Updated B&W Conversion Resources

GM
Posted By
Glenn_Mitchell
May 6, 2004
Views
1817
Replies
35
Status
Closed
I just updated my "TLR B&W Conversion" action set to version 1.0b. The new version adds two new actions. Now you can make high contrast B&W conversions using a pair of Hue/Saturation layers, paired Selective color and Hue/Saturation layers, or paired Curves and Hue/Saturation layers.

I think most photographers will prefer the action using paired Selective Color and Hue/Saturation layers or or paired Curves and Hue/Saturation layers. While you can achieve similar results with any of the three techniques, adjusting selected colors by adjusting their CMYK values is more analogous to how filters work. If you are a B&W film photographer who moved to digital, you might like the paired Curves layer and Hue/Saturation layer.

In addition to the updated action set, I updated my tutorial and my learning gallery to get you started with the technique.

The action set:
< http://www.thelightsright.com/DigitalDarkroom/PhotoshopTools /TLR%20B&W%20Conversion.zip>

The tutorial:
< http://www.thelightsright.com/DigitalDarkroom/Tutorials/Conv erting%20from%20Color%20to%20Black%20&%20White.pdf>

The learning gallery:
< http://www.thelightsright.com/DigitalDarkroom/LearningGaller ies/B&WFineArt/B&WFineArt.htm>

Cheers,

Mitch

How to Master Sharpening in Photoshop

Give your photos a professional finish with sharpening in Photoshop. Learn to enhance details, create contrast, and prepare your images for print, web, and social media.

JS
Jeff_Schewe
May 6, 2004
You know. . .if you actually SPENT any time in the forums and became a member, your pitches would sound less like spam to drive traffic to your web site and you might actually learn many of "your" techniques are rather derivative.
P
Phosphor
May 6, 2004
Heh, Jeff…you’re my kinda beast.
GM
Glenn_Mitchell
May 6, 2004
I have learned a lot from people all over the Web. There are a lot of people like me who spend a considerable amount of their time and energy writing tutorials, making action sets, etc. Sharing my experience allows me to repay the benefits I have received forward so others can benefit.

Virtually all of the tutorials and other education resources on the Web are derivative to greater or lesser extent. So what? That means the knopwledge is cumulative. What original contribution have you made, BTW, Jeff? One can argue that your tutorials and your conference presentations are derivative.

Since I posted an update this weekend to my tutorial on splitting channels for B&W conversion, more than 4000 people have downloaded it. 28 of them were direct referrals from this site: www.adobeforums.com.

How is it SPAM to offer tutorials, PS action sets, and learning galleries that demonstrate how to convert color images to B&W with Photoshop and tools that facilitate making fine art B&W images? Is this not a forum dedicated to helping people get the most out of Adobe Photoshop?

I participate in many forums, Jeff. You know or should know that. I spend a lot of time helping people on PhotoshopUser.com and more than a fair amount of time in the Retouching forum on DPReview.com. PLus there are various Yahoo! Groups in which I participate. You’ll have to excuse me, if I choose where to spend my time.

Now that you have raised the issue, the reason why I do not spend more time here is precisely because of the mean-spirited behavior you and a few others consistently exhibit here. This forum has a small clique of people who consistently behave in the same vicious behavior you exhibit on this thread.

You make it very apparent that you have *PERSONAL* issues with me. It would be better if you addressed them with me in private. Enough said on that point in public, I believe. ๐Ÿ˜‰

If you do not find my tutorials helpful . . . If my tutorials are too derivative for you . . . If my tools are too simple for you . . . Why not simply skip over the threads? You clearly recognize my name well enough to be malicious. They would be easy enough to skip over without trying to initiate a flame war.

I come here briefly to offer help to those who want it. Webtrends provides me with ample evidence that some people are interested in my tutorials and tools. I feel they should not miss opportunities to learn and obtain helpful tools, just because of you and a few others feel the need to engage in snotty behavior. ๐Ÿ˜‰ Therefore, I endure it, but only in brief episodes. That’s why I do not participate more regularly in this forum.

Cheers,

Mitch
MO
Mike_Ornellas
May 6, 2004
knowledge is cumulative

If that were the case, I’d be out of a job.
JS
Jeff_Schewe
May 6, 2004
Mitch asks:
"How is it SPAM to offer tutorials, PS action sets, and learning galleries that demonstrate how to convert color images to B&W with Photoshop and tools that facilitate making fine art B&W images? Is this not a forum dedicated to helping people get the most out of Adobe Photoshop? "

The answer is on your web site where you say:
"Feel free to download tutorials from this site. Donations are welcome to help keep this site free from subscriptions and banner ads."
PH
Paul_Hokanson
May 6, 2004
Glenn,

Your intentions of sharing your experience with Photoshop with others are probably sincere. Its great that you take the time to write tutorials and offer actions, etc. However, the issue that seems pretty clear to many people here is that you are using the Adobe forums to drive traffic to your website. Although you have no advertising on your site, this does not make your efforts any less self-serving in that regard. There are other groups (some of which you have mentioned you are a member and frequent visitor) that do not have a policy in place to discourage self-promotion like this.

