[T Paul]

I see that the tutorials show a copyright tag. Most of my information comes from researching the web or reading books. My question is if you find a good technique on the web or from a book or refine one and create a tutorial with photos and such, is there a way to credit that source or at least not claim it as your own. Basically I might have some good techniques to share, but they are far from my own.

~T

[Leah]

The way copyright works you can't copyright a particular idea (like a technique for using Photoshop), just a particular form of words or an image. So as long as you are writing the instructions yourself it's OK for the tutorial to be copyrighted to you.

But of course it's good manners to mention where you got the idea from. I've generally put this either in the summary blurb or explained at greater length in the tutorial proper.

If there is already an online tutorial that explains the technique in great detail with clear step by step illustrations then probably there's not much to be gained by your rewriting it, but where the information isn't available online or isn't explained as clearly as it might be then writing it up as a better tutorial is a Good Thing, so long as you credit the "original" begetter of the idea.

[T Paul]

Thanks Leah! I have found several good techniques on the web, but many times they are just text and could be improved with example photos and a little more explaination. Other times I combine several techniques together to create one solid tutorial. And then there are those fine tutorials that are clear, concise with photos and all and I just print them out and add them to my file.

~T

[dpnew]

I must admit I'm mystified over the total lack of interest in publishing tutorials via our new system.

Well, since the "new" system makes it impossible for this user to find the elusive publish button, maybe you should redesign the system so that actually publishing a tutorial doesn't involve a search for a holy grail.

[Rexx]

Originally Posted by dpnew

Well, since the "new" system makes it impossible for this user to find the elusive publish button, maybe you should redesign the system so that actually publishing a tutorial doesn't involve a search for a holy grail.

You're not by any chance using Opera 6, are you? While testing, I found that Opera hides the menu with the Publish button. No other browsers I tried (I tried quite a few, ask Doug! ) showed this behaviour.

Finding the Publish button is easy. Click RetouchPro in the toolbar near the top of this page. "Tutorials" is No 4 from the bottom. This brings you to the Tutorials home page. At the left is a fly-out menu (that Opera 6 hides). No 2 from the bottom is Publish. Not difficult.

Perhaps you are confused by this Forum being called Tutorials? This is the place where tutorials are discussed, but you will notice that the tutorial itelf is accessed via a link, and opens in a separate window.

You may also be under the misconception that Doug Nelson programmed this forum software. He didn't. If you have a look at the bottom of the window it clearly states

"Powered by: vBulletin Version 3.0.0 Release Candidate 2
Copyright ©2000 - 2004, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.
Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.1.0"

Good luck!

[roger_ele]

I wrote a tutorial on 'Blend-If' in Photoshop recently, of which I am still learning to understand. This experience has got me to thinking - I really appreciate everyones support of my learning and of the process of learning, so ...

I would like to take this opportunity to get on a soapbox ...

To anyone who feels they need to know it all cold to do a tutorial - You don't - we are all learning - in fact those that are newer can have an easier time thinking outside that old box.

This site not only teaches techniques, it also teaches by example thought processes for tackling problems and ways of testing ideas to figure things out, the confidence to think it through - which I think is even more valuable than the techniques. And then the bonus, we get to help each other while doing something we enjoy. Anyway, to anyone shy about this - the more you teach - the more you learn. There is always someone who can benifit from hearing it the way you have of saying it.

Thanks for listening,
Roger

[Rexx]

Thanks, Roger!

A good opportunity to excuse myself

I've seen several (junior) members with 2-4 posts. They needed help with one specific problem and then disappeared. I know I haven't posted for weks. The reason is I'm on a search for The Holy Grail, trying to write a Photoshop action (actually a script) for noise reduction. Yes I know there's Noise Ninja, but I'm on a Mac and besides it's incredibly fun. I've learnt so much about Photoshop you wouldn't know!

Hmmm, maybe I have a new tutorial coming up...

[Doug Nelson]

Like I always say (well, not always, but I have been saying it for some time, just not continually), if you really want to understand something teach it to someone else.

[roger_ele]

Hey Rexx,

Don't feel guilty - follow the fun. I am sure you will find moments when that fun inspires you to write that tutorial - whenever the time is