Another favorite technique for converting from color to B&W uses a pair of hue/saturation adjustment layers.
The first adjustment layer, I rename to "Contrast Adjustment Layer" and it is a Hue/Saturation Adjustment Layer with a "Color" blend mode.
The second adjustment layer is placed on top of the first, which I rename to "Desaturation Layer," and the Saturation setting for the Master channel is set to -100.
You can then adjust the contrast in the image by making adjustments to the Hue and Saturation settings in the first adjustment layer (the "Contrast Adjustment Layer").
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. 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.
Russell first demo’ed his technique 2 1/2 years ago at SeyBold SF. Pretty sure HE got it from working with one of the Photoshop engineers who helped him develop it. Perhaps _YOU_ should be more aware of previous art out there before announcing _YOUR_ technique and promoting _YOUR_ web site.
I know exactly who he is. Your point? One should not feel free to suggest that he did not originate a technique because this is an Adobe site? I disagree.
I believe I have good reason to be peeved. The gist of the comment is to claim I stole an idea from Russell Brown. This is flatly false!
John:
I have no idea how long the technique has been around. Two years does not make him the originator.
Try to follow this logic . . . Is it possible that Russell Brown learned about the technique by reading a Web log, seeing a message in a discussion forum somewhere, or having an attendee at a conference suggest it? Yes! Hence, you do not know that he was the first person in human history to have the idea of using a pair of Hue/Saturation layers for B&W conversion.
The question of who the originator is for a computer technique is so silly! As I said, I have seen no one except friends of Russell Brown (?!) make such a claim. And they do not hold their icon to the same standard. π
At least my description of the technique is not a$$ backwards (too much time on the comedy schtick, not enough on valid analogies), a line of argument you did not address. It also acknowledges that the lower layer (the Contrast Adjustment Layer) could be a Curves or Levels layer rather than a Hue/Saturation layer.
Yes. I ask for *DONATIONS*. So, what? No donation is expected nor required.
I do not get paid by Adobe as a technical evangelist a la Russell Brown. That’s his job, as the "Who IS" section of his site makes clear.
I do not charge for my PS actions, tutorials, and other resources like Fred Miranda. Would that make you feel better?
I do not use banner ads like DPReview.com. Maybe you like those? Heck, DPReview uses banner ads and asks for donations.
I provide a Web site that offers a lot of resources and receives more than a half million hits a month and generates a couple GB of traffic. If people choose to donate in order to help pay for the site, how does that diminish my efforts?
I am grateful that some people choose to donate. It indicates they value my efforts and they express their gratitude in a way that makes resources freely available to others.
"The gist of the comment is to claim I stole an idea from Russell Brown. This is flatly false!"
NOOOOooo, the gist of the claim (as I interpreted it) was that there already was a similar technique out there, if someone was familiar with it – check it out.
Who knows, yours may be better.
Then the page long rants started flowing. Dont get offended so easily.
Sure fire way to get ahead in this industry is to start burning bridges….NOT.
Perhaps you should be a little more fair and reasonable, Jeff.
I have not labeled any technique as "The Patented Glenn Mitchell" technique or claimed that my name should be associated with any technique whatsoever. I have not claimed to be the originator of any single technique! I think it’s a silly claim! π
Why do I need to do a Web search and see who else might have come up with the same technique *INDEPENDENTLY*?
I believe my tutorial is superior to Russell Brown’s. At least I know that film does not sit on top of filters. π But the fact that people have his tutorial and mine, his video, my learning gallery, and my action set from whnich to choose is a good thing. They can choose which resources help them the most. π
And why are you so preoccupied with this one technique and this one person?
Do you criticize Scott Kelby or Dave Cross or Jack Davis or Jim Divitale or any of several others when they publish a tutorial or article on a technique that others have also previously described? Why not?
Even your own logic indicates *RUSSELL BROWN* was not the originator. It indicates only that he had the idea 2 1/2 years ago. Him and a team of Adobe technical engineers. Do you know that no one else had it earlier? Your evidence, please?
Boy, I must be brilliant then! I discovered the technique independently without a team of engineers. ROFLMAO.
