Dan Margulis Applied Color Theory

Is a Sharpening Discussion Too Technical?
Is the Group Losing Its Rudder?


Group losing its rudder (was: New Smarter Sharpen Technique)
Posted by: Dan Margulis
Fri Dec 26, 2008 4:50 pm (PST)

In case any other list members are thinking along the same lines, I'd
like to respond to the following off-list correspondence.

*******************
From:
Date: December 24, 2008 9:54:06 AM EST
To: Dan Margulis
Subject: Fwd: [colortheory] Re: New Smarter Sharpen Technique, Post 3 of 3

Hi Dan,

In my opinion the Color Theory group has lost it's rudder in a few respects and at least lately has become an academic club rather than something more applicable. My interest in your book and course was and is due to color and the use of the 3 color spaces for producing photographic images as part of a profitable business. In my opinion the group has turned attention to algorthimic enthusiasts more focused on wanting to "one up" Photoshop versus produce profitable imagery.

I am not critisizing nor complaining but rather pointing out that in my opinion people like myself will be less drawn to such groups given the lack of practicality and enthusiast rather than business and artistic focus.

********************

Having checked the list archives, during the last month there were eleven threads that drew five or more posts, if you count the various discussions of sharpening methods as a single thread. The other ten (I'll name them later), were *all* directly on topic for this list, so I am certain that the above comment pertains to the sharpening discussion.

To that, I reply, get a grip. Sharpening is one of our most important functions. People who know what they're talking about are throwing out ideas on how it can be done better. No, they are not always immediately practical, and they do not immediately help one's business. And some may turn out to be of no value, or of so little value as to not be worth the bother. OTOH it may be asked what the effect on one's business would be if one were obliged to sharpen only with the methods known a dozen years ago. And then it might be asked where the dramatic improvements in sharpening technique during that period came from, because they didn't parachute down from the sky.

Every edition of PP has shown new and improved sharpening methods. For every innovation that I've recommended, I've tried five other ways that looked promising but turned out not to work. This is *very* time-consuming, because to get a reasonable read on whether a sharpening method works one should try it on twenty or so examples. And even so, nobody can cover all the bases. When the Smart Sharpen filter came out some years ago, I looked at it carefully, concluded it was useless, and have not played with it since. Now, thanks to Stephen's posts, I see that it has to be reconsidered.

Several knowledgeable people, including four different moderators, have thrown ideas around in this thread. There are few (as in none, AFAIK) other venues where a conversation like this could go on, because while there are any number of people who understand what algorithms might be used, few understand WHY they should be used, if at all. Being an APPLIED color theory list, we have people who are not merely able to comment on a method but offer advice on whether it works in real life.

I've stated in previous years that I'm cutting back my testing activities and trying to limit them to things that might yield *significantly* better pictures than using current techniques. I haven't spent as much time with sharpening as in the past, not because no improvement is possible but because the improvements are likely to be incremental. For that reason, I'm eager to see other innovative suggestions, provided only that the people know what they're talking about and are willing to put forward the effort to test their ideas against reasonable alternatives.

Most of these conversations will pay dividends later, if at all, true enough. However, anybody who's getting images from people who haven't turned off sharpening in their raw modules (and that's a fair number of people, I think) can get immediate benefit from the discussion of how to limit extreme sharpening, in the form of substantially better-looking results.

It should be pointed out further that Stephen Marsh has offered patient advice to those needing more than anyone else on this list. He has now come forward with some ideas that he has obviously spent considerable effort developing. He has asked us for comment and criticism. Even if he were asking about something not particularly germane to our group's mission (and what he is asking about is squarely germane) he is entitled to our courteous attention. If what he is suggesting turns out to be more theoretical than practical, that's part of the price we pay for moving forward, and if it turns out to be of significant value then we are all the beneficiaries.

Dan Margulis

P.S. The following are the ten other threads in the last month:

*Discussion of Photoshop CS4. Since almost all of us are thinking about whether to invest in it, one can hardly have a more pertinent or timely discussion.

