Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Adobe Lightroom Q&A => Topic started by: mistybreeze on June 18, 2013, 11:54:14 am
-
Well, to listen to Scott Kelby tell it (on his blog), he attended a (sold out) love-in. That's not exactly what it felt like in the audience. It was not sold out and the love was cautious and on reserve.
Javits told me they set up 1700 seats in Hall 1A. The day started with possibly 1500 in attendance (based on empty chairs). And about halfway through the day, half the chairs were empty.
The 9:30 AM - Doors Open entry line was blocks long, and Javits is undergoing construction. There was a cloud of sanded concrete in the air, inside and out. We were not offered masks or a forewarning. I'm still coughing up some unknown substance. The things we endure for an Adobe high.
B&H's David Brommer, who somehow manages to combine baldness, a mullet, and a ponytail all at the same time, cheerfully greeted the audience and began the summit. But not before Scott Kelby noticed that David misspelled Lightroom on a large visual flanking the four video screens, detailing the day's schedule. Kelby proceeded to change Light Room 5 to Lightroom 5. David was hoping no one had noticed. All I could think, how does this veteran B&H photographer honcho not know how to spell Lightroom?
Some young, Asian, Adobe guy named David, who said he was a LR product manager but looked like he was playing hooky from high school, took the stage to give a typical Adobe spiel. Near the end of his rah-rah-hey-hey, he mentioned Creative Cloud, and in an instant at least 1200 of the 1500 people let out a collective boo that filled the large hall. It was an awkward, embarrassing 15 seconds for David and Adobe. I saw Julienne Kost flinch, and Katrin Eisman's face and body language scream "I told you so." Nothing more was said about CC.
Kelby was the first "digital star" to take the stage, looking quite robust at the waistline. His sport coat was ill-fitting, and I don't think he could close his jacket (even if he wanted to). He looked rather creaky, creepy, and frumpy. When someone who looks like this mentions the word "fashion," one who actually works in fashion can only cringe in disbelief. Who does he think he's kidding?
The portrait photos Kelby used to begin his LR5 demonstration were god-awful. The art direction was a joke and the exposures were insanely bad, large chunks of facial skin were way beyond clipped. Maybe this made sense if he had planned on demonstrating the Exposure or Brightness slider to a group of blind photographers, but that was not the case.
Later on, Kelby performed his fashion "Shoot-Out" on stage. It was entertaining in an OK Corral sense, but the show seemed geared toward a Midwest audience, photographers who only fantasize about shooting an agency model. IMO, the presentation was displaced in this fashion capital, with the wrong photographer behind the camera.
Kelby openly complained about the $600 price tag of Canon's on-camera flash (I agree, the price is insane), saying he didn't understand why some manufacturers ignore this hard-time economy. Next to Adobe, Canon was the 2nd largest sponsor of this event. Canon endured the slap down while Kelby kept quiet about Adobe's CC pricing. One can only imagine how Canon felt about that.
Katrin Eismann didn't seem quite sure she was in the right place. At one point she said, "I only shoot dead things." There was an offer from an audience member to present a dead body. Perhaps he was offering the Adobe guy.
Ever the skilled speaker and performer, Katrin put her best foot forward and demonstrated she knew her way around the program. Did we not already know this? However, during her attempt to demonstrate this new and "cool" HDR feature, which required opening and closing the file in Photoshop, Lightroom 5 failed to do what it was supposed to do. We all know no software program is perfect, but what a pain when 1500 people are watching when the crap don't work.
It's somehow refreshing when this failure stuff happens to the digital gurus. We suddenly feel it's not just us. But when the gurus publicly admit they have no idea why the failure happened (Katrin tried twice), you certainly have to question your intelligence and wonder why you want to drop $150 for this product.
Adobe is really lucky to have Julienne Kost. Julienne is either a GREAT actress, or she loves the people she serves and educates, and she loves her job. Julienne makes the software look so easy, and she demonstrates a great sense of humor while trying to explain the silly keyboard shortcuts. And it was fun to watch her tackle other people's photos that were submitted beforehand. It would have been nice and helpful to see more of that work. I wish B&H would have given Julienne more time. A photographer of many styles can really learn a lot from her.
Julienne admitted that for masking, she relies on Photoshop, because you can't beat that precision. Without a robust, precise masking ability, Lightroom will always have its limitations for serious photographers.
In the end, I bought Lightroom 5. The improvements to the clone brush and the gradient tools alone make the upgrade worth it to me. As for the summit, one hour of that lengthy day was worthwhile. Most of the day was spent selling something you most likely didn't need.
(The Gitzo-Manfrotto trade-in was a winner promotion. B&H deserves credit for extending that one day.)
-
Thanks for this summary of the event...and I agree with all you say about Julieanne Kost, she does some great work and her video lessons are a treat...and my, how things have changed. I remember going to an Adobe announcement in Manhattan, NY. I forget what year, but when the guy showing us the new version of Photoshop said it now does Text, all fifteen or twenty of us applauded. OKokok, it was a long time ago, but being able to work with type in photoshop was major at the time.