Why are you giving Russell Brown sole credit as originator, BTW? You just said he developed it together with a team of engineers. So, if you are so concerned that credit be fairly atttributed, should it not be Russell Brown et al. (or, in his corny way, Russell Brown and a team of extras). Why do you not credit the engineers you work with.
Did you credit the originators of using the LAB "L" channel for B&W conversion or the PS Channel Mixer for B&W conversion in the workshop tutorial on your site? Maybe you should take your own advice?! π
As to MY Web site, that’s a plain simple fact. It is my site. Your point?
IMHO, the people advancing that claim are hypocrits.
They only advance it for this technique and for Russell Brown.
Jeff Schewe, for example, does not hold himself to the same standard he imposes on me. Russell Brown himself does not hold himself to the same standard his fan club is so loudly demanding.
Why must I look around and see if someone else has ever discussed, published, or used a technique that I discovered with my own work with PS?
I have never seen this comment EXCEPT for Russell Brown and this one technique.
And the gist was that the technique was lifted from Russell Brown. This person has been posting this same message in other forums around the Web. Hence, it’s a troll, IMHO.
Notice, it claims Russell Brown is the originator. That’s very different from saying that Russell Brown also describes the same technique.
As to looking to advance oneself in the industry, that’s something you may value. It’s not my motivation. Not even remotely.
I noticed today that I posted this message in the PC discussion groups weeks ago and overlooked the Mac group. So I thought some people would gfind it helpful. instead, I ran into a bunch of uungrateful people.
I make my resources available freely, not to advantage myself, but instead as a form of charity. As Maya Angelou said during her Nobel Prize acceptance, "If you learn, teach. If you receive, give." I have learned a lot from others who have been free with their time and talents, so I was repaying "in kind".
No. You are the first to say, ‘yeah we already knew about that one’.
If that *WAS* the gist, it was a silly thing to say. So what if *YOU* and others knew about it? Do you suppose, there might be some people who happen up this forum and who have not heard of this technique?
The hypocrisy is telling me that I need to do an exhaustive search of the Web in order to make certain no other human being in history had the same idea previously and discussed it and yet those people who post the comment do not behave that way. Nor does the beneficiary of the comment — Russell Brown. So, they are doubly hypocritical, IMHO. They do not walk their own talk and they criticize me for a failing they fail to criticize in others.
If the comment had been something like "Russell Brown also has a free tutorial and Quicktime video on the same technique, I would have take no offence at all. π I have no problem with Russell Brown getting praise for his tutorials, etc. He is trying to help people, and that is praiseworthy.
A pity there’s no much of a charitable attude in this forum.
Today was my first venture here. And my last. I don’t own a Mac. No good deed goes unpunished — at least when you try to help Mac ungracious users, it seems.
First off, you might wish to get off YOUR high horse and walk on ground. YOU come into an Adobe User to User forum, post a technique to promote YOUR OWN web site and have the unmitigated gaul to be offended when it’s pointed out that Russell Brown, an Adobe employee for many years, has previously published a similar technique. Then you go on a rant and vent rampage-which does nothing for YOUR credibility-over the originality of the technique. As to how, when or what regarding Russell’s technique, I know about it because after developing it, he sent it to me for comment and I was on stage with he and Greg Gorman when Russell presented it at SeyBold-over 2.5 years ago. And yes, I "think" the engineer may have been Chris Cox, but I’m not sure. I know Russell was trying to come up with something that would demo well and be easier than Channel Mixer-which Chris Cox developed.
As to my jumping on other people who have techniques that may or may not be "borrowed" or "inspired" by others, to my knowledge, none of the individuals have come into this forum claiming authorship and trying to promote their own web site. If they do, I suspect the results will be the same.
You really screwed the pooch bud. . .rather than doing yourself any good, you’ve pretty much exposed your attitude problems and given any of the readers of this thread a prime example of behavior unbecoming this community. Your best bet at this stage is to fade away and come back with some manners.
What does it matter that this is an Adobe site or Russell Brown is an Adobe employee?
This is a site for helping Adobe PS users, not protecting the claim that Russell Brown is the originator or a technique.