Yes, people can skip your posts, but that does not make your bending the rules any more acceptable.

These statements are *NOT* an effort to describe you in any other than a person who has misinterpreted the Adobe Forums terms of usage, or a person who has ignored them altogether.

If you can post your well-intentioned links on other sites to spread the Photoshop creativity and formulas you have obviously spent time manufacturing, then it can only benefit whomever has the opportunity to see it. But continuing to post them here, with direct links to you own website, will result in more ruffled feathers and negative reactions.

If you can offer assistance to people here when they post questions about technique, etc, I’m certain they would welcome your input. If your only interest in the Adobe Forums is "to endure clique of people who exhibit snotty behavior" long enough to post a link to your tutorial on your own website, then the Adobe Forums aren’t appropriate for your needs.

Cheers.
GM
Glenn_Mitchell
May 6, 2004
How are my messages here SPAM?

SPAM is the posting of messages in groups where the content of the messages and the topic of the group are wholly unrelated.

I post messages that inform people about the availability of tutorials, action sets, and learning galleries for using Photoshop to process their digital images. This is a group for discussing how to use Photoshop to process digital images.

Messages that are 100% related to the subject matter of the group are not SPAM.

There are people who find the messages informative. Just go over to the Windows forum and you will find people disagreeing with the sort of narrowness of mind expressed here on this thread.

If my tutorials, action sets, and learning galleries had no relevance to this group, then please explain why people wind up at my site with this site as the referrer.

Perhaps you do not need what is offered in my tutorials, action sets, or learning galleries. OK. Should others be denied information about where to get that same inforation, just because you are so well informed?

It seems like the fact that I accept contributions somehow disturbs you. Would you prefer I sell them?

No one is compelled to contribute. There is no request for donations before a download begins.

At the top of the pages with tutorials, action sets, and learning galleries, there is the statement you read and a button for Paypal donations. Would everyone be better served by a subscription site? Or maybe by banner ads and associated advertising click-thru services?

I answer questions from people about my tutorials and action sets. Some of those people require several messages. Not one have I hinted at or asked for a contribution.

Exactly as I expected, a small percentage of people are sociotropic. They recognize that my Web site is a common good and that it takes resources to keep it available. So, they choose to help. I am grateful for their assistance *AND* and I applaud their sense of social responsibility.

It seems you are projecting greedy motivations onto my efforts. I’ll suggest you might be projecting your own motivations.

It costs me approximately $50 a month for a Web site with sufficient storage space and bandwidth for what is currently available and what is planned. That is also approximately the sum that I receive from Paypal donations each month. So, you’ll have to pardon me if I do not feel that I have been especially greedy.

I try to give back to the people who do donate. I send them a periodic e-mail newsletter that informs them of new and forthcoming resources. If you or anyone else wanted to be added to the list, I’d add you. Nothing on my site is quid pro quo. It is freely available to all.

Feel free to visit my site at any time and download as many resources as you like. Don’t worry about leaving a donation. I assure you, I do not fret over who does and does not contribute. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Cheers,

Mitch
GM
Glenn_Mitchell
May 6, 2004
Paul:

You deserve a thoughtful reply.

I have read the terms on the Help page:

<http://www.adobeforums.com/Images/help/forumhelp.html>

None of my posts seem to violate any of the terms, expressed or implied. Now, I may have missed it, but I have not flagrantly violated any term.

Jeff Schewe and a few others have personal issues with me. That’s what is going on with this thread. Nothing more. Do you believe, if it was someone who posted the same message and there was no history of animosity, the reaction would be exactly the same? I seriously doubt it.

If you think so, have you seen Jeff be critical when people are pointed to resources on Russell Brown’s site? Of course not. How about when people point out that Pixel Genius has a sharpening toolkit? Or FredMiranda.com has various actions available?

One can rationalize why those are perfectly acceptable. Others make the reference, Russell Brown works for Adobe, etc. (I am not even convinced that there is not a lot of self-promotion going on. Many people use monikers. Some to cover their efforts at self-promotion. Others to troll and pick fights. Etc.) All of those are very transparent attempts to hide hypocrisy. When someone who bothers Jeff Schewe does it, it’s wrong. Otherwise, it’s OK. ๐Ÿ˜‰

If you want to make a policy that no message can refer others to a non-Adobe site, no signatures can reference other sites, etc. *AND* that policy is enforced uniformly, I would have no reason to grouse. But, you seem like the reasonable sort who would admit those are not the circumstances here.