-
Enjoyed that. Doesn't Kelby tell jokes any longer?
-
Best forum post I have read today.
-
+1
BTW: Julieanne Kost (http://www.jkost.com/)
-
Enjoyed that. Doesn't Kelby tell jokes any longer?
He doesn't need to. He just shows up. That's joke enough. ;D
-
That was fun. It's Julieanne Kost by the way ;)
-
BTW: Julieanne Kost
So sorry. Now I look as silly as David Brommer, except I'm not having a bad hair day life.
-
Sometimes I think this forum needs a 'like' button for OP posts like that.
-
Julieann and Katrin are class acts! Kelby is becoming the P. T. Barnum of all Photoshop, LR and photography. It's all about selling. I've gone from a fan (and NAPP hall a fame inductee, instructor) to demanding they remove my name from their site because the focus of NAPP has gone from maybe 50% education and 50% making money to 90%+ making money and hocking themselves at all costs. It's a shame two class acts like Julieanne and Katrin have to be associated with this guy. I have (had) enormous respect at one time for Scott for making the climb from nowhere to having 70K plus members. That IS impressive. But now NAPP is the Walmart of Photoshop, a shame.
-
Thanks for the sobering insight, although I really don't see what hairlines and waistlines has got to do with anything.
-h
-
I watched some of the live streaming. A video should be posted soon for those interested.
Scott Kelby's performance will likely reinforce your opinion of Scott Kelby. The model shoot was not a high point.
Katrin and Julieanne were great. I especially liked watching them process photos in LR. I wish their segments were longer.
There were more technical glitches than I expected.
-
Lightroom 5 failed to do what it was supposed to do. We all know no software program is perfect, but what a pain when 1500 people are watching when the crap don't work.
It's somehow refreshing when this failure stuff happens to the digital gurus. We suddenly feel it's not just us. But when the gurus publicly admit they have no idea why the failure happened (Katrin tried twice), you certainly have to question your intelligence and wonder why you want to drop $150 for this product.
In the end, I bought Lightroom 5.
Sorry, but there goes your credibility. And I was really enjoying your post up to that point...
-
Maybe he's not so naive to believe that something that works faultlessly when preparing the demo won't go wrong as soon as you're in front of hundreds of people?
-
Kelby is becoming the P. T. Barnum of all Photoshop, LR and photography. It's all about selling. I've gone from a fan (and NAPP hall a fame inductee, instructor) to demanding they remove my name from their site because the focus of NAPP has gone from maybe 50% education and 50% making money to 90%+ making money and hocking themselves at all costs. It's a shame two class acts like Julieanne and Katrin have to be associated with this guy. I have (had) enormous respect at one time for Scott for making the climb from nowhere to having 70K plus members. That IS impressive. But now NAPP is the Walmart of Photoshop, a shame.
It's a very rare occurrence, but I'm always surprised when I read one author criticize another author in a public forum. I mostly see this behavior here. What is it about digital photography that causes bright, educated men to behave this way? Even actors, with less than a high school education, know that such behavior is considered unkind and unprofessional. Nobody's telling anyone not to have an opinion, but how necessary is it to express your negative opinion of a fellow industry person in public? Is such behavior really worth the stain it leaves on your character? I own Andrew Rodney's books. I sure wish the above quote could be attributed to someone I don't know.
Scott Kelby clearly has a burning desire to be an entertainer. He wants to be loved by the masses. And for whatever reason, he found his "act" in the digital photography industry. I, too, was an early member of NAPP, its first year. Then I learned more about Kelby. My membership only lasted that first year.
Kelby has appeal among non-professionals (who else will believe he shoots fashion?), and let's face it, the amateur market in digital photography has gone through the roof and will continue to grow. There's a senior citizen/Borscht Belt quality to his act, and 99.2% of the B&H Summit attendees were over the age of 50. (I'm being conservative. It could be 60, but older is looking better these days, so its hard to gauge.)
Digital photography has spawned a lot of carnival barkers with followers, and Lightroom offers users the opportunity to Map them. There are millions of gullible consumers out there, searching for guidance and knowledge, with a credit card in their hands. Kelby's everyman style offers hope to people with a dream, a hobby, or just a very strong urge to express creativity. Kelby provides a lot of courage to ordinary folks who are considering turing a car garage into a photo studio. His "you, too, can be a fashion photographer" message is very positive, even though many of us know it's a false sell. Kelby knows very well the art and power of the positive sell. (He did blog the event was "Sold Out.")
Julieanne and Katrin are fellow authors, with a strong reputation for their support of Adobe. Adobe sponsored the B&H Summit. Joining Scott Kelby on stage could be nothing more than a professional courtesy. In a corporate environment, professional courtesies occur all the time (regardless of personal feelings).
