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
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"
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.
Just to give you a framework for what has since transpired...the good Dr. seems hellbent on behaving badly and responding out of all proportions to any perceived slight-actually implying that CygnusX1 was actually Russell Brown running around the internet claiming "Mitch" stole his idea.
The -ONLY- reason I got drawn into the dustup was the fact I know for an absolute fact -WHEN- Russell Brown developed -HIS- technique because I exchanged email with Russell while he was working on it and I know for a fact when Russell first demoed it because I was on stage with him at Seybold, 2001 when he demoed that technique for the first time.
I pointed this out to "Mitch" and received a typical out of proportion response from him. And yes, a dustup with me ensued.
Later in the same thread, "Mitch" accused me of "failing to credit Russell" with certain techniques using Lighten and Darken layers in PixelGenius' PhotoKit Sharpener-this was somehow used as a defense of his failing to credit Russell.
Bruce Fraser (bless him) showed up to point out that Mitch had mischaracterized how PhotoKit Sharpener works and pointed out we don't use a Lighten only or Darken only blend in Sharpener...Bruce pointed out that he had written about how Sharpener works on CreativePro...Bruce went on to said:
Bruce Fraser- 01:42pm Feb 20, 2004 Pacific(# of 33)19
In point of fact, PhotoKit SHARPENER does not use Lighten and Darken layers to do sharpening, in any of the modules.
In our seminars, workshops, and publications, we demonstrate all the techniques that are incorporated in SHARPENER — see, for example, determine what http://www.creativepro.com:80/story/feature/20357-2.html
The value proposition of SHARPENER is the huge amount of empirical research we did to numbers to stick into the various dialog boxes at different parts of the process. If someone would rather
build their own sharpening routines, I've told them how to do so. All they need to do is figure out which numbers to use in a given situation.
All the PhotoKit products are available as fully-functional 7-day demos. Anyone who doesn't find them worth the money is encouraged not to buy them—we have no desire to be in the shelfware business.
We've all had the experience of stumbling upon this, that, or the other technique, getting very excited, then finding someone who says, "hey, I've been doing that for the past two years." We generally have the good grace to give credit where it's due.
Everyone who uses Photoshop owes Russell Brown a significant debt of gratitude. He's had far more influence over the evolution of Photoshop than he would ever claim, and unlike you he isn't an ill-informed wannabe with a bad attitude who attempts to use this forum for self-promotion... I suggest you get used to the fact that when you promote techniques, you'll get people saying, "yeah, Russell Brown showed us that one in 1998," because it'll happen.
Therein started a long running feud between Dr. Glenn E. Mitchell III and members of PixelGenius. I guess since Bruce called Mitch an "ill-informed wannabe with a bad attitude" Mitch has made it his life's work to somehow adversely impact PixelGenius by trying VERY HARD to copy what we do (while failing to match our results). The feud moved to the old Rob Gailbrath forums where Mitch was banned and occasionally shows up on DR Review. The dustups even occurred here at LL in the forums a few years ago when he wrote an article incorrectly attributing red channel clipping to Michael's approach to Expose to the Right.
If you want to be a fan of "Mitch" Mr. Janes, you go right ahead...but you really should know who you are backing. He's really not a very nice guy and his motives for "giving away" his stuff is to drive traffic to his site where he solicits PayPal donations...so it's actually a bit more accurate to call his stuff "Donation-ware", not free-ware.
I suppose some would accuse me of using "venom" when replying to people whose insinuations offend me (or otherwise get my ire), but ya gotta ask yourself if your champion of free stuff, the good Dr. Glenn E. Mitchell II is really worthy of your worship. Me? Not so much...And yes, Mitch has said that he was motivated to create his sharpening stuff because he was ill-treated by Bruce Fraser (if you can image that) and other members of PG such as Andrew Rodney and myself.
The only reason I bothered to post this entire message was to clarify-without a shadow of a doubt-both the reasons why PG members don't like "Mitch" and to point out that it was Bruce Fraser, the Buddhist, vegetarian, Scotsman who seemed to get under Mitch's skin. Bruce is now no longer with us to give his side of this long running saga...but I have total documentation of Mitch's behavior on the Adobe Forums, his disrespect for industry leaders such as Russell Brown and Bruce Fraser and his irrational loathing of PixelGenius. If you want copies of the PDFs I have, let me know and I can post them somewhere...I have the proof of "Mitch's" behavior...you seem to only hear what he says. So, ya wanna worship him? Go right ahead...you seem motivated to get into dustups with myself and Andrew...why? What's your motive? Don't like the way I've treated you? Grow a thicker skin...just do Bruce the honor of not mischaracterizing the reality of the situation. OK? Mitch ain't the "good guy" in this saga...