Do you credit Russell Brown with originating the technique of using a Lighten layer and a Darken layer for sharpening? No you do not. Yet, there he was before you and your colleagues at Pixel Genius started selling PS automation objects for the technique and authoring tutorials on sharpening that use the technique. Hmm….. Sounds like Russell Brown is the originator of that technique, too, by your logic. Why do you deny him such credit.
You took a simple technique, encapsulated it into a set of automation objects, just to charge $95 for something I will gladly give away. (Just wait until you see the PS action set for sharpening that’s coming out in a few days — everything your automation can do and for free!)
None of what you say, BTW, proves Russell originated the technique whatsoever!
How do you know someone else in the world had the idea first? Maybe they even discussed it in a place that you do not read.
To be "the" originator, he had to be the very first person *AND* nothing you have said conclusively demonstrates he was the first. I accept that he discussed it with you two years ago. So what?! How do you know that someone else did not discuss it with him before, let alone had the idea itself before him?! You don’t!
All I have heard from you is defense of a friend!
I have not claimed authorship of any technique. That is an absolutely unfair characterization. Let’s get this clear. I leave claims of originator to you and Russell Brown. I claim authorship of tutorials, not origination of techniques.
As to mentioning my site, how else will readers of this forum get to the tutorials? I am not aware that visitors can post PDF files here.
You claim I rant . . . OK, at least I can still follow a simple line of logic. I invite you to try and respond with reason and think through the illogic of your statements. Again, you’re being hypocritical, IMHO. I think it is fair to characterize both of your replies as ranting.
Speaking of gaul . . . At least I give away all of my Photoshop knowledge. I don’t try to sell it for $95 a throw, like you (and your friends at Pixel Genius).
The value proposition of SHARPENER is the huge amount of empirical research we did to determine what 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 themΒwe 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.
Wannabee, Bruce? It must be flattering to think everyone wants to be part of your clique, but it’s not even remotely true.
Your message does not even remotely contribute to the subject of this thread, which was about a specific technique. It devolved into who originated the technique. So far, everyone has managed at least a passing reference to topic of the thread — except you.
All you did was attack me, wave your credentials, and defend a friend. Thse comments ocontributed to the discussion about using a pair of Hue/Saturation layers for B&W conversion in what way? Or, even the argument that Russell Brown was the originator of the idea? I guess I missed where *ANY* of your comments was on topic.
You should have noticed I stated that I would not have taken exception if someone said, "yeah, Russell Brown showed us that one in 1998." Claiming Russell Brown was the originator of a technique is not saying the same thing at all. Not even close.
Do you have a comment about the technique? A suggestion, critique, etc.? Do you have *CONCLUSIVE* evidence that Russell Brown was the originator of the technique?
I responded to your factually incorrect post #18 in this thread, which didn’t seem to have anything to do with BW conversions, but did contain personal attacks on the people who founded PixelGenius LLC, factually incorrect depictions of how PhotoKit SHARPENER operates, and a fairly laughable mischaracterization of the business practices of PixelGenius LLC.
The technique is mildly useful, but not nearly as useful as the ones that actually let you control the panchromatic response of the grayscale conversion. I don’t believe that anyone, including Russell, has claimed to be the originator of the technique. A lot of people have pointed out that they first learned it from him. You interpreted that as some kind of accusation. Hence I pointed out that spamming the forum with ads from your web site without first doing minimal due diligence to see how many other people have already discovered the techniques embodied therein is a real good way to make yourself appear an idiot.
But you obviously didn’t come here to learn anything…
I too was factually inaccurate about how Photokit Sharpener works per se. I am genuinely sorry about that inaccuracy. You use a combination of Blend If and edge sharpening. Still, the idea of differentially sharpening light and dark pixels to avoid halos (and not stopping up shadows or burning out highlights) is there and *IS* an idea one could attribute to Russell Brown. Yet, no attribution. Why? Because you saw no reason to make one. Why not afford me the same courtesy?
Spamming has specific meaning, and it is not applicable to my case whatsoever. I posted a technique about B&W conversion with PS in a forum that is devoted to PS and included my URL for the Web site. Even in Scotland, that does not approach the definition of spamming. I did not simply advertise the site. I did not post a message about the tutorial in a wholly unrelated forum. You’re pi$$ed. OK. That’s no reason to falsely claim spamming.
