sRGB vs. Adobe RGB: New color management stand up comic

[digitaldog]

In other words, I think we here are unnecessarily "cruel" to Gary and his audience in respect of their choice to shoot jpeg/sRGB.

I'm surprised you'd write that considering I was under the assumption you've read what many of us have written.
I'm surprised you continue to appear to come to Gary's defence too.

Let me stress this again in as easy to decipher and simplistic English as I can:

I have no issue at all with Gary's choice or recommendation to shoot JPEG/sRGB.
I have an issue with the incorrect language and terminology he used to voice that message. Get it?

He told his audience items that are factually untrue. Many of his statements were flat out wrong. Will just did the same with language that YOU YOURSELF called out (Distance between pixels). That's simply incorrect.

As I wrote this morning on the new video comments area, IF someone produced a video on photography and stated that a 180mm lens has a longer focal lenght than a 200mm lens while recommending telephoto lens, that person would and should be called out by peer review concerning that mistake. What Gary and Will have stated about color management are equally egregious and wrong!

How can you side with this kind of misinformation, let alone say those who try to correct them are cruel is beyond understanding.  I and others gave Gary ample time to understand this, he got progressively sillier in his writings back. Yes, some comments got edgy but the facts are, and the paper trail will illustrate that Gary was treated initially with the resepct he's proven at this point he doesn't deserve.

If anyone is being cruel, it is Gary to his audience!

[Rand47]

I think an analogy is in order: would had it been "cruel" to advise beginners to shoot Kodachrome, and instead advise them to do color negatives, as they could always go back and redo those colors and pull out more dynamic range years later? I started my journey into photography with Kodachrome and never regretted that "cruel" choice. It was a tough love, but made me a better photographer.

In other words, I think we here are unnecessarily "cruel" to Gary and his audience in respect of their choice to shoot jpeg/sRGB. In respect of his explanation, however, I think that the criticism he rightly got should have been less cruel and condescending too.

+1

While it may not have made a difference, being kind usually provides a climate for understanding and learning, where ridicule usually raises defensive hackles.  I'm guilty of poking the bear myself, and not particularly pleased with myself because of it.

Perhaps what drives the ardency here is the commitment to excellence and the willingness to go to that Nth degree to achieve incremental increases in image quality as we all search for the ultimate image.  It is hard for us to embrace the "good enough" mentality in our art / work, and even harder to stand by and watch inaccurate info shared - even though it probably doesn't make a meaningful difference for Mr. Fong's legitimate target audience.

Rand

[smthopr]

I think an analogy is in order: would had it been "cruel" to advise beginners to shoot Kodachrome, and instead advise them to do color negatives, as they could always go back and redo those colors and pull out more dynamic range years later? I started my journey into photography with Kodachrome and never regretted that "cruel" choice.

If we were shooting 6 bit RAW, I would agree with this analogy

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

Andrew, I was responding to Eric's qualifaction

... Let me stress this again in as easy to decipher and simplistic English as I can:

I have no issue at all with Gary's choice or recommendation to shoot JPEG/sRGB.
I have an issue with the incorrect language and terminology he used to voice that message. Get it?...

Andrew,

You keep stressing "English" to people who obviously are not native speakers, but never mind. I think I managed to "get" your position, however limited my English might be.

I was directly quoting not you, but my friend Eric, and his description of jpeg/sRGB advice as "cruel." The rest of my post is a play on that phrase. You also quoted just the first part of what I was saying, thus omitting the following:

In respect of his explanation, however, I think that the criticism he rightly got...

[MarkM]

In other words, I think we here are unnecessarily "cruel" to Gary and his audience in respect of their choice to shoot jpeg/sRGB. In respect of his explanation, however, I think that the criticism he rightly got should have been less cruel and condescending too.

I'm generally pretty forgiving of mistakes — we all make them. But Gary really has this coming — his response to level headed (and correct) criticism is to attack the commenter, assert that they are one of the people that "know nothing", and reassert his expertise in color that somehow results from his history of manufacturing plastic. Go back and read his response to Alex Uriatin on this video: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Xn9u1ZFriFU Alex is 100% correct and friendly — Gary's response? "You have absolutely no idea what you are talking about." He is completely wrong in so many places and has not even come close to correcting the mistakes — he just asserts that the critics know nothing and tries to put a smoke screen or change the subject.

[digitaldog]

You keep stressing "English" to people who obviously are not native speakers, but never mind.

My apologies. I have no way and have been given no way to know what anyone's native language is. Over the years posting here, the language used has been English. It is the only language I know and to be honest, I'm jealous and always impressed with those who can speak more than one language.

I think I managed to "get" your position, however limited my English might be.

Excellent. Then I hope you agree that initially, up to about the 15th+ exchange with Gary here and initially on his video site, I attempted to be the opposite of cruel. Gary has proven to me he doesn't deserve any further respectful exchanges. Gary is the fellow who IMHO is cruel to his audience. Gary's message has merit, his methods of providing them are diluted in misinformation and misdirection.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Gary... reassert his expertise in color that somehow results from his history of manufacturing plastic...

See? That is exactly the type of comment that I was referring to as unnecessarily cruel (o.k., maybe just inaccurate, nasty, sarcastic and condescending). Gary's expertise (or "expertise," if you insist) comes from his history of running a successful print lab, not "manufacturing plastic." Besides, referring to his flash diffusers as "manufactured plastic" is equally nasty, sarcastic and condescending.