I will not bother to recite the reasons for Jeff’s malice. And make no mistake, he was picking a fight here and on the Windows forum. He knows how to contact me privately or he can figure it out. I’m a public guy and he’s a smart guy.

Now, he can continue to heckle me when I post here. Again, that is malicious behavior. It is purely negative. More to the point, it’s mean. ๐Ÿ™

My not posting here will only mean that fewer people will find resources that interest them. Some of the 28 people who visited my site between Mon. and Wed. might have found their way to those resources by other routes. Some might not. Why deny them that opportunity? Just because you have toskip over one additional thread? C’mon. You can be just a bit more charitable, can’t you? ๐Ÿ˜‰

I am not driving people to my site. You assume a fact that is not in evidence. I gain how from them visiting my site? The average time spent on my site is all of 7 minutes. It is nascent. They visit. they download. They leave. I have no subscriptions. No baner advertising. 4000 people downloading a 3mb+ .PDF file means I pay extra for bandwidth this month.

Is it difficult to believe that my motives might be genuine and sociotropic? That I might want to make resources available to as many people as possible? That I might not only give of my time but also my resources and not expect anything in return?

If you cannot appreciate the motives I have disclaimed, I am sorry that your life experiences have led you to be so cynical that you conclude pro bono work has to hide ulterior motivation somewhere. I know it is a feature of our time and culture in the U.S. to be suspicious of charitable acts, but I can assure you that there are people in our society who genuinely believe that they have benefitted from others, they have the ability/resources to give back to society, they have a moral obligation to do so, and they make the effort.

Please explain why it is that it is only the Mac forum for Photoshop and on www.adobeforms.com where I encounter this reaction? The reaction on the PC side is quite different. People, aside from Jeff Schewe, do not quesiton my motivations and are genuinely appreciative of my efforts.

I think we come back to the fact that there are a few people in this forum who have personal issues and they feel the need to act out in vicious ways. A shame.

I do not like how this small clique behaves — and I want you to understand, I do not generalize this to many, most, or all of the participants in this forum — but I do not go out of my way to heckle, harrass, or inflame them. I assure you, if they left me alone, I would entirely disregard them.

I understand people becoming irritated over exchanges in a forum. Been there! I do not understand people carrying a grudge and, worse, actively undermining efforts to help others on subsequent threads.

Maliciousness is wrong in my opinion. I see it here a lot from a few participants.

Perhaps this would be a better forum if you directed your efforts at masking it a place where all contributions are welcome? ๐Ÿ˜‰

I will endeavor to help people, regardless of the heckling and harrassment from a few or the efforts of others to rationlize such conduct. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Cheers,

Mitch
PH
Paul_Hokanson
May 6, 2004
Glenn,

Take a breath. Relax.

I didn’t type "SPAM," rather self-promotion. Whether your intentions to help the Photoshop minions are admireable is not the issue here. Whether you collect donations on your own website is not the issue here.

The issue is, and will continue to be, using these forums to promote your website. This is what you do not seem to understand is causing others to see your posts in a light that maybe you are not seeing yourself.

Don’t get upset. Just read the words and adjust your Adobe Forum activities accordingly. Everyone can benefit from the Photoshop experience of others, and that is what the Adobe forums are all about. But the format of these user forums is this: A question gets posted and people reply. Now if one of your own tutorials was a perfect match to a question that someone posted, I do not think anyone here (or Adobe) would object to you answering their post with a short description of your technique and even including a link to it. Others here often include links to web pages they have created to answer commonly asked questions, etc. This is a perfect situation where posting a link to a different website is appropriate.

What is *not* appropriate, is *creating* a post as you continue to do that advertises a tutorial or some other service that you have created. This is using the Adobe Forum as nothing more than a billboard to generate traffic to your website. THIS is what the issue is all about.
GM
Glenn_Mitchell
May 6, 2004
Are you the official Adobe moderator for this forum, Paul? If so, then I’ll be forced to accept your interpetration of your own rules.

Jeff Schewe is his reply referred to SPAM. Here is the comment to which I was replying:

Mitch asks: "How is it SPAM to offer tutorials, PS action sets, and learning galleries that demonstrate how to convert color images to B&W with Photoshop and tools that facilitate making fine art B&W images? Is this not a forum dedicated to helping people get the most out of Adobe Photoshop? "

The answer is on your web site where you say: "Feel free to download tutorials from this site. Donations are welcome to help keep this site free from subscriptions and banner ads."

Jeff has made the collection of donations an issue here and on the PC forum.

Not everything in my replies are aimed at you. I consider a forum to be a public discussion, not a private discussion. If I wanted a private discussion, I would e-mail you. ๐Ÿ˜‰ So, please be patient with me when I reply to the comments from more than one person in a single reply. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Paul, you consistently fail to address what is going on here.

