Luminous Landscape Forum
Raw & Post Processing, Printing => Digital Image Processing => Topic started by: Schewe on March 29, 2010, 10:41:08 pm
-
I wanted to post a note regarding the recent dustup about the Photoshop CS5 "Prerelease Testers" and Jerry Skrocki's posts regarding being encouraged by Adobe to post...so, to Jerry, I'm sorry you got the brunt of the criticisms that should have been directed at Adobe for mishandling the "Prerelease Testers" that were added as a result of a joint effort of NAPP and Adobe.
Adobe and NAPP had recently announced a program to get NAPP members signed on as prerelease testers for some specific testing procedures...part of the communications to those prerelease testers was the ability to announce themselves as prerelease testers and the ability to post images done with a beta version of Photoshop CS5 but pretty severe restrictions regarding the discussion of how those images were made (and what features of CS5 were used).
There are a group of long term beta testers (myself included, yeah, ok that's an NDA violation–sue me) who have lived under NDA embargoes that not only preclude saying we are even "beta testers" but obviously posting image in public forums stating that a beta version was used to create the image is/was verboten. To be accurate, actual long term beta testers were shocked and rather dubious that Adobe would actually do something like this–allow or even encourage people to disclose their involvement in the program (ANY program).
By the time the shyte hit the fan, the damage was already done...over the weekend a bunch of emails flew around an the bottom line was that Adobe had essentially failed to communicate with the "real" beta testers that this program was going on. So the net result is people who have successfully kept their mouths shut over a long period of time were taken aback by this turn of events and kinda reacted less than optimal.
Later Sunday (and today) explicit announcements were made to the beta testers about the NAPP program and told that as beta testers they (we) are indeed still under NDA until April 12th. Jerry and the other NAPP "prerelease testers" got the brunt of the blow back even though they were just following instructions...
So to Jerry in particular, my apologies for the tone and tenor of my posts...the fault was entirely Adobe's for failing to communicate to the beta testers what was going on...
(not that Adobe needs "our" permission to do what they did, but if they expected–and they do–the NDA beta testers to keep their mouths shut it would have been useful to clue us in on what was going on).
-
Very nice to see such a gentlemanly apology for the recent dust ups, which did seem a little unwarranted, particularly if a little research was done.
Not many people have enough spine to do this. Good for you Jeff.
All the beta testers can now do what Jerry has done, with the same caveats.
-
Very nice to see such a gentlemanly apology for the recent dust ups...
And appreciated!
Mike. (who is not nor is likely ever to be a Beta tester)
-
Mike. (who is not nor is likely ever to be a Beta tester)
Considering the amount of un-finished products released everyday I guess that we are all beta-testing something...
Cheers,
Bernard
-
Considering the amount of un-finished products released everyday I guess that we are all beta-testing something...
Cheers,
Bernard
Amen to that.
-
So to Jerry in particular, my apologies for the tone and tenor of my posts...the fault was entirely Adobe's for failing to communicate to the beta testers what was going on...
An apology that is really not an apology--it's all Adobe's fault. Schewe's obnoxious personality had nothing to do with it.
-
I don't think Jeff should be scorned for his apology. It is commendable that he took the opportunity on this public forum to express his regrets regarding his comments towards Jerry on the NAPP/CS5 BETA issue.
-
I do appreciate Jeff taking the time to formulate an apology. After receiving such an angry public bashing from supposed "professionals" in the field about my public participation as a Photoshop CS5 Beta tester, I voiced my concerns to Adobe Product Management who assured me they would contact both Jeff Schewe and Andrew Rodney about the negative comments.
-
......bashing from supposed "professionals".......
Sounds like an acceptance to me......
-
Come on, folks. Jeff and Jerry are working things out, and a couple of other folks are quoting inflammatory portions of their statements, as if trying to start another fight.
When last I checked, none of us were perfect. Jeff has made a public apology and Jerry has expressed his appreciation. Let's not go out of our way to find differences, shall we?