-
I really don't see what hairlines and waistlines has got to do with anything.
Obviously, you don't work in the fashion industry.
-
It's a very rare occurrence, but I'm always surprised when I read one author criticize another author in a public forum. I mostly see this behavior here. What is it about digital photography that causes bright, educated men to behave this way? Even actors, with less than a high school education, know that such behavior is considered unkind and unprofessional. Nobody's telling anyone not to have an opinion, but how necessary is it to express your negative opinion of a fellow industry person in public? Is such behavior really worth the stain it leaves on your character? I own Andrew Rodney's books. I sure wish the above quote could be attributed to someone I don't know.
Scott Kelby clearly has a burning desire to be an entertainer. He wants to be loved by the masses. And for whatever reason, he found his "act" in the digital photography industry. I, too, was an early member of NAPP, its first year. Then I learned more about Kelby. My membership only lasted that first year.
Kelby has appeal among non-professionals (who else will believe he shoots fashion?), and let's face it, the amateur market in digital photography has gone through the roof and will continue to grow. There's a senior citizen/Borscht Belt quality to his act, and 99.2% of the B&H Summit attendees were over the age of 50. (I'm being conservative. It could be 60, but older is looking better these days, so its hard to gauge.)
Digital photography has spawned a lot of carnival barkers with followers, and Lightroom offers users the opportunity to Map them. There are millions of gullible consumers out there, searching for guidance and knowledge, with a credit card in their hands. Kelby's everyman style offers hope to people with a dream, a hobby, or just a very strong urge to express creativity. Kelby provides a lot of courage to ordinary folks who are considering turing a car garage into a photo studio. His "you, too, can be a fashion photographer" message is very positive, even though many of us know it's a false sell. Kelby knows very well the art and power of the positive sell. (He did blog the event was "Sold Out.")
Julieanne and Katrin are fellow authors, with a strong reputation for their support of Adobe. Adobe sponsored the B&H Summit. Joining Scott Kelby on stage could be nothing more than a professional courtesy. In a corporate environment, professional courtesies occur all the time (regardless of personal feelings).
Not sure what's wrong with expressing an opinion. Author or not. Not sure why you're castigating Andrew for, essentially, expressing the same basic opinion of Kelby as he does.
I too was a member of NAPP for one year, 7 or 8 years ago. I was curious what all the hubbub was about. Didn't renew. The magazine is a joke. The 'Kelby Method' of teaching - follow this script step by step - doesn't lend itself to actual learning. And if you try to express any criticism or even say anything remotely less than glowing about Kelby or his band of merry men, the Kelby Kult members make like they're going to string you up and boil you in oil.
And not for nothing, but commenting about ill-fitting clothes, bloated waistlines and less than appealing hair styles isn't exactly a classy move either; particularly where they have no relevance to the subject matter - Photoshop, Lightroom and Adobe. It comes across as petty and catty.
-
It's a very rare occurrence, but I'm always surprised when I read one author criticize another author in a public forum. I mostly see this behavior here. What is it about digital photography that causes bright, educated men to behave this way?
You've got to take it on a case-by-case basis. Andrew can obviously speak for himself, and has a particular issue with that Lab colour guy, but I can certainly explain why I made my mildly-disparaging quip about Scott's jokes and why I'll often refer to his company with coded language such as "I don't recommend" or they "aren't so strong" on certain topics (advice about Library for example).
It's always been my strong impression that Scott's organisation is extremely self-serving, and they'll do everything to boost things where they can take their cut, but almost nothing that might lead their audience to spend money elsewhere. Do you think they'll say nice things about a book/video they aren't promoting? Only usually if there's something in it for them, and that's just not the case with others in this loose author community. I also find a lot of their content loud and dumbed down to the point of being almost misleading, like the worst kind of American commercial TV, so I've always kept my distance from them and find little to recommend them.
John
-
Sorry, but there goes your credibility.
What a silly thing to say. Sorry, but you're wrong.
The demo that failed was an HDR workflow. I have never seen an HDR image that I liked, let alone wanted to take the time to emulate (even though I love to bracket). HDR images look fake and/or other-worldly to me. So if there's a glitch in a feature that I will not likely use (and might get fixed in v5.1), why should I not buy the product if other features that I do use have greatly improved? That would be STUPID.
The Advanced Healing Brush is finally non-circular. It's sort of like combining Photoshop's Healing Brush with the Patch Tool. It won't take care of stray hairs against a non-solid backdrop, but it will do much more than the limited tool in previous versions. THIS is important to my workflow.
The Radial Filter is a HUGE improvement, and the adjustments that you can make within this tool are AMAZING. If you are an artist, this tool is crucial.
The Correcting Perspective is a must have for architecture photography. I haven't used it yet, but I could easily see this helping my workflow in a big way.