*Printer's separation advice inadequate (two separate threads). The continual flow of people with substantially the same sad story to tell may strike some as boring; however it cannot be stressed often enough that most printers are clueless about this topic, and that advice from printers about how to prepare CMYK files should be treated as worthless absent a compelling demonstration that they know what they're talking about.

*Fun with Linear Light blend mode. Members of this list have repeatedly indicated that they are looking for more information on blending than is readily available elsewhere. Linear Light is not one of the more commonly used modes and it is not discussed in anything I've written. Obviously this discussion should be welcomed.

*Retouching Reagan. Offbeat, perhaps, but the question of what constitutes ethical behavior in retouching is surely of interest to a large proportion of the group.

*From the 2008 Advanced Classes: comments on current conditions in the field from people so interested in quality that they attend one of my advanced classes ought to be of interest to just about everybody.

Plus, four threads on down-and-dirty color correction:

*Ghosting. How to tone down CMYK images so that type can be read over them.

*How to save false profiles.

*How to reduce magenta in skin tone in different colorspaces.

*How to fix a noisy blue channel

At any given time threads may be running that many of us feel are a waste of bandwidth. It's sometimes necessary that we delve into esoterica about third-party products or other areas that are naturally going to be of limited interest. Contrary to my correspondent's view, I can't think of a time when the list has been more consistently on-topic. So I would like to thank those who have contributed to all eleven of the threads mentioned above, and particularly to those who have generously given their thoughts about how best to sharpen.
___________________________________________________________________________
.
Group losing its rudder (was: New Smarter Sharpen Technique)
Posted by: "Eric Basir/Photo Grafix"
Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:49 am (PST)

Dan and the group:

This list is my number one, most reliable, most down-to-earth connection to the pulse of our photography/post-production/retouching business (technique, artistry and industry). I know when I post a comment or question, I will get answers from real professionals in my field. I can?t think of one conversation/topic which has not educated me‹or forced me to consider new ideas. All of which benefits my work and my customers.

As Dan outlined, I wish we could make a book‹or series of books‹from all the deep topics discussed here.

So sail on! Please don?t change a thing.

--
Eric C. M. Basir
Photo Grafix
http://www.photografix.pro
1-847-673-7043
-___________________________________________________________________________
.
Re: Group losing its rudder (was: New Smarter Sharpen Technique)
Posted by: Howard Smith
Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:49 am (PST)

Dan, I, too, have been frustrated at not being able to comprehend much of what is being discussed. On the other hand some of what I can fathom has given me some very interesting new ideas in addition to thoughts of strangling some of the posters. Some of these ideas turned into sizeable projects, most of which proved to be of no value whatever. It's those one or two that did succeed that made it worthwhile burowing through discussions that might as well have been written in Latin or Old Norse. It remnds me of the days of Andrew Rodney when my monitor was smoking from some of the heated commentary. After patiently wading through the minefields I developed both a better understanding of Photoshop and totally new techniques that are still in heavy use. My concern is that some of these discussions, and maybe some of the posters, were discontinued prematurely. It's easy enough to skip over posts that appear to be of little or no value to us, quite another to discover rare gems buried within some of them. This is also why I never complain about criticism of any of my own posts. In more than a few cases even the most harsh criticisms have proved to be of significant value.

Howard Smith
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Group losing its rudder (was: New Smarter Sharpen Technique)
Posted by: Terence Wyse
Sat Dec 27, 2008 7:49 am (PST)

I would remind that person that the name of this group is "Applied Color THEORY", not "Applied Practical Color Correction and Image Editing Techniques Relative to One Author's Series of Books and Classes". If it is, the name of the group should be changed to reflect that.
 
While much of the current sharpening discussion is over my head, if something comes of the discussion that advances practical techniques or, better yet, results in some REAL advances in Photoshop tools/features in a future release, then it's all worthwhile.

Get a grip indeed.