I, for one, am delighted to see civil exchanges such as this as part of our community. Jeff and Jerry deserve our support in this, not incendiary commentary.
My $0.02.
-
An apology that is really not an apology--it's all Adobe's fault. Schewe's obnoxious personality had nothing to do with it.
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.
-
I just want to know why he goes all British-gentlemanly-like when he's writing an apology.
-
I am shocked -- shocked -- to learn that Schewe is a beta tester.
-
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.
-
The apology was also apparently prompted by a phone call from Adobe.
No...it wasn't.
The phone call was an attempt by Adobe to un-ruffle some feathers and explain what was going on. Those of us who are under NDA take it seriously (although we sometimes hint around the corners). There was a lot of confusion over the weekend and some frustration by not knowing what was going on. That's what the phone call was about. Nobody asked me to make any sort of public apology to Jerry or the other prerelease testers, that was something I decided to do because I felt bad for Jerry. End of story...
-
Let me put this into perspective (until I get this so called phone call and get my hand slapped or not)....
...and the bashing continues.
Andrew,
Your post was removed from the "other forum" because your response was off topic, served no purpose other than as a subversive personal attack, as is your response in this thread. There has already been one Luminous Landscape thread locked as a result of your constant berating of others. You have succeeded in alienating many people who have responded to me personally questioning your behavior which certainly is not representative of what one would expect from a "professional".
The images I posted are indicative of the capabilities of Adobe Photoshop CS5, they received many positive responses in all three forums.
-
Your post was removed from the "other forum" because your response was off topic, served no purpose other than as a subversive personal attack, as is your response in this thread. There has already been one Luminous Landscape thread locked as a result of your constant berating of others. You have succeeded in alienating many people who have responded to me personally questioning your behavior which certainly is not representative of what one would expect from a "professional".
At least the owner of the site and I don’t agree. As for the other readers, lets ask them (wait, you deleted the posts). So that isn’t censorship? Not when you are doing the censoring apparently. FWIW, there’s a big, big difference between locking a post and deleting specific posts that as a moderator, you personally don’t like to see. As for my success or ability to alienate many people, I’m sure they are pleased you are their mouthpiece. Not that the comment wasn’t a personal attack that you are unable to censor at this site. You’d be best to speak for yourself and refrain random acts of censorship, it would go father in making your points. And maybe working on your images a bit more before posting.
-
...
Hat off to you Sir for the apology.
-
... the work shown was of initially poor quality...
I see no problem that the work shown was of "poor" quality or not up to guru standards. Photoshop has been used by "all walks of life", from total beginners to masters of the universe. And I will not go here judging where Jerry's work is on that scale, as it is irrelevant for the point I am making: ANY skill level examples are welcome (for us, average users) as they show what an average user can achieve with CS5, even with limited skills. The same concept is often used in modern advertising: common people starring in commercials, rather than professional actors, as it is believed public would find it easier to identify with them.
-
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.
It was not my intention to "attack" Mr. Schewe "for" his apology. The apology was appropriate under the circumstances(though it was diluted by blaming Adobe). However, I do think it is fair and appropriate to put the apology in the context of the multitude of posts by Mr. Schewe over the years that drip with sarcasm, vitriol and condescension where no apologies were made. Mr. Schewe is a very talented guy who shares information freely, which is great, but please....calm down. We don't need for this forum to sound like a Flickr critique where everything is wonderful, but the essential points of disagreement can be made without the sarcasm.
-
It was not my intention to "attack" Mr. Schewe "for" his apology. The apology was appropriate under the circumstances(though it was diluted by blaming Adobe).
Fair enough.
-
I see no problem that the work shown was of "poor" quality or not up to guru standards. Photoshop has been used by "all walks of life", from total beginners to masters of the universe. And I will not go here judging where Jerry's work is on that scale, as it is irrelevant for the point I am making: ANY skill level examples are welcome (for us, average users) as they show what an average user can achieve with CS5, even with limited skills. The same concept is often used in modern advertising: common people starring in commercials, rather than professional actors, as it is believed public would find it easier to identify with them.
