pid=92660\")
Quote:
>> Perhaps you've learned that you can compute the luminance of an RGB color by taking 30% of its red component plus 59% of its green component plus 11% of its blue component. These weightings are often expressed in three-digit precision as 29.9% red, 58.7% green and 11.4% blue. Did you ever wonder where these weightings came from?
You can find them in the above table as the relative Y values for red, green and blue for the NTSC color model. The more precise weightings are 29.8839% red, 58.6811% green and 11.4350% blue. But it should also be obvious that the real RGB weightings depend upon the color system in use. So the "standard" weightings are incorrect for other RGB systems like sRGB or Adobe RGB (1998).
Another relevant fact is that these weightings must be made in a linear RGB space, that is, after the gamma companding function has been removed. It is very common to see the weightings applied bluntly to the companded RGB values, which is wrong. <<
[a href=\"http://www.brucelindbloom.com/WorkingSpaceInfo.html]http://www.brucelindbloom.com/WorkingSpaceInfo.html[/url]
.
No need to comment
& Happy new year for everyone around here, Peter
--
-
No need to comment
& Happy new year for everyone around here, Peter
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93058\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
If you note the Copyright © 2001 - 2006 Bruce Justin Lindbloom, it predated my article (but that's not where I got it) but post dates the time in which Thomas Knoll first discussed it. . .
No additional comments needed. . .
:~)
(of course, it STILL doesn't answer the question why "Mitch" used the exact same numbers that I rounded to... ;~)
-
If I run across any of Plato's books on digital photography, I'll be sure to let you folks know.
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=92990\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Here's a description of the cave anaolgy from Bertrand Russell's, 'The History of Western Philosophy'.
Those who are destitute of philosophy may be compared to prisoners in a cave, who are only able to look in one direction because they are bound, and who have a fire behind them and a wall infront. Between them and the wall there is nothing; all they see are shadows of themselves, and of objects behind them, cast on the wall by the light of the fire. Inevitably they regard these shadows as real, and have no notion of the objects to which they are due.
Could we say, perhaps, that the Photoshop's Shadows/Highlight tool might have helped, as well as a Bruce Fraser sharpening routine. (Hope no-one thinks I'm being too irreverent to either Plato or Bruce.)
-
Here's a description of the cave anaolgy from Bertrand Russell's, 'The History of Western Philosophy'.
Could we say, perhaps, that the Photoshop's Shadows/Highlight tool might have helped, as well as a Bruce Fraser sharpening routine. (Hope no-one thinks I'm being too irreverent to either Plato or Bruce.)
[a href=\"index.php?act=findpost&pid=93095\"][{POST_SNAPBACK}][/a]
Each should feel honored to be associated with the other, IMHO.
-
I appreciate the comment of Mr. Janes and others concerning the sharpening tools available on The Light's Right site.
I have done my best over the last year to avoid any inflammatory comments in forums re. PixelGenius, Photokit Sharpener, and the like. I am disappointed to see Jess Schewe still feels the need to continue posting abusive messages.
Jeff, you both really need to let the past go. I encourage you to discuss the merits of your software without the need to attack me or others.
I have been quite reasonable in my descriptions of PixelGenius software. I have found Photokit Sharpener to be a competent product and I have said that on several forums. I do not agree that it is the best tool for sharpening. That's my honest opinion.
I do not believe there is a "best" tool for sharpening. I own PhotoKit Sharpener, Focal Blade, nik! Sharpener, Power Retouche Sharpness, etc. I have found that you can obtain equally good results with any of these products or with my actions and Javascripts.
As I have stated on many occasions, the choice of sharpening tools is largely a matter of personal preference. The implementation of some feature that one person finds easy and intuitive can be awkward for another.
I have always encouraged people to download trials of the various sharpening tools that are available. Download my actions or Javascripts. Use them all. Compare the results. Then work with the tools that best serve your needs.
If you download my tools and find you prefer another tool, I have no quarrel. I will be equally pleased if you find my tools useful or you decide to use another tool. What is most important to me is that as many people as possible have the opportunity to derive as much satisfaction from digital photography as I do.
I wish the best to the digital photography community.
Cheers,
Mitch
www.thelightsrightstudio.com
http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLightsRight/ (http://tech.groups.yahoo.com/group/TheLightsRight/)
-
I believe this is my first post in this forum. I've been involved in photography and doing my own processing and printing for 25 years. Some of my images can be viewed at
http://members.photoportfolios.net/ederkes (http://members.photoportfolios.net/ederkes)
I've been using the digital darkroom for about 8 years (and I've still got a very great deal to learn). I've owned Photokit Sharpener for several years and have been generally pleased with the product. However, I've recently discovered the actions and scripts at The Light's Right Studio and in my experience, Mitchell's sharpening actions are equal or superior to Photokit Sharpener. My suggestion is to try them out and decide for yourself. Take a dozen or so images and sharpen both ways. If ten of the 12 look better with one technique, then there's no need to worry about product research or "magic numbers".
Over the years, I've read a great deal about conventional and digital darkroom processing. After reading writings by Dan Margulis, John Paul Caponigro, Jeff Schewe, and others, I must say the egos are much larger in the digital darkroom world than there ever were in the conventional darkroom world. Previously, I thought Ansel Adams had a little bit of an ego problem, but in light of recent readings, I think he was remarkably restrained.