Regards,
Terry Wyse
___________________________________________________________________________

Re: Group losing its rudder (was: New Smarter Sharpen Technique)
Posted by: George Machen
Sun Dec 28, 2008 6:28 am (PST)

Terence Wyse wrote:

I would remind that person that the name of this
group is "Applied Color THEORY", not "Applied
Practical Color Correction and Image Editing
Techniques Relative to One Author's Series of
Books and Classes". If it is, the name of the
group should be changed to reflect that. ...

On the contrary:

- I infer, in accordance with the very first listed, foremost statement of intent & purpose from this group's formal charter (quoted below), that the de facto name of this list - in the manner that Terry was trying to characterize it - actually is, "APPLIED Color Theory."
- Furthermore, I suggest that this list indeed manifestly and perforce is, ipso facto, "Applied Practical Color Correction and Image Editing Techniques Relative to One Author's Series of Books and Classes." (I personally would substitute "Surrounding" for "Relative" in the latter, inasmuch as Dan would be the first to point-out others who have devised helpful techniques.)

--
"List Rules and Objectives

"Applied Color Theory list--General Description and Rules
(This document is posted monthly)

"OBJECTIVE
"The objective of this list is to exchange
information that may benefit those who have taken
or are considering taking my Applied Color Theory
courses, or who are interested in techniques
covered in my books, plus related topics. This
roughly comprises color correction and other
methods that aim at creating satisfactory images,
normally for print purposes, occasionally elsewhere. ..."

 "Howard Smith" wrote:

... It remnds me of the days of Andrew Rodney
when my monitor was smoking from some of the
heated commentary. After patiently wading
through the minefields I developed both a better
understanding of Photoshop and totally new
techniques that are still in heavy use. My
concern is that some of these discussions, and
maybe some of the posters, were discontinued
prematurely. It's easy enough to skip over posts
that appear to be of little or no value to us,
quite another to discover rare gems buried within
some of them.

I had been wanting to get the following off my chest for years, but didn't want to aggravate the then-longstanding untenable situation in the midst of it, so I always bit my lip. But now that we thankfully are over a year separated from that sad plague, I trust that my comments won't ignite a powder keg.

If one goes to the considerable task of perusing the list archives since its inception at Yahoo in 2000, it should be abundantly clear - or at least it seemed so to me - that Andrew Rodney, along with about a half dozen other names that informally had come to be known here collectively as among "The PixelMafia," for the most part chronically did not participate in the meat of this list terribly much (with the notable exception of Chris Murphy in the beginning, but not toward the end, as I saw it). Rather, what eventually became transparent to me was that the only reason they were here was a campaign to desperately defend some extremely serious shortcomings with commercial color management, as well as with, more recently, the raw, so-called nondestructive editing, workflow. All of these names were such vendors or consultants, or otherwise defenders (I consider shills) with vested interests in these two initiatives that have co-opted an entire industry. Eventually their every comment developed into a "bash Dan" motive, sour grapes in my estimation, for Dan had *hurt* their adoption. But they only had themselves to blame; they brought it on themselves by running away from practical, mission-critical problems that Dan had identified early in the game, but they declined to do anything about them.

The problem with both initiatives in my view is that while they are genuine advancements and highly desirable, they unfortunately all too often have gotten dominated by marketing departments or programmers that forsake usability or professional-level features for the lowest common denominator. This pattern is not confined to these two initiatives; the whole technology sector reeks of it. When confronted with complaints or resistance from professional workers in the trenches, instead of duly fixing the problems, the companies shamefully retreat into evading, denying, ignoring, stonewalling or otherwise weaseling-around doing the right thing.

This intellectual dishonesty strikes me as the background to, and accounting for, the tenuous minefields that I am so glad are behind us now.

Dan, especially in light of his curmudgeonly reputation I so love, showed far more patience, toleration and restraint toward these whom I consider knuckleheads than I would have. I'd have kicked what I regard their sorry asses off this list long before whatever happily occasioned their sudden, mysterious departure over a year ago. In my opinion, their disingenuous antics consistently violated other pertinent parts of this group's charter (appended below) for years.