I'm not a PS beta tester, so I don't have much knowledge of content aware fill or how Jerry accomplished the edit is his post, but I think the point of the post was not to show his skill in Photoshop, but rather how the edit could be done with the new tool by those lacking skill or not wanting to take the time to do the edit manually. As such, the "lack of skill" criticism misses the point.
Bill
-
<snip>.....
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.
This is so not an apology, but simply furthering the attacking and belittling.
And being a beta tester has nothing to do with one's artistic ability either. It's to do with giving valuable and constructive feedback on a product in development, as well as being good at bug reporting and analysis of the issues that will invariably arise as a result of the software being a work in progress.
Besides most of the books showing people how to use software are usually written by people who are not very talented at using the software in question. Photoshop books for example are usually full of substandard photography and lame graphic designs.
Martin Evening being a rare exception and Jeff Schewe was also a successful commercial photographer before moving towards software/writing.
-
And being a beta tester has nothing to do with one's artistic ability either. It's to do with giving valuable and constructive feedback on a product in development, as well as being good at bug reporting and analysis of the issues that will invariably arise as a result of the software being a work in progress.
Martin Evening being a rare exception and Jeff Schewe was also a successful commercial photographer before moving towards software/writing.
I agree on both points.
-
books for example are usually full of substandard photography and lame graphic designs.
Martin Evening being a rare exception and Jeff Schewe was also a successful commercial photographer before moving towards software/writing.
Martin Evening's book on Lightroom is top class. And there are some pretty nifty still-life photos by Jeff in there too. I tend to take notice of people who can cut the mustard, abrasive style notwithstanding.
John
-
I do not write to chastise Mr. Schewe; I want to commend Mr. Schewe for his apology to Jerry. The tone of the apology is so much more appropriate than is usual in Mr. Schewe's posts. Like some others, I thought that putting some of the blame on problems at Adobe diluted the apology to Jerry (and to the other readers of this forum.) We are all responsible for how we say things; who among us does not wish he/she had been more careful? We all have a responsibility to act in a collegial and constructive fashion, even when we are making a point about something that lies squarely in our expertise. I think that it is even more incumbent upon Mr. Schewe to behave responsibly, since he has a commercial relationship with the owner of LuLa.
Finally, I just want to say, again, that it was really a very nice gesture and I appreciate it.
-
I never post to these type of discussions, but feel that after reading this discussion I must.
I really believe that as a public figure who publishes alot of good information, Mr Schewe might want to consider his abrasive posture. I am sure he is a nice guy, but to the casual reader his comments come off as arrogant and borish. As a result, I very regularly find myself backing our of a discussion after reading my Schewe's short and arrogant comments.
I read his aplogy and really must agree that it is not an apology when it has justification and throws the blame elsewhere. A sincere apology is just that, sincereity for ones actions unconditionally expressed. Otherwise, it is an excuse.
Just my two cents as I am just saying.
-
C'mon, give Jeff a break. The way he freely shares his vast experience here on LL in my mind makes up multiple times for his sometimes harsh style and now perceived feeble appology.
I just smile when I read some of his posts, I think he means well and might bark a bit, but for sure he doesn't bite.
-
C'mon, give Jeff a break. The way he freely shares his vast experience here on LL in my mind makes up multiple times for his sometimes harsh style and now perceived feeble appology.
I just smile when I read some of his posts, I think he means well and might bark a bit, but for sure he doesn't bite.
I totally agree.
Several posts in this thread sound as if they are trying to out-harsh Jeff. It seems to me as if Adobe should be the one apologizing to its beta testers for some bad communication. Jeff was quite right, in my opinion, to accept his own part of the blame while pointing out that Adobe had been playing by two sets of rules for two sets of beta testers without letting either group know of the others' rules.
Eric