There is plenty of Web site promotion going on in this forum, and you and Jeff are silent about 99% of it. That fact is undeniable by any reasonable person.

Jeff is being malicious. He is mad over a previous exchange. Like a petulant child, he is acting out on subsequent threads. So are a few others. Why are you completely silent on this point?! Behavior is motivated, and silence is behavior. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Do you object when I promote this Web site on NAPP or DPReview.com or elsewhere? Why not? Explain why you find the one a violation of norms and the other acceptable.

I am trying to deal with you in a reasonable way. Telling me to take a breath and to relax is not helpful. That is pure condescension, and I resent it. ๐Ÿ˜‰ (But, I’ll not let it carry over to future threads.) ๐Ÿ™‚

You claim I have violated a published rule of this forum. I would like you to go to forum help and quote the express language you think I have violated. That would be both helpful and reasonable.

Then I would like your pledge that you will — in the future — remind everyone who references another site in their message text or signature that such behavior violates the rules of this forum. That would be equitable and reasonable.

Then, I would like you to scrupulously honor your pledge. That would be principled and reasonable.

Cheers,

Mitch
JF
john_findley
May 6, 2004
I appreciate the information you provide at your site; and I’m sure I will benefit from it.
PH
Paul_Hokanson
May 6, 2004
Glenn,

It appears I have failed in my efforts to help you understand why the types of posts (read:TOPICS) you create receive some negative responses.

Nothing I have written was meant to be condescending to you or your techniques.

And since you continue to misunderstand the nature of what you are doing and why it is not allowed, please read the *last line* of section 2.2 of the Adobe Forums user agreeement.

"2.2 You may post on the Forums any Content owned by you (such as your original statements), Content for which you have received express permission from the owner, and Content in the public domain (collectively, "User Content") and you assume all risk for determining whether any such User Content is in the public domain. You grant to Adobe the right to edit, copy, publish, distribute, translate and otherwise use in any medium (whether now known or hereafter discovered), any User Content that you place on the Forums, without compensation to you. You represent and warrant that you are authorized to grant all rights set forth in the preceding sentence. You may not advertise or solicit your own goods or services on the Forums."

Now, the words that I typed in my last post described how people post links to information on their own sites that are valid to a particular question or problem being posed to the Forum. This is allowed (as stated in the above text). What is not allowed, as the final sentence of section 2.2 states is advertising of one’s own goods and services.

While your website is, I’m sure, very helpful to those who visit, the fact that you continue to post TOPICS that are essentially advertisements to your site is the issue here.

No, I’m not a forum moderator. I am someone who tried unsuccesfully to help you understand why your posts created (and continue to create) friction.

Please try to understand the distinction between what you continue to do—creating a topic that features a direct pointer to your website services, one that is not a result of some timely question or problem— and posting an answer to a topic that has already been created, which may include a direct link to your site.

One of these can be seen as self-promotion of services, while the latter seems to fit perfectly within the guidelines of the Adobe Forum.

I’m not bashing you in anyway and I know the kind of work that you’ve gone through to create your Photoshop tutorials. My only intention in this series of posts was help you out a little.

Cheers.
GM
Glenn_Mitchell
May 7, 2004
Paul:

I do not believe my messages constitute advertisements.

You are not the forum moderator. Therefore, it is not for you to police.

I am not interested in being socialized. It is the norms of a small clique here that I resent and resist.

While one can argue that my messages are self-serving, at least to the extent that my ego gets a boost, that same charge can be leveled against Jeff Schewe, you, and any others who post answers here. Especially, if like Jeff Schewe, they are consultants, speakers, writers. One can argue all of their messages are efforts at self-promotion.

I believe everyone who contribute likely feel they are being helpful. All likely get ego gratification. The fact that someone gets something like ego gratification out of helping others should not diminish their efforts. If an act must be 100% selfless, then there probably are very few selfless acts. I see motivations as grayscale, not bitmap.

So, we then ask ourselves these questions:

(1) Have people been helped by my messages?
(2) Have those messages harmed anyone in any significant way?

The answer to the first is yes, and I have evidence that people continue to be helped.

The answer to the second, IMHO, is no. A few small messages cause Adobe.com no significant cost.

Do you believe that someone who visits my site leaves this site permanently? I have no such illusion. The very likely scenario is they go check out the resource I describe, maybe download it, then continue on back here or go about there business elsewhere.

So, when you balance the equities, you have people being helped at no real harm to anyone. That makes your interpretation of the rule rather unreasonable and attempt at enforcement even more unreasonable. If we follow your policy, fewer people get helped. That leads to more selfishness (i.e., you will not need to skip over as many messages) and less education.