Now the fumes that remain are, from time to time, a much, much less serious tendency to stray off-topic that I feel is usually attributable to some folk simply not doing their homework, as I see it, with respect to the charter of this group (the first part quoted above about it surrounding Dan's techniques).

Terry, for example, (and I hope he doesn't take me the wrong way singling him out, for I hold him in high regard) is a color management consultant whom to me occasionally has perilously approached the defensiveness described above, but not to the extent of his rabid colleagues mentioned earlier, and usually redeems himself with invaluable insights to us, especially in matters printing. But you know, sometimes it is my impression - possibly mistaken - that Terry's participation reflects only a cursory examination of Dan's books. I really think that vacuum puts him at a disadvantage here: What a far more useful contribution Terry could make, were the caliber and scope of his wherewithal directed toward color correction techniques, the chief topic of this list!

Or take new-member Jacob Rus: In his very first post here he candidly admitted that he hasn't read the first thing of Dan's books. Now this is one smart young man, whose presence on this list already has broken new ground, and he shows promise of continuing rapid development among us. But as I ventured in Message #20698, my (admittedly hair-trigger) "Calibrationalist radar" went off in connection with, for example, his approach of what appeared to me a one-size-fits-all procedure of multiple radius sharpening, without regard for the individuality of an image, where on some, undesirable emphasis might be brought out. Differently-targeted corrections to images with separate significant subjectmatters is one of the big things this group is all about, and with more familiarity of Dan's books, Jacob would gain the inestimable advantage of not being drawn to "the dark side," as trapped so many scientifically-minded prodigies, only to end up foisting user-hostile technologies on people who work for a living and have to use them. (Or not to mention government economists who hose the financial system!)

"List Rules and Objectives

"PROFILING AND COLOR MANAGEMENT ESOTERICA
"While general discussion of color management is
welcome, lengthy threads on color management
esoterica belong on the ColorSync users list. ...

"ADVERTISING and COMMERCIAL POSTS
"... Members are requested to use restraint and
to ask themselves whether what they are posting
is something that a significant number of readers
would be interested in. ... there will be little to no
tolerance for commercial posts from persons who
are not otherwise participating in the list. ..."

I composed this post with some trepidation, because it revisits a bad time for this list, and for which some scant remnants persist. If this message gets rejected, it won't hurt my feelings and I would understand completely. But I thought some newer members might be interested in some of this group's history. My above sentiments where I have named current members' names are observations, not destructive personal criticisms, or at most only well-intentioned constructive criticisms.
 
- George Machen
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Group losing its rudder (was: New Smarter Sharpen Technique)
Posted by: "merlot3000"
Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:56 pm (PST)

I greatly enjoy this group, learn lots from it, and love the imagination, creativity, and technical ingenuity that comes about. That does not mean however that it's a good place to address all types of problems at all levels.

I had sent Dan a private message giving him MY personal experience of the group. I sent it directly to him because it was a personal opinion given MY personal needs. If he wanted to reply that the nature of the group was, is, and will continue to delve way deep in techniques that vary from notions to tweeking mature methods then great. I was only stating that I felt there was a need for something more readily usable and not in any way suggesting that the current group in it's form change. It just may not be right for me. Some options are to also have another section focused on addressing current methods and techniques for current issues and problems.

I should also mention that I sent the message directly to Dan out of respect and consideration for the group, and to not create distraction of everyones valuable time. Dan chose to not reply to me and collaborate but to share a message with whatever feelings and assumptions. I for one consider myself a student of Dan's, have read and continue to study his books along with Katrin Eisman's work and others, and have spent the time and money attending his course from which was worth every penny. I have traded messages privately with Dan in the past, and he has responded in the past, and given that and my week I spent with him I felt it was OK to share directly more direct discussion. I did not expect the first words of an expected conversation would be publicly displayed, critiqued, to which has happened with nothing productive of it.