Why on earth would I NOT purchase the product, especially with a "show price" attached, when all these new features are important to me? In fact, I bought 6 full versions of LR5. I plan to treat my favorite assistants.
I don't hate Adobe products. I just hate how the execs are treating struggling photographers. Get real.
-
Not sure what's wrong with expressing an opinion. Author or not.
I agree but I didn't see the rule that authors are not supposed to express such opinions. That said, my book's out of print, I have no intention of ever writing another.
Misty what's the statue of limitations for expressing an opinion? The book was published in 2005, went out or print a year or so ago.
-
Not sure what's wrong with expressing an opinion. Author or not.
Negative opinions aren't just any opinion. Remaining anonymous can protect your business interests and the perception of your character. (If you care about those things. If you don't, then ignore me.)
If you don't have a good, personal relationship with a publisher, an agent, a PR firm, a major corporate sponsor, and/or a good lawyer, then I recommend seeking a good book on professional manners. It can never hurt a self-employed photographer to seek knowledge outside his/her bubble.
-
Remaining anonymous can protect your business interests and the perception of your character.
That's why I'd never post anonymous! If I have an opinion I stand behind it.
-
... Remaining anonymous can protect your business interests and the perception of your character...
Perception of your (anonymous) character would certainly be remaining... negative.
The question is, would you have posted your nasty remarks about Kelby's appearance under your real name? At least Andrew has the decency to stand behind his words, right or wrong. Throwing personal insults anonymously... now, that's classy.
-
Negative opinions aren't just any opinion. Remaining anonymous can protect your business interests and the perception of your character. (If you care about those things. If you don't, then ignore me.)
You mean like using a quirky pseudonym to register on a photography forum that prefers actual names and not including any link to your identity in a sig. line? You mean anonymous like that? As opposed to Andrew, who doesn't hide his identity? As opposed to me and I don't hide my identity? As opposed to the vast majority of the members of this site? Yeah, OK, enough said. ::) If you're that worried about your rep. that you have to be anonymous to be an asshole then you've got far bigger things to worry about.
If you don't have a good, personal relationship with a publisher, an agent, a PR firm, a major corporate sponsor, and/or a good lawyer, then I recommend seeking a good book on professional manners. It can never hurt a self-employed photographer to seek knowledge outside his/her bubble.
What does that even mean? First, you don't have 'personal' relationships with any of those people you mention. You have working, professional relationships with them. The two are entirely different. I go out for a beer and a brat with people I have a personal relationship with. They're called friends. I don't do that with my publisher. You speak about the professional manners of others and conduct yourself in the manner you do? Wait, there's a word for that.... h..... hy..... hypo..... hypocritical, that's it. ::) ::)
-
I agree but I didn't see the rule that authors are not supposed to express such opinions. That said, my book's out of print, I have no intention of ever writing another.
That's what the comment 'author or not' meant. People are free to express their opinion whether they're an author or not.
-
That's what the comment 'author or not' meant. People are free to express their opinion whether they're an author or not.
I'm in full agreement.
Sorry, I was asking Misty. I don't see any difference either.
-
would you have posted your nasty remarks about Kelby's appearance under your real name?
Maybe if my name was Joan Rivers, and "personal insults" my career. But since humorous writing is just a hobby, I prefer to exercise anonymously, because I think that's smart for my photography business.
Frankly, I didn't think my Kelby observations were nasty. IMO, nasty is a guy with two spare tires around his waist, staggering to the stage in ill-fitting clothes and a bad haircut, pretending to be a "fashion" photographer.
a photography forum that prefers actual names
Prefers or requires? I'm sure Google, Yahoo, and Facebook prefer my actual home phone number and correct address. Yeah, like that is ever going to happen.
you have to be anonymous to be an asshole
Are you calling me an asshole? You see, because I'm anonymous, I don't care what you call me.
What does that even mean?
Yeah, OK, enough said. Some skulls are too thick to bother.
-
.. Frankly, I didn't think my Kelby observations were nasty. IMO, nasty is a guy with two spare tires around his waist, staggering to the stage in ill-fitting clothes and a bad haircut, pretending to be a "fashion" photographer...
So, he is not slim, hipster or with the latest haircut, thus does not qualify for the fashion industry? Since he is also not gay, that would definitely disqualify him, no? ;)
-
But since humorous writing is just a hobby...
I'm relieved. I'd hate to think of anyone depending on such tripe to earn a living. ;D
Rand
-
Frankly, I didn't think my Kelby observations were nasty. IMO, nasty is a guy with two spare tires around his waist, staggering to the stage in ill-fitting clothes and a bad haircut, pretending to be a "fashion" photographer.
Not for nothing, but when I read the OP, I was struck at the unneeded snarky nature of the Scott Kelby characterization.
Kelby was the first "digital star" to take the stage, looking quite robust at the waistline. His sport coat was ill-fitting, and I don't think he could close his jacket (even if he wanted to). He looked rather creaky, creepy, and frumpy. When someone who looks like this mentions the word "fashion," one who actually works in fashion can only cringe in disbelief. Who does he think he's kidding?
As somebody who has "girth" I don't take that sort of characterization "lightly". What part of that "characterization" was useful to what you wrote? Scott struggles with weight...people who struggle with weight, well, struggle with weight. To poke fun at that tells a lot more about the commentator than the subject of that characterization...
So, you work in "fashion"? Guess you are rather, uh, judgmental huh? Looks like a "creaky, creepy, and frumpy" sort of guy, so, you feel free to poke fun at them? Guess you were never the target of bullying? Want some bullying directed at you? People who like to poke fun at people's appearance are stuck up a$$holes with rather severe emotional baggage of their own. Generally, mean spirited people are, well, mean. Ya know what I mean? What part of what you wrote was "humorous writing" as a hobby...It's good that your writing is merely a hobby cause your writing is not in the least bit "humorous" (and I doubt you could get a job writing such drivel).
It's prolly a real good idea you post anonymously because your status in the industry would indeed be subjected to close scrutiny and likely take a hit. The firing of 3 Atlanta sports jocks making fun of a former Saints player with ALS comes to mind.
The best thing you could do is to post an apology...the second best thing you could do is quit visiting LuLa and writing that sort of stuff. Your choice...
Feel free to comment on Scott's speaking style or content, but learn to draw the line on stuff that is offensive.
-
Maybe if my name was Joan Rivers, and "personal insults" my career. But since humorous writing is just a hobby, I prefer to exercise anonymously, because I think that's smart for my photography business.
Frankly, I didn't think my Kelby observations were nasty. IMO, nasty is a guy with two spare tires around his waist, staggering to the stage in ill-fitting clothes and a bad haircut, pretending to be a "fashion" photographer.
Prefers or requires? I'm sure Google, Yahoo, and Facebook prefer my actual home phone number and correct address. Yeah, like that is ever going to happen.
Are you calling me an asshole? You see, because I'm anonymous, I don't care what you call me.
Yeah, OK, enough said. Some skulls are too thick to bother.
Good thing it's a hobby, because you ain't even close to being funny.
Your LuLa profile indicates you're 12 years old. Given the petty and cowardly way you seem to go about things, that seems about right. Actually, that's an insult to 12 year olds.
-
Your LuLa profile indicates you're 12 years old. Given the petty and cowardly way you seem to go about things, that seems about right. Actually, that's an insult to 12 year olds.
Gee BobFisher - you're 12 years old too. What does that say about you to criticize another juvenile?
Jpegman
-
I was struck at the unneeded snarky nature of the Scott Kelby characterization.
A lecture from you on "unneeded snarky nature" is precious.
-
A lecture from you on "unneeded snarky nature" is precious.
Uh huh...and what about what I said? That your characterization of Scott was mean spirited bullying from somebody who hides behind an anonymous screen name to protect yourself from blowback?
So, are you proud of yourself? If so, disclose your real name?
-
Well, to listen to Scott Kelby tell it (on his blog), he attended a (sold out) love-in. That's not exactly what it felt like in the audience. It was not sold out and the love was cautious and on reserve.
Javits told me they set up 1700 seats in Hall 1A. The day started with possibly 1500 in attendance (based on empty chairs). And about halfway through the day, half the chairs were empty.
The 9:30 AM - Doors Open entry line was blocks long, and Javits is undergoing construction. There was a cloud of sanded concrete in the air, inside and out. We were not offered masks or a forewarning. I'm still coughing up some unknown substance. The things we endure for an Adobe high.
B&H's David Brommer, who somehow manages to combine baldness, a mullet, and a ponytail all at the same time, cheerfully greeted the audience and began the summit. But not before Scott Kelby noticed that David misspelled Lightroom on a large visual flanking the four video screens, detailing the day's schedule. Kelby proceeded to change Light Room 5 to Lightroom 5. David was hoping no one had noticed. All I could think, how does this veteran B&H photographer honcho not know how to spell Lightroom?
Some young, Asian, Adobe guy named David, who said he was a LR product manager but looked like he was playing hooky from high school, took the stage to give a typical Adobe spiel. Near the end of his rah-rah-hey-hey, he mentioned Creative Cloud, and in an instant at least 1200 of the 1500 people let out a collective boo that filled the large hall. It was an awkward, embarrassing 15 seconds for David and Adobe. I saw Julienne Kost flinch, and Katrin Eisman's face and body language scream "I told you so." Nothing more was said about CC.
Kelby was the first "digital star" to take the stage, looking quite robust at the waistline. His sport coat was ill-fitting, and I don't think he could close his jacket (even if he wanted to). He looked rather creaky, creepy, and frumpy. When someone who looks like this mentions the word "fashion," one who actually works in fashion can only cringe in disbelief. Who does he think he's kidding?
The portrait photos Kelby used to begin his LR5 demonstration were god-awful. The art direction was a joke and the exposures were insanely bad, large chunks of facial skin were way beyond clipped. Maybe this made sense if he had planned on demonstrating the Exposure or Brightness slider to a group of blind photographers, but that was not the case.
Later on, Kelby performed his fashion "Shoot-Out" on stage. It was entertaining in an OK Corral sense, but the show seemed geared toward a Midwest audience, photographers who only fantasize about shooting an agency model. IMO, the presentation was displaced in this fashion capital, with the wrong photographer behind the camera.
Kelby openly complained about the $600 price tag of Canon's on-camera flash (I agree, the price is insane), saying he didn't understand why some manufacturers ignore this hard-time economy. Next to Adobe, Canon was the 2nd largest sponsor of this event. Canon endured the slap down while Kelby kept quiet about Adobe's CC pricing. One can only imagine how Canon felt about that.
Katrin Eismann didn't seem quite sure she was in the right place. At one point she said, "I only shoot dead things." There was an offer from an audience member to present a dead body. Perhaps he was offering the Adobe guy.
Ever the skilled speaker and performer, Katrin put her best foot forward and demonstrated she knew her way around the program. Did we not already know this? However, during her attempt to demonstrate this new and "cool" HDR feature, which required opening and closing the file in Photoshop, Lightroom 5 failed to do what it was supposed to do. We all know no software program is perfect, but what a pain when 1500 people are watching when the crap don't work.
It's somehow refreshing when this failure stuff happens to the digital gurus. We suddenly feel it's not just us. But when the gurus publicly admit they have no idea why the failure happened (Katrin tried twice), you certainly have to question your intelligence and wonder why you want to drop $150 for this product.
Adobe is really lucky to have Julienne Kost. Julienne is either a GREAT actress, or she loves the people she serves and educates, and she loves her job. Julienne makes the software look so easy, and she demonstrates a great sense of humor while trying to explain the silly keyboard shortcuts. And it was fun to watch her tackle other people's photos that were submitted beforehand. It would have been nice and helpful to see more of that work. I wish B&H would have given Julienne more time. A photographer of many styles can really learn a lot from her.
Julienne admitted that for masking, she relies on Photoshop, because you can't beat that precision. Without a robust, precise masking ability, Lightroom will always have its limitations for serious photographers.
In the end, I bought Lightroom 5. The improvements to the clone brush and the gradient tools alone make the upgrade worth it to me. As for the summit, one hour of that lengthy day was worthwhile. Most of the day was spent selling something you most likely didn't need.
(The Gitzo-Manfrotto trade-in was a winner promotion. B&H deserves credit for extending that one day.)
Well that was just loaded with class.
http://www.thefreedictionary.com/denigrate
-
Well that was just loaded with class.
Well, some in this thread may not like the OP's writing style, but it does somewhat resemble my impressions for the part (Scott's fashion shoot, mostly some test images, and the post-processing session by Katrin and Julieanne (they were quite entertaining as well), the unfortunate raffling goof-up, and a few shorter presentations) that I actually saw on the live stream. I missed the first part, so I cannot judge that part of the OP's report. I hope the to-be-posted recording is not edited too much, so others can judge based on actually seeing the event for themselves as well.
Cheers,
Bart
-
So, are you proud of yourself? If so, disclose your real name?
Oh, Jeff, darling, spare me your bullying board games. I've never been filled with foolish pride.
This thread is much funnier than I ever expected, but some of the replies don't surprise me.
So I called a platform artist - an overweight, middle-aged, adult male photographer - fat, and just look at the phony outcry from a bunch of chubby babies in need of therapy. Not one peep from any professional businessman about Andrew Rodney - famous author, blogger, platform speaker, businessman, and fellow photographer - who publicly denigrates Scott Kelby's success in business, accusing him of being the "P.T. Barnum of all Photoshop, LR and photography…90%+ (about) making money and hocking."
In one small paragraph, Rodney slaps down decades of success and hard work that Kelby built, and stands tall and proud that he posted such destructive words, using his own name. And Jeff, LuLa's premiere lecturing bully, is demanding an apology from me for calling Kelby fat? What world are some of you so-called professionals living in? Tell me, Jeff, are Andrew's destructive words what you call "working for free, on behalf of the photographic community?"
I can't take any of you blowhards seriously anymore.
For those with uber thick skulls or a big, fat, beer belly, the simple point of my OP is: If you're going to take to the stage to "teach" beauty photography, take a look in the mirror first and check if your addiction to donuts makes you look credible.
OK, so I may not want to have sex with an obese man because I find that naked look an utter turn-off. But being obese doesn't mean you have no talent. However, even with talent, you're not entitled to bad taste and looking like a slob in the fashion photography business (unless your name is Bruce Weber and you possess his genius). If you're going to pretend to be a fashion photographer, you better know how to dress when you take the stage, and accept that beauty = the appearance of good health in ALL fashion circles. Instead of blogging, try a treadmill. Otherwise, expect to be criticized. The fashion police are everywhere.
IMO, Kelby would have served himself and the B&H audience better had he taken a portrait of a zaftig business woman, and had Katrin and Julieanne tackle those very real retouching issues. The average CEO in America is overweight, and none of them, male or female, want to appear that way in a corporate photo.
Photographers who claim to shoot "fashion" are becoming a dime a dozen, thanks to Terry Richardson. Many think all it takes is shooting a pretty young girl in a fancy dress with an on-camera flash. Well good luck getting a spread in Vogue, or any other fashion job, with such limited thinking. Even boring, bring-home-the-bacon, fashion catalog photographers know, if they lack taste and style (and oftentimes a great physique), art directors are not going to be willing to bond and trust.
It's your foot, shoot it as you see fit.
-
Enough with the negativity already. Relating someone's personal appearance and professional capabilities is irrelevant, disrespectful and ugly.
Instead, let's talk about the superb clarity, precision and artistry of Julianne Kost's video tutorials.
-
Enough with the negativity already. Relating someone's personal appearance and professional capabilities is irrelevant, disrespectful and ugly.
Instead, let's talk about the superb clarity, precision and artistry of Julianne Kost's video tutorials.
Agree. J. kost is great. Also. I've been reading through, trying, some of the techniques in Katrin Eismann's book, Masking and Compositing, Second Edition. Man, it's a great book. I'm also enjoying Jeff Schewe's The Digital Negative. These two books are just loaded with great information. And despite my not upgrading Photoshop CS6 anymore, and some doubts about going past LR4 for now, I do intend to buy Jeff's book, The Digital Print.
-
OK kids, cool it with the personal attacks.
Michael
-
Oh, Jeff, darling, spare me your bullying board games. I've never been filled with foolish pride.
This thread is much funnier than I ever expected, but some of the replies don't surprise me.
So I called a platform artist - an overweight, middle-aged, adult male photographer - fat, and just look at the phony outcry from a bunch of chubby babies in need of therapy. Not one peep from any professional businessman about Andrew Rodney - famous author, blogger, platform speaker, businessman, and fellow photographer - who publicly denigrates Scott Kelby's success in business, accusing him of being the "P.T. Barnum of all Photoshop, LR and photography…90%+ (about) making money and hocking."
In one small paragraph, Rodney slaps down decades of success and hard work that Kelby built, and stands tall and proud that he posted such destructive words, using his own name. And Jeff, LuLa's premiere lecturing bully, is demanding an apology from me for calling Kelby fat? What world are some of you so-called professionals living in? Tell me, Jeff, are Andrew's destructive words what you call "working for free, on behalf of the photographic community?"
I can't take any of you blowhards seriously anymore.
For those with uber thick skulls or a big, fat, beer belly, the simple point of my OP is: If you're going to take to the stage to "teach" beauty photography, take a look in the mirror first and check if your addiction to donuts makes you look credible.
OK, so I may not want to have sex with an obese man because I find that naked look an utter turn-off. But being obese doesn't mean you have no talent. However, even with talent, you're not entitled to bad taste and looking like a slob in the fashion photography business (unless your name is Bruce Weber and you possess his genius). If you're going to pretend to be a fashion photographer, you better know how to dress when you take the stage, and accept that beauty = the appearance of good health in ALL fashion circles. Instead of blogging, try a treadmill. Otherwise, expect to be criticized. The fashion police are everywhere.
IMO, Kelby would have served himself and the B&H audience better had he taken a portrait of a zaftig business woman, and had Katrin and Julieanne tackle those very real retouching issues. The average CEO in America is overweight, and none of them, male or female, want to appear that way in a corporate photo.
Photographers who claim to shoot "fashion" are becoming a dime a dozen, thanks to Terry Richardson. Many think all it takes is shooting a pretty young girl in a fancy dress with an on-camera flash. Well good luck getting a spread in Vogue, or any other fashion job, with such limited thinking. Even boring, bring-home-the-bacon, fashion catalog photographers know, if they lack taste and style (and oftentimes a great physique), art directors are not going to be willing to bond and trust.
It's your foot, shoot it as you see fit.
Then show us all how it's done. Unmask yourself and show us (a) how slim trim and stylish you are and (b) how great your fashion photography is and what tear sheets you have. Show some courage and put some conviction and substance behind otherwise empty words.
-
There are some threads that start out with a civil discussion and then degenerate into snarkiness and name calling, and then there are threads that start out with snarkiness and name calling and just get worse and worse. I don't like either kind. They may be fine on DPR, but they have no place here. If you want to get into a pissing match with someone, please take it backchannel instead of polluting the boad. >:(
-
Misty
I find your POV difficult to accept nor understand.