Your interpretation of the rule is also self-serving. So, there we have it. Mixed motives all around. The community is worse off under your scenario, if your goal is to educate.

You complain when you perceive me self-promoting and remain silent when others do it (as if this is an isolated activity). If you were truly fair, you would be uniform in your criticism. So far, your citicism has been very selective.

What you consistently fail to address is the real motivation behind the complaint. Jeff Schewe is harassing me on this and other threads for petty, vindictive reasons. IMHO, that’s a much more serious threat to this community, and your silence about it leads me to conclude that you are less interrested in helping me or the community and more interested in rationalizing bad behavior from someone you like/respect. So, we return to fairness and genuine concern for the community again.

We have a word for complaining of behavior we ourselves exhibit: hypocrisy. Explain to me how your own arguments and your own behavior on this forum is free from any self-serving motivations or any presentation of self (i.e., self-promotion).

Cheers,

Mitch
AS
Ann_Shelbourne
May 7, 2004
Is anyone else as bored by Glen Mitchell’s incredibly long, repetitive and tedious rants as I am?

They certainly don’t entice me to go to his website and read his "tutorials".
R
Ram
May 7, 2004
Same here, Ann. I didn’t recognize this thread as what it is, but when I clicked on it I just scrolled all the way to the bottom and saw your post. It had been a while since I read one his posts, but I do remember avoiding his site since then.
P
PShock
May 7, 2004
Is anyone else as bored by Glen Mitchell’s incredibly long, repetitive and tedious rants as I am?

Personally, I view Glenn’s replies as defensive out of necessity and perfectly valid.

Quite honestly, I didn’t understand the uproar during the first go-’round, nor do I understand it now. Regardless of the "derivative" debate, how can something be considered "spam" when the author doesn’t require compensation for a (perfectly relevant), service or product they provide?

And whether those who belong admit it or not – there is absolutely a "clique" to the Adobe Photoshop forum. I’ve felt it – even after several years of participation. And I’ve witnessed many an innocent bystander get thoroughly trounced by those who seem to feel these forums belongs to them. Glenn’s reasons for not participating regularly here makes perfect sense to me.

Speaking of which – Let’s talk about Glenn only showing up for "announcements" and not participating in general …

Let’s turn it around. Jeff, Bruce and the rest of Pixel Genius were a LOT more active here before they realized they could be making money ($$$) for thier valuable advice. (Their contributions here were largely the reason I chose to stick around in the begininig.) The reason they left is perfectly understandable. I just don’t get the hostility when it comes to an "outsider" – except that it possibly cuts in on their action.

In other words, can we please despense with the bogus notion that EVERYONE is here out of the goodness of their own heart? Obviously, Pixel Genius is now a FOR-profit organizaition.

Jeff – this is in no way is meant to disrespect – (I’ve been hinging on most of your words ever since the AOL, LivePicture days – circa 1995), but your "issues" are really transparent, IMO.

Glenn, don’t you DARE stop making announcements here. This forum doesn’t belong to Jeff Schewe or any of the other big ($$$) guns in digital imaging. Your efforts are valued and welcome. And somehow, I doubt you care that I prefer "that other guy’s" method of creating B/W images.

-phil
PC
Pierre_Courtejoie
May 7, 2004
PShock, I agree with your ‘Clique’ comment!

I remember seeing that some influent members had signatures that included a link to a pay-for resource/forum that they contributed to here and in other fora… I found that out of place, but their contributions here are more than welcome!

I have also seen several members, who I highly respect announce their participation in a Pay-for conference…

On the other hand,Mathias Vejerslev was generous enough for posting several tutorials here that were promoted to a sticky thread in the "resources" area of the lounge… He was not attacked for doing that, was he? Should he have to stop?

If this place is solely made for asking questions and receiving answers, why is there "the lounge"?

I will re-state it: I see no harm at all for the advertizing of a free resource, related to Photoshop, without ads, in here…
GM
Glenn_Mitchell
May 7, 2004
Thanks, John and Pierre.

You’re right, Pierre. It is of no consequence to me which technique you prefer. If you find Russell’s presentation more intuitive or you prefer his comedic style, that’s OK with me.

I believe there should be room for more voices. A handful of people here do not think of themselves as experts. They instead think of themselves as "the" experts and get defensive when some other voice comes along, especially if that voice is not sufficiently deferential to the members of their clique.

They are experts, and they do share their knowledge. Even if some of them now sell some of that information, they also are free with a lot of their time and advice, and when they do chose to share freely, that does merit recognition and respect, IMHO.

I think it is beyond dispute there is a clique. They even apply cute monikers to themselves. Pixel Mafia. Pixel Genius.

