The apology was also apparently prompted by a phone call from Adobe. More significantly, how about the 1,000 other posters here who have been involved with Mr. Schewe in very similar "dustups" (a euphemism for exceptionally rude and condescending behavior). It's all so unnecessary for discussions about digital imaging and cameras to drop to that level of discourse.
Making such an assumption doesn’t wash with me. I’ve gotten no such calls. Yet. I think attacking Jeff for his apology is only adding flame to the fire and serves no purpose.
Let me put this into perspective (until I get this so called phone call and get my hand slapped or not).
It all started with these two threads:
QUOTE (jerryrock @ Mar 26 2010, 11:16 PM)
Today I can officially announce that I have been a beta tester for Photoshop CS5. I can not discuss the features of the program, so please do not ask. I can post images made with CS5.ANDREW RODNEY:
Really? What makes you think your NDA is now up?As mentioned, I had no idea that Adobe had a special group of testers given permission to talk about the product. Historically I’ve been told (by many companies) more than once to keep a tight lip on any mention outside restricted areas to discuss anything about unreleased product(s) including any possible involvement in unreleased products (now that sentence might get me a call from Adobe or other companies). Its a message told often and over the years. So in this respect, Jeff is correct in placing some blame on Adobe. I jumped on the initial post above and things got ugly.
I apologizes for that. However, (and before you go off and dismiss the however...), the work shown was of initially poor quality and at least two other readers pointed this out on differing forums. The posting of two images, with or without adequate skills, submitted to multiple on-line forums, before the special status of these beta sites raised a red flag and questionable decisions by several parties. Worse, and what got me going, was a the conversation on a site where Jerry is a “super moderator” where he just deleted (censored) posts I made because he just didn’t like the message, not because any forum rules were broken (I can back this up after a private email with the owner of the site who wrote):
Hi Andrew,
Your post looks fine to me. However, I don't see any need to call the mod "silly." I was not informed that your post was edited.
Feel free to re-post. I'll back it up, if it gets deleted again.
I didn’t re-post because it seemed pointless and told the site owner I appreciated that he agreed that undue censorship was applied and Jerry overstepped his bounds in censoring posts that don’t break forum rules. So did I go overboard initially in claiming an NDA was broken prior to getting the facts from Adobe?
Yes. Do I regret that the messenger did a poor job of illustrating the new features that can’t be discussed? Well I did not post anything critiquing the work done but others did. Do I regret that I believe the main reason of the various posts on different forums by Jerry was to essentially tell others he had a beta? Yup, based on the quality of the work shown and his own comments when posting images to another site:
Comment:
Sorry, but the image of Garth looks a little overdone. Perhaps back off a little on the contrast? And maybe a little anti-noise touch-up? At least, that's what I see on my monitor.Jerry:
It probably wasn't the best image to choose because of everything that was wrong with the original, but it was a challenge. The main purpose was to compare before and after.My comments for Jerry were basically, you’re more interested in telling any and all in the various forums you’ve got a beta. I think that’s accurate especially when he replied on the NAPP forums:
Please let we beta testers enjoy our moment.
I apologize I didn’t let Jerry bask in his moment. The idea that some users of questionable skills and time to learn a beta should show before and after examples with no means to say anything about the process is an Adobe decision. The idea that one person would post in at least 3 other forums the same images of questionable processing quality in the course of a day, make me feel this person is more interested in tooting his own horn than aiding Adobe. Nothing has changed that opinion. But its only one opinion and we know the old saying about opinions.
That I questioned his status to talk about the product initially does deserve an apology based on the facts I now know about the special NDAs for a group or users.
For that I again apologize for jumping on Jerry. Otherwise, the quality of the work, and the over usage of censorship doesn’t. FWIW, there were far better quality before and after examples in the NAPP forum that followed Jerry‘s, obviously from people who I believe wanted to present quality examples rather than post for the sake of posting. And as far as I’m aware, Ive seen none outside the member only NAPP forums.