Re: Scott Kelby. I had a professional relationship with him for several years along with some of the so called Photoshop guys and NAPP as a paying member. I wrote that I had a great deal of respect for Scott based on what he's accomplished. I still have a great deal of respect for him but based on experience, it's greatly diminished. I compared him to PT barnum not Stalin or Pol Pot! My point was, over the years, the focus of NAPP, lead by Scott has been more about selling then educating his paid members. Case in point is his over sale of a product that supposedly provides "Layers in Lightroom". I'm not the only one that found his slant completely sales oriented, these blog posts are right on the money. PLEASE read them:
http://regex.info/blog/2011-04-23/1753
http://regex.info/blog/2011-05-04/1761
I'm not a fan of the "here's everything in 7 steps" fast food approach which NAPP has focused on. I don't care for fast food education. As an example of a diametrically opposite approach, I'm more a fan of the lengthly and through tutorials of George Jardine.
Scott has on a number of occasions publicly dismissed soft proofing, something I feel I know something about. We strongly disagree. That the engineers at Adobe who are far smarter than either of us implemented this feature back in 1998, and that a large group of Photoshop and now Lightroom users find this necessary functionality, I find Scott's understanding to be wrong.I find his advise to be wrong! I have to wonder why he stated this on a number of occasions. He is supposed to be in the education business! I guess trying to distill color management into the fast food approach can't work but dismissing it is a deserve to his audience.
In that respect, this opinion I have of Scott isn't much different from that of Ken Rockwell also discussed on LuLa. I've only read two of his blog posts, both on color management and I find them glaringly incorrect. Other than my disapproval of Ken (and Scott's) understanding of color management, I have no beef with the qualities of their physical appearance! Any opinion I have of them as photographers is not science based so I'll not provide an opinion because it's not noteworthy.
You on the other hand have suggested that as an author, I'm out of line for stating my disagreement with another author (Scott). I told you I haven't been an author in many years and wondered when the statue of limitations runs out. You didn't reply which is telling!
On the other hand, you've said some pretty ugly things about Scott based on his physical appearance and wardrobe. You hide behind an alias. While complaining that my transparency as a forum poster is somehow out of line. Can you understand how some of us find that disingenuous? Distressful?
-
So I called a platform artist - an overweight, middle-aged, adult male photographer - fat, and just look at the phony outcry from a bunch of chubby babies in need of therapy. Not one peep from any professional businessman about Andrew Rodney - famous author, blogger, platform speaker, businessman, and fellow photographer - who publicly denigrates Scott Kelby's success in business, accusing him of being the "P.T. Barnum of all Photoshop, LR and photography…90%+ (about) making money and hocking."
In one small paragraph, Rodney slaps down decades of success and hard work that Kelby built, and stands tall and proud that he posted such destructive words, using his own name. And Jeff, LuLa's premiere lecturing bully, is demanding an apology from me for calling Kelby fat? What world are some of you so-called professionals living in? Tell me, Jeff, are Andrew's destructive words what you call "working for free, on behalf of the photographic community?"
Aside from the fact Andrew is a friend, nothing Andrew wrote was mean spirited compared to you diatribe. What Andrew wrote–using his own name–was his opinion based on his experience. The fact that he's willing to write what he wrote and back it with his professional reputation actually means a lot more than somebody snipping from the weeds in anonymity. You'll notice Andrew didn't stoop to your level and criticize his appearance...
Personally, I have a lot of respect for Scott. He's a great presenter, organizer and promoter. His persona is a well crafted "every man" sort "ah shucks" Jimmie Stewart with some extra pounds. Truth be told, you fell for his schtick hook line and sinker. Scott doesn't position himself as a "professional photographer" (with the exception of football sports shooting where he's credentialed and can shoot from the sidelines of NFL games–no small achievement). I have my issues with him and have told him. I don't like for-profits trade orgs...I think NAPP could be doing a lot more for the industry if they (Scott) wanted to. But NAPP does serve a purpose...
The fact is, if you had the writing skills, you could have written what you wrote without stooping to being mean spirited...that fact you can't seem to see the difference is pretty telling. I don't know if you are male or female, gay or straight, a rising star or a washout (I have my suspicions given your apparent lack of class) and you know what? I couldn't care less. But what I do know is you are mean spirited, petty, petulant and pretty much misguided.
-
Just a quick follow up...it seems the AMA declares obesity a disease (http://articles.latimes.com/2013/jun/18/science/la-sci-obesity-disease-20130619). So, people who like to make fun of overweight people are making fun of a medical condition. And I don't think that's in the least bit "funny".
-
Hi,
You can think what you want concernig Scott's knowledge, and you can discuss the content of what he teaches and the way he sells it,but it is absolutely damnable to slag someone because of his weight, color of skin, clothing he wears or anything else like this.
So, for me this thread has been closed.
Robert