Curiously, they choose to dump on the efforts of others. Bruce Fraser has labeled me "wannabe" here. Jeff Schewe calls me worse. I am ego-driven they claim. I’ll admit to that. Labeling yourself something like "Pixel Genius" is not exactly self-effacing and modest, is it?

If Jeff Schewe would bother to read the revision to my tutorial on making a B&W fine art print, he would see that it does not use the technique he insists must be labeled as the Russell Brown technique. It uses a Selective Color layer paired with a Hue/Saturation layer. I find using a Selective Color layer or a Curves layer more intuitive for photographers — most of whom are not graphic artists and do not think about making sweeping changes to hue and saturation. The tutorial does mention that some professionals do prefer to use a pair of Hue/Saturation layers and mentions Russell Brown by name.

I will not label the technique "the Russell Brown technique." I stumbled upon it myself, and to be honest, the technique is not so profound as to be named after someone, IMHO. We add hue/saturation layer to desaturate the image over a layer that makes localized color adjustments. Not exactly worth trademarking. ๐Ÿ˜‰

I am not trying to diminish the contributions Russell makes. He freely gives his time, some like his schtick and learn from him, and he’s very knowledgable. IOW, even though I find his schtick wearisome, I still have a lot of respect for Russell and I believe he makes important contributions to the Photoshop community. I don’t have to like everything about someone to appreciate and acknowledge their talents and contributions. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Everyone who tries to share their knowledge and help others get the most out of Photoshop deserve gratitude and respect. Not just the same handful of experts who cluster here.

I will not let Jeff Schewe or a few others drive me away. In a sense, I’m flattered that they feel so threatened that they feel the need to act out on subsequent threads. ๐Ÿ˜‰

As long as I see that people here are downloading my action sets and reading my tutorials, I will continue to post notices here. When there is no interest, I will stop.

If Jeff Schewe and others asked, instead of assuming ill motives, they would learn that I would gladly post my tutorials, learning galleries, and action sets here. That’s not an option, however.

Harald Johnson recently asked to post one of my tutorials on his site (http://www.dpandi.com). He wants to add more technical "how-to" content. I immediately agreed. Why not? What matters most to me is that the information gets out. As long as others agree to make my resources freely available and respect my copyright, I am content to share my resources. It is of no consequence to me if people get "Restore Those Midtones" from my site, Harald’s site, or some other site.

Harald did the community a further service. Tutorials on my site are PDF files. Harald prefers HTML. Now, people have a choice — HTML or PDF. Harald’s offer was synergistic and the community benefits. I wish there was more of that sort of synergy in this forum. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Cheers,

Mitch
PC
Pierre_Courtejoie
May 7, 2004
Mitch, I will point you to a thread on another forum (Shudder, will I burn in hell for that, there are no ads, but free registration is needed?)

In there, a fellow photoshopper, Ronald Clercx posted a link to an action he made that is similar to yours, but that goes further: he harvests the Hue, Saturation and Luminosity channels, and some more different animals. I’m sure that you’d like to communicate with him to help the whole community get THE splitting/Harvesting Action… < http://photoshoptechniques.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&t hreadid=7163>

His action is available on the AdobeExchange: <http://tinyurl.com/3g3bo>

I think that the argument should stop as both parts expressed their feelings, and you shoudl continue posting your updates?
JG
Jim_Goshorn
May 7, 2004
I don’t understand why such an issue is being made. Glenn posts these notices so that people can download his tutorials and actions. You are not required to pay anything in order to download them. I am sure there are many people who learn from his efforts and I have downloaded many of them. One should never go under the assumption that something can’t be learned (or inspired) from someonelse’s insights.

The spirit of this forum has been to assist and inspire. Let’s not take it down another path…

Jim
MO
Mike_Ornellas
May 7, 2004
IF the dog bites, don’t try and pet it.
JS
Jeff_Schewe
May 7, 2004
Mr. Mitchell either has a short or a selective memory. My issue with this individual stems from a series of posts made in Feb 04 where he posted, in the same manner as he has recently, a link to his tutorials. When it was pointed out by CygnusX1 that the dual Hue & Sat layer technique for B&W conversions was introย’ed several years ago by Russell Brown, he launched into an unprovoked vicious attack on Russell and anybody else that questioned him.

You can read for yourself at this link.
<http://www.adobeforums.com/cgi-bin/webx?128@@.2cd01ffe>

Yes, I have a problem when an individual, while trying to promote his OWN site, comes into the forums and disrespects the likes of Russell Brown. Yes, I have a problem when that individual lashes out with vicious personal attacks. Perhaps Mr. Mitchell developed his techniques all by himself. I donย’t know. All I know is that his response to CygnusX1 was rude and highly disrespectful of somebody I greatly admire, Russell Brown.

BTW, his technique that was the start of this whole issue, the dual Hue & Sat layers has now been quietly removed from his site and updated with a Hue & Sat plus Selective Color adjustment pair. He now points to this NEW technique and claims innocence and pleads that heย’s only trying to help the community. Based upon his previous behavior I find this completely disingenuous.

Itย’s no secret that I donย’t like the way this individual behaves in this forum. Itย’s no secret that I dislike people who disrespect respected individuals such as Russell Brown, who has single handedly done more for this industry than Mr. Mitchell is EVER likely to do. The way this individual approaches this forum shows disrespect for the forums themselves and while one might be temped to avoid the mass attacks Mr. Mitchell launches in his own defense, Iย’m disinclined, on principle, to back down from somebody who is so inclined to be vicious and nasty on so many levels.

If you think Mr. Mitchell is merely trying to ย“help the communityย” by his posts here, I have a bridge Iย’ll sell you. And, until he DOES change his manner and approach to this and other communities, he has an enemy in me and he knows it.
BF
Bruce_Fraser
May 7, 2004
For the record, if trying to provide relevant answers to questions constitutes self-promotion, I’m guilty. But since I visit maybe twice a week, and post less often than that, I’m a bit bemused to find that I’m a member of a clique.

Pixel Genius LLC is a commercial venture of which I am part (it takes six of us to constitue a Pixel Genius), and I don’t use this site to promote it, or any of the other vetures, commercial or otherwise, in which I’m involved. The Pixel Mafia is indeed a clique, but Jeff is the only other member of said clique I ever see around here, and Mr. Mitchell has been up until now the only person to mention said clique.

My reduced involvement in this forum over the past year or so has absolutely nothing to do with any paid gigs elsewhere. It’s simply a response to the ever-deteriorating signal-to-noise ratio I find here. Jeff is disinclined to back down in confrontational situations. I prefer to avoid arguing with fools because bystanders may not be able to tell the difference. I’m not perfect so I occasionally get sucked in, like now.

I’m annoyed at myself for wasting the four minutes it took to read this thread…
PH
Paul_Hokanson
May 7, 2004
Bruce Fraser wrote:

I prefer to avoid arguing with fools because bystanders may not be able to tell the difference. I’m not perfect so I occasionally get sucked in, like now.

And I’m annoyed at myself for even bothering with Mr Mitchell when its pretty obvious he’s unable to view matters in any light other than his own.

I’m done trying.
B
Buko
May 7, 2004
Stay tuned for the next installment of "As the Forum Threads"

will Glen write another book??

will Jeff still be p_ssed off??

will keep reading??

will he admit it if he does??

Is Paul really done trying??

We’ll find out in the next installment of "As the Forum Threads"
PH
Paul_Hokanson
May 7, 2004
Nice Buko! I’m writing the theme music now…
P
Phosphor
May 8, 2004
Cripes, Mitch…Have you ever stopped to consider that nobody’s perfect, that people get emotional to the point that runs counter to logic?

Yes, Neil is a Forum Host. He’s a volunteer. Part Time. He is not employed by Adobe and does not get paid. He can’t be everywhere at once. Trying to sift through every post in every thead is a herculean task, and trying to remember who said what to whom, with what sort of tone, and when, and under what circumstances and how it ended, is nigh on impossible, unless one makes it the major mission in their life to do so.

Everyone’s spoken their bit here. Howe about just taking the high road, quit acting like a petulant child and just drop it.

Oh, and that supervisor’s email address? Don’t waste your time. I was a low-level moderator for awhile and he wouldn’t even reply to MY emails.

I suggest instead that you head out into the fine spring sunlight and take a walkย—That’s what I do. It does wonders for clearing this sort of crap out of one’s dusty guts.
VL
Venicia_L_2
May 9, 2004
Neil,

Just take the thread off. It serves absolutely no purpose other than to fan more flames. Both combatants, in their zeal and conviction have gone long beyond anything that is interesting to anyone or useful in any way.

I second Phospor’s suggestion about a long walk in the clear air for both of them. That, or ice cold showers.

VL
B
Buko
May 9, 2004
quit acting like a petulant child and just drop it.

could not have said it better myself.

Glenn, you are not making any friends here neither are you impressing anyone. any credibility you may have had is quickly flushing itself down the toilet. quit while you are still ahead, however little that might be.
GM
Glenn_Mitchell
May 9, 2004
I intended to add nothing further to this thread, unless something provocative like Neil’s comments appeared.

You and I disagree about the reasonableness of Neil’s intervention.

Volunteer or not, if he is going to be a forum host, he needs to be fair and reasonable. He was not even close to fair.

He either chose to ignore Jeff’s admission that his behavior was intentional or he did not read it.

If he ignored it, that is manifestly unfair. If he did not read it, he was unreasonable and not yet competent to judge.