The fact that Mr. Fong resorted to undeniably wrong responses himself does not necessarily excuse our type of response. Two wrongs do not make one right.

[MarkM]

My point was that credentials, whether they be plastic manufacturing, running a lab, or being a photographer are all meaningless when he is so blatantly, and obviously wrong. We're no talking subtleties — just flat out misleading, wrong information based on a profoundly incorrect understanding of how basic color management works. Rather than trying to rectify the situation, he posts a sprawling resume as proof of his understanding and once again claims "…I intimately know color management". But it's not true and he is selling his ignorance to unsuspecting beginners. Add to this his method of defending his ideas: go on the attack, and it's hard to have any sympathy. In theory, Slobodan, you are right and I appreciate that you are taking the higher ground — but I don't have it in me in this case. There's just too many snake oil salesman in the photo industry these days all trying to make a buck of off photographers, both amateurs and professionals.

[digitaldog]

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G9JxXL_arbA

Took only 50 seconds to explain what Gary and Will should and could have done, all without misinformation, muffin tops, selecting display profiles and showing how to improperly handle the data to deliberately make it look poor to produce a negative outcome they desire.

The 2nd 50 odd seconds allows the viewer to decide if they want to learn more or just move on.

How friggin difficult is that Gray (and Will)?

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

And now something completely different:

[Eyeball]

The fact that Mr. Fong resorted to undeniably wrong responses himself does not necessarily excuse our type of response. Two wrongs do not make one right.

You have a good point, but considering the amount of condescension and name-calling that Gary has done and, more importantly, the blatant mis-quoting and mis-representation that he has done regarding what people here and on YouTube have wrote - I would say that the feedback has been remarkably restrained.  I would consider most of it "humorous", rather than "nasty".

Besides that, I think that Gary got what he wanted.  He had been down this road before, he knew the response he was going to get, and he wanted "views" and "page hits" to promote his premium training channel.  If there is one area where I don't doubt his expertise, it's in marketing and attracting his target prospects.

[Slobodan Blagojevic]

... Besides that, I think that Gary got what he wanted.  He had been down this road before, he knew the response he was going to get, and he wanted "views" and "page hits" to promote his premium training channel.  If there is one area where I don't doubt his expertise, it's in marketing and attracting his target prospects.

That did cross my mind, as a possible business model. Like politicians who consider opponents' attacks a badge of honor, earning them even more points with their constituents.

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be smarter for us not to provide the ammunition

[TonyW]

Is it my imagination or has the original Youtube comment section been edited to remove most comments that do not agree?  Perhaps edited in sRGB losing the nuances of AccurateRGB 

[digitaldog]

Is it my imagination or has the original Youtube comment section been edited to remove most comments that do not agree? 

I don't think so. I'm not sure that is possible unless Gary reports it as spam and the YouTube folks delete it. I believe most if not all my replies are still there. At one point Gray said:I found a way to silence you, and I can't find that. He can delete his own posts and if he's smart, he will (or did).

[digitaldog]

Come to think of it, wouldn't it be smarter for us not to provide the ammunition

No, because as his peers, if we can be so kind to him, our comments which will not change his mind might change the minds of others looking to see if he's telling the truth or not.
In the end there are only a couple possibilities. One possibility is people take whatever he says as gospel. No one can help them.
2nd would be people who do question what he's saying and see that others are questioning what he says, maybe study up and come over to the side of science and peer review.
That he has to defend his positions (and poorly) might also convince him to stay away from topics he doesn't understand. I've only viewed his two silly video's on color management. He might be a brilliant photographer and produce really good video's on lighting, don't know. I'm not about to dispute anything he has to teach other than color management at this point.

[supercurio]

I don't think so. I'm not sure that is possible unless Gary reports it as spam and the YouTube folks delete it. I believe most if not all my replies are still there. At one point Gray said:I found a way to silence you, and I can't find that. He can delete his own posts and if he's smart, he will (or did).

On YouTube, as publisher of a video or channel page moderator you can moderate any comment to your liking, meaning delete them or ban people, which is unfortunately often necessary when the subscriber base gets huge.

If your comment was also posted in public you'll still be able to see on your Google+ feed as a post however it won't appear anymore in the video comments.

[digitaldog]

If your comment was also posted in public you'll still be able to see on your Google+ feed as a post however it won't appear anymore in the video comments.

Ah cool, that's what I've been doing, thanks. So he hasn't and can't delete them but I do still see them on his video feed.

[digitaldog]

Just went to my YouTube and see one of Gary's silly posts:

You aren't a professional photographer.  What makes you a pro again?  Yes you do make mistakes all the time.  Also, you do sell something, which is books about color management.  I have nothing to gain financially in helping people understand why their AdobeRGB prints look dull on sRGB equipment.  But you do, and I have found out a lot about you today.  I cannot wait until I do my Skype video interviews for YouTube.

I see I could but will not delete it.
It can be reported as Spam too.

[TonyW]

Ah cool, that's what I've been doing, thanks. So he hasn't and can't delete them but I do still see them on his video feed.

Andrew, I am sure that early on in the comments you explained to Gary that you were trying to help and this elicited more response and felt sure that you also replied in depth.  These are the responses that I cannot see any longer using the link provided in post #1.

[digitaldog]

Andrew, I am sure that early on in the comments you explained to Gary that you were trying to help and this elicited more response and felt sure that you also replied in depth.  These are the responses that I cannot see any longer using the link provided in post #1.

Then he probably did delete them. So not only is he wrong about the subject, he's inflecting censorship. The guy is a class act!