Re: Promoting the competition?
Re: Promoting the competition?
- Subject: Re: Promoting the competition?
- From: Martin Orpen <email@hidden>
- Date: Mon, 9 Jul 2007 00:47:57 +0100
On 8 Jul 2007, at 23:33, Marco Ugolini wrote:
In a message dated 7/8/07 2:44 PM, Martin Orpen wrote:
But, let's not forget, that these Technical Papers are Adobe
marketing materials.
They are commissioned and published because they are totally
congruent with Adobe's view of the current state of the technology
and its future and because they raise Adobe's reputation.
If the paper suggested that C1 Pro or Nikon Capture did a better job
than Photoshop or Lightroom then I'd be keen on discussing it
further.
Gosh, what a silly turn this conversation is taking...
It's not only not good enough that Adobe publishes technical papers
each of
which furthers knowledge going beyond what strictly concerns Adobe
and its
public image (and strictly speaking Adobe is under no obligation to
do any
of this, but only *chooses* to do so possibly for reasons that go
beyond
mere self-interest -- though that enters the picture too, obviously).
Really? You surprise me!
How exactly did Karl Lang's paper further *your* knowledge?
My assumption was that most contributors to this list should know all
of this stuff already...
If you've never made a print from a negative then I guess that this
stuff may be mind blowing - and will naturally gain currency and
importance as people born in the digital age get involved in the
industry.
And none of these papers directly promote Adobe's products.
ROTFL.
You really should read these things before offering us your opinions!
BTW, somebody has sent me a couple of quotes from Dan's list (I
haven't been a member for many years) and they make interesting reading.
The misuse of the term "white paper" by those who have taken
exception to Dan's comment is particularly interesting. White Papers
are normally produced by elected bodies (governments for instance) or
by panels of experts.
Adobe's Technical Papers are commissioned *infomercials* - not "white
papers".
Notifying people that this fact is only explicitly indicated by the
tiny copyright assignment in the small print on the last page would
seem worthwhile and a subtle point.
If Adobe want to publish policy documents then who cares?
But publishing their policy documents in the form of faux white
papers or as the independent views of industry specialists is
slightly more problematic.
--
Martin Orpen
<http://www.pro-imaging.org/> International support for professional
image makers
_______________________________________________
Do not post admin requests to the list. They will be ignored.
Colorsync-users mailing list (email@hidden)
Help/Unsubscribe/Update your Subscription:
This email sent to email@hidden