I have hosted many forums and do so currently. I would have tried private messages first to the disputing parties, I would not have done that until I had read the entire thread *VERY* carefully, and I would have done my very best to be scrupulously fair.

Neil made a judgment. Before he makes a judgment, he has a responsibility to be informed.

The gist of Neil’s judgment is that messages that refer to another site — even a free site that has no advertising and offers Photoshop tutorials, action sets, and learning galleries for free to all — is a serious matter and a forum member harrassing another member on multiple threads in this forum and openly bragging that is his motivation is no violation at all.

Worse, Neil claims it is my self-promotion that was the issue. In fact, by Jeff’s own admission here, the his motivation is his exception to comments I made months ago re. Russell Brown.

Neil should not have rushed to judgment.

Poor forum moderation is worse than no forum moderation at all. ๐Ÿ˜‰

Cheers,

Mitch
GM
Glenn_Mitchell
May 9, 2004
Just take the thread off. It serves absolutely no purpose other than to fan more flames. Both combatants, in their zeal and conviction have gone long beyond anything that is interesting to anyone or useful in any way.

That will not resolve anything. In fact, it will reward Jeff for his harassment if the entire thread is deleted. That’s what he wants — to silence me.

There is information in this thread. I agree, it is buried.

If Neil wanted to remove the messages that made no positive contribution (about 90% of the messages), I would not object. He can delete my replies to Jeff, Phosphor, Buko, etc.

Cheers,

Mitch
B
Buko
May 9, 2004
Waaaaaaaaaaa!

Neil likes Jeff better than Glenn.

Waaaaaaaaaaa!
VL
Venicia_L_2
May 9, 2004
Glenn,

I agree with you about Neil. I may be the only one that does. But whether you are right or wrong, no longer is the issue. You HAVE to grasp that. But his point is well-taken about your site despite the fact that he didn’t appreciate the mean-spirited nature of Jeff’s posts.

Sometimes an argument goes beyond the limits of a society’s interest or willingness to further tolerate. The issue(s) that you now continue to harrangue are tiny in importance to the peace of the Forum as a whole. You need to stop.

Move on. Forget it. You can’t get fair treatment every time, every place. This matter is not important enough to continue the tirade. You’ve lost support and your pedantic insistence on a particular course will just drive people away.

Take Neil’s advice and contribute in the way he suggests. He’s right. Everyone else does. It’s the spirit of this place. If someone asks a question that can be answered with one of your tutorials, I’m sure direction to that will be much appreciated.

VL
GM
Glenn_Mitchell
May 9, 2004
No, Venicia.

I will give the Mac people no notice in the future. This is not an issue in the PC forum. It is a pretext here.

All that will happen is that people who come solely to this forum for information will not find as much help and information as they otherwise might, if the culture here was more open and tolerant.

I am surprised and disappointed by your latest comment. I understand that want to bring peace to the forum, but you do so by arguing for limits on self-expression and surrender to a stifling culture. That will encourage more cliquish behavior. IOW, you are encouraging me to reward behavior that you clearly do not like.

Please keep in context how much disruption there is to the forum itself. My guess is not all that many people have read this thread. Aside from the participants, probably no one has read it all. I would be surprised if more than a handful of people are worked up, and it will pass. ๐Ÿ˜‰

I am not going to adopt the culture of this forum. I consider it unwholesome and deserving of resistence. It stifles discussion.

Jeff Schewe cannot drive me away by harassment and hostility. It is your attitude that has led me to decide to leave. When good people let a clique restrict discussion, they deserve a less informative forum. ๐Ÿ˜‰

I am not a Mac user. That is another reason why I have not been an active participant here. When I leave, those Mac users who come solely to this forum for information about Photoshop will get less information.

As to losing support, I get my sense of self worth from within. I care not at all about public opinion. That’s one reason why I dislike cliques. They are a haven for people who get their sense of self worth from what others say about them. ๐Ÿ˜‰ And, since I do not profit from people visiting my site or consuming my resources, what does it matter if some decide not to come because of my personality? They deprive me of nothing and themselves of something that might be useful. When you give your time and intellectual efforts away, it’s very liberating. ๐Ÿ˜‰ You can candid.

Enjoy your peace. It comes at the cost of making the Mac world less aware of free resources available to them.

Farewell,

Mitch
P
pboone
May 9, 2004
And Jeff I am not picking on you I would never pick on someone smaller than me if you know what I mean.

Ha!

Wade,

I know a sweet lady who has been trounced upon by you so often that I don’t even need to ask "Wade again?" to know that the answer will be yes.

Patrice

Master Retouching Hair

Learn how to rescue details, remove flyaways, add volume, and enhance the definition of hair in any photo. We break down every tool and technique in Photoshop to get picture-perfect hair, every time.

Related Discussion Topics

Nice and short text about related topics in discussion sections