Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature may not be available in some browsers.
I highly recommend the book, but you can also check out this online summary of chapter 14 here: http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=26724 .I'm explaining this horribly because I
haven't tried it yet; the technique is covered in Margulis' Chapter
14 (in Photoshop LAB Color). If you're interested, you might hit
just this chapter in the bookstore.
I hadn't seen that reference on that page. My point is that the book is not "about" 8-bit vs. 16-bit. Make your own choice and then read the book for everything else it can teach you. Apparently Dan chooses to argue this point elsewhere (which doesn't matter to me one way or the other), but that argument is not what the book is about.Page 133. To be accurate he says open in 16-bit but then convert to
8-bit at your convenience.
This guy, who wrote the classic PS Channel Chops book, apparently
finds it "productive" to debate it.
In fact he goes on a rant against this convert to 8-bit theory, here
http://attentionphotoshoppers.libsyn.com/
He specifically mentions the LAB book.
While I found the LAB book interesting I think it is one of those
books many will read and very few will put into practice because
the techniques are of questionable utility in light of easier and
more efficient alternatives.
I posted the chapter 14 summary just yesterday and it hasn't been added to the main page yet by the owner of that page. It's on his todo list (I emailed him about it yesterday). I think there are two more chapter summaries coming soon, but I don't think there are others that aren't in the main list so no need to go searching.Oh, I missed the Ch. 14 summary since it isn't in the Big Listing
of Chapter Summaries ( http://www.dgrin.com/showthread.php?t=18203 ).
Thanks for that. I guess I'll just search for the summaries that
aren't in that list so I can read them.
I find it interesting how people like to discredit everything someone says because they disagree with one point they make. One can go through life that way, but that closes off a lot of sources of good information.I notice you ignore his 8-bit argument, which is even more at odds
with the consensus.
What does that mean? Saturation applies only to colors so it is impossible to saturate the L channel. It only contains luminence information.... and just
saturate the L channel. I really liked the effect this had on the
water and waves, and I was curious how this effect could be
achieved in RGB.
Figured.I could have but that was the real purpose of the post. The
explanation of "the claw" was a mere ruse to take a swipe at
Kelby's unfunny jokes.
One can go through life that way, but that closes off a lot of sources of good information.Obviously there is some kind of projection going on here. To state the book has controversial ideas (it does) and to point to two specific examples, from memory, well how one then reaches the conclusion that that constitutes "people" who "like to discredit everything someone says because they disagree with one point". Like I said, serious projection.
I happen to disagree with several points that Dan makes in his book.Again, obviously some tendency to want to make philosophical statements about "life" rather then addressing the specific issues.
I even say so in my chapter 14 summary that I posted yesterday on one of the points he makes in that chapter.Of no relevance to whether his book makes controversial points or not.
But, on the whole he knows a ton more about how to get the most out of PS than I do and I learn a lot from studying his writings.As you brought it up, why you find the need to "summarize" his content when the primary source material is readily available is a mystery. Are you his translator?
Read, understand, learn, make your own decisions about what is useful to you.Again, irrelevant to the point made re whether it is controversial or not.
Trite.
I no longer know what we're arguing about. In my opinion (you are free to have a different opinion), this book has more concrete, non-controversial teachings about layers, blend modes, channels, blend-if settings, contrast enhancement, color correction, color enhancement, color modes and channel blends than any book I've seen.One can go through life that way, but that closes off a lot ofObviously there is some kind of projection going on here. To state the book has controversial ideas (it does) and to point to two specific examples, from memory, well how one then reaches the conclusion that that constitutes "people" who "like to discredit everything someone says because they disagree with one point". Like I said, serious projection.
sources of good information.
I happen to disagree with several points that Dan makes in his book.Again, obviously some tendency to want to make philosophical statements about "life" rather then addressing the specific issues.
I even say so in my chapter 14 summary that I posted yesterday onOf no relevance to whether his book makes controversial points or not.
one of the points he makes in that chapter.
But, on the whole he knows a ton more about how to get the most outAs you brought it up, why you find the need to "summarize" his content when the primary source material is readily available is a mystery. Are you his translator?
of PS than I do and I learn a lot from studying his writings.
Read, understand, learn, make your own decisions about what isAgain, irrelevant to the point made re whether it is controversial or not.
useful to you.
Trite.
That would explain it. Thanks for the info.I posted the chapter 14 summary just yesterday and it hasn't been
added to the main page yet by the owner of that page. It's on his
todo list (I emailed him about it yesterday). I think there are
two more chapter summaries coming soon, but I don't think there are
others that aren't in the main list so no need to go searching.