Just because you do not like the direction of a thread, does not make it spam. π
You are also factually inaccurate about my making personal attacks on the people who formed Pixel Genius. In fact, I mentioned no one by name, except Jeff Schewe, who was whom I was addressing. π
It is fair to criticize your partnership for making your actions into automation objects. Yes, you can have dialogs. But you have at leastthe appearance of other motivations which you do not address. You also get to enforce a timelock for demos and you can add copy protection.
The point is you charge an awful lot for a PS action set rolled into an automation object, IMHO. (I was wrong about $95, too. Sorry. You charge $99.50). I charge nothing for trying to help people with my tutorials and PS resources. In fact, it costs me money. That’s a fair and reasonable distinction to make, IMHO.
As to wanting to learn, that’s not fair at all. It’s just a mean comment. I have found you to be knowledgable, and although I do not use Photokit Sharpener, I do use a three-pass sharpening workflow, and that is a result of reading your comments on creativepro.com and being persuaded by your logic. I have no problem crediting you with that addition to my workflow. You might not be the originator (i know not and care less) of the idea, but you were the source for me.
We ought to be able to disagree without claiming others are ineducable wannabe spammers. π
I still couldn`t understand why need color adjustment before converting B&W ,and at your tutorial,You select Image/Mode/Greyscale,you don`t use Image/Adjustments/desaturate. I mean,I don`t see any difference between Image/Mode/Greyscale and Image/Adjustments/desaturate.I think that these two step should putting to fast step so why need color adjustment before Image/Mode/Greyscale…
Im try to create converting B&W with my photo now,then i wrote 2 steps as follows:
1Image/Adjustments/desaturate. 2create new layer,then use "Overlay". thats it.
I do not use Image | Mode | Grayscale. Nor do I recommend it. Same with desaturation alone. Both will give you an OK conversion to B&W, but you can do better.
I have two tutorials on B&W conversion. So I am not sure which you read.
One demonstrates how to use Split Channels to control localized contrast. I do compare the result with using Image | Mode | Grayscale and with Channel Mixer.
The other demonstrates how to use a pair of Hue/Saturation layers to control localized contrast. I do compare the result with using Image | Mode | Grayscale, but it is not used with the technique itself.
You could use a Curves adjustment layer in lieu of the lower Hue/Saturation adjustment layer (which I call the Contrast Adjustment layer), for example. The lower Hue/Saturation layer is just used to control localized contrast in the resulting B&W image.
If you are an experienced B&W photographer who thinks in terms of photographic filters, you might prefer a Curves adjustment layer.
Another possibility that I like is to use a Selective Color adjustment layer in lieu of the lower Hue/Saturation adjustment layer. A Selective Color adjustment layer gives you control over whites, neutrals, and blacks in addition to the same six colors as a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer.
I find that a Hue/Saturation adjustment layer gives me sufficient control for most images and is quicker to use. But the great thing about PS is that it offers choices for different workflow preferences.
Instead of the upper Hue/Saturation layer, you could use View | Proof Setup | Custom and select then select a grayscale soft proof environment. I find this less convenient than using a desaturation layer for editing and premature, because the proof setup is temporary and I’m still making adjustments. However, I certainly do soft proof prior to printing.
The gist of my first post was just to say that this technique is known (thank you any way) and that most here more than likely have seen it on Russells site. It has been there for some time and to the best of my knowledge a lot of these techniques originate from Russell and as Jeff pointed out, probably in tandem with working closely with Adobe engineers to develop such great techniques.
In not so may words (my first post) that was the gist. You may want to see some of the PDF’s that Jeff Schewe, or books that Bruce Fraser or Katrin Eiseman have publised, so that any of your future tutorials (which I’m ceratin many will see first and think of you as originator and also appreciate), will not repeat what most here have studied/used.
none the less I’m sure you will continue and supply some well worth tutorials.
Learn how to optimize Photoshop for maximum speed, troubleshoot common issues, and keep your projects organized so that you can work faster than ever before!
Related Discussion Topics
Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections
