In a neutral sense: I think you will have to decide if you want to contribute here again on a regular basis.
If I do understand you, I'm not about to let Jeff drive me off. Nor do I intend to let his presence moderate my comments.
I believe I was a contributor here before Jeff Schewe. I intend to continue to contribute here and even submit articles for Michael Reichmann to consider.
I don't intend to pick fights with Jeff. I replied on this thread because Jeff made a scurrilous personal attack. I wanted anyone who reads this forum to know that I do acknowledge previous authors in my Photoshop articles, tutorials, and videos.
If Jeff would stop the personal attacks, I'd give him no thought at all. He attacked me here when I had not even visited this site in several months. Jeff erupts like this somewhere every few months -- and like this with no precipitating message from me.
The interesting point is Jeff's chutzpah and hypocrisy on the very point for which he scolds me. Let me give you a couple of links from his own site:
Was Jeff the first to propose using the Channel Mixer for B&W conversion? It would appear so. Jeff is certainly silent about anyone else having the idea.
Or, how about using the Luminosity information from L*a*b? Clearly not. Even Jeff says, "As some have recommended, the Lightness channel of a Lab mode image can have useful infromation for grayscale use." Who says that?! Jeff doesn't tell readers. Why not? If we're going to use the norms of scholarship, no peer-review process would allow that anonymous gesture. If we can agree that behavior is motivated, why would Jeff not mention names instead of saying "As some have recommended . . ."?
Likewise, was Jeff Schewe or Bruce Fraser the first to use or recommend an edge mask for USM sharpening? I can remember discussions and even tools like the actions from Fred Miranda that predated Bruce Fraser's articles for the creativepro.com site. Jeff makes no mention of the intellectual history for edge mask sharpening. If we apply Jeff's logic, that leaves the impression that he and Bruce were the first to write about the technique.
Or how about the occasional reference to anonymous engineers at Adobe that Jeff makes in his writings. If we're going to give due credit, why not mention the names of the engineers? One can argue that intellectual honesty requires those details. The citation rules for scholarship certainly do.
Now, I'm not arguing that the norms for citing other works is the same for trade publications as it is for scholarship. Or even that they should be the same. It is the comments of Jeff Schewe that I have been deficient in that regard. So I do believe it is fair to apply those same standards to Jeff's authorship and the published work of other Photoshop authors.
Even the umbrage that Jeff expresses over my forum comments is another example of hypocrisy. Just look at his comments yesterday on this forum about Dan Margulis, LCE, and HiRaLoAm sharpening. He certainly could have been more tactful in his comments. I don't quarrel about Jeff's interpretation that Dan Margulis was not the first to describe the technique and HiRaLoAm is not a great name. But, was it necessary to call is silly and stupid? Jeff frequently uses inflammatory language like that *AND* then has the gall to initiate a five year harrassment campaign against me because he didn't like my comments about Russell Preston Brown's campy presentation style!?
I have no control over Jeff's periodic eruptions on this or other forums. I can promise you that I have no intention of initiating such personal attacks. I will be sure, however, that forum readers do understand that I have been willing to acknowledge the ideas of others in my Photoshop articles, tutorials, and videos. Even those of Jeff Schewe! LOL.
You can now expect Jeff to point you to the archived comments from years ago. They were not and are not relevant to this thread, but Jeff I expect that will be aching to justify his personal attack that generated this controvery.
This is all regrettable. Jeff's personal attack had no place here. He has good ideas. We'd all be better off if he stuck to positive contributions.
(Oh, that's right. No worry. I'm irrelevant and on his ignore list. LOL.)
I've said enough on this point. I do have projects where time is better spent. But do expect my voice on this forum -- occasionally sometimes, because I really do have a lot of ongoing projects.