For the message below, I have no idea of the historical issues and am relatively new to the group (1 year I guess). I started to see discussion that seemed further and further from dealing with clients and images *I* have to deal with, and with some other off-line messages to other members it was clear to me that *some* of the techniques were either not really helping images or not helping enough when applying the techniques for paying clients.

If I offended anyone in my comments I truly apologize. I spent many years at a statistical researcher and also in R&D some large software houses as well as startups and appreciate the creativity, benefits, and joy in such strategic and cerebral work.

Respectfully,

David Barrack
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Group losing its rudder (was: New Smarter Sharpen Technique)
Posted by: "Davide Barranca"
Sun Dec 28, 2008 7:56 pm (PST)

Dear Dan,

even though your comments are exhaustive, I'd like to make few points. I don't know about the others who posted recent, more theoretical and experimental topics (Jacob Rus and Stephen Marsh between the others) so I speak for myself only: be a professional retoucher also means that I'm only a very very amateur digital image processing scientist. Amateurism brings all the pros and cons we know about: we're passionate, we spend our time profitless and like to share freely our thoughts and feedback is always welcome; on the other hand one can misuse technical jargon, write (as I'm find myself continuously doing) math unorthodoxly and sometimes get lost in dead ends.

From a particular point of view (mine, for instance), Photoshop can be seen as a terrific interface that enables differently trained users to apply quite painlessy complex transformations to digital images. All the math is kept, for the usability sake, under the hood. Nevertheless, our dear interface lacks a huge amount of tools that users could like (internet is full of funny feature whishlists, throw your stone if you haven't yours): so the key point IMHO is: if you would like to explore new ways to exploit the same old tools, you must investigate what is under that hood. Even to call, for instance, the Surface Blur filter with its more appropriate name, Bilateral Filter, is a way to help others to google for actual info about it - a venial sin, I hope, for those less interested in Laplacian pyramids and other amenities.

By the way, I believe that a lot of offtopic conversations go through direct emailing; the group, which is a wonderful opportunity to get in touch with colleagues around the world, is moderated; some of the tough material has been moving to internet webpages; amateurs are usually innocuous and the group founder is alive and well doing; all these elements, I believe, will help keeping the list in good shape.

Kind regards,

Davide Barranca
Bologna, Italy
___________________________________________________________________________ .

Re: Group losing its rudder (was: New Smarter Sharpen Technique)
Posted by: "Richard Kenward"
Thu Jan 1, 2009 1:08 pm (PST)

In his posting of Sun, 28 Dec 2008, George Machen writes

.. It remnds me of the days of Andrew Rodney
when my monitor was smoking from some of the
heated commentary.

Big snip

Dear George

As I sip a rather large glass of strong red wine this New Year's evening, I confess that I've been here for more years than I have a record of, but my recollection of the early days was of a list where almost nothing of substance was discussed!

I seem to recall that it was Andrew Rodney and Andrew Murphy to name but two who "ignited" discussions and brought the list alive, and in so doing made it far more than just the announcement board for Dan's courses that it appeared to be until that time. Having said that I felt that promotion of their colour management business played some part in this activity<G>

Dan, especially in light of his curmudgeonly
reputation I so love, showed far more patience,
toleration and restraint toward these whom I
consider knuckleheads than I would have.

I totally agree that Dan has always exercised considerable patience and restraint and I applaud him greatly for that. For my part, whilst I post rather infrequently, I've had my horizons expanded by many of the knowledgeable people here, so may I take this opportunity to say a very big thank you. A very big thank you of course to Dan, for I know what a commitment it is to run a show like this<G>

I'm really enjoying the sharpening discussion that is currently ongoing, so please, please let us have more of this thought provoking stuff.

A very happy New Year to everyone here.

Richard
--
Richard Kenward www.artisan-digital-services.co.uk +44(0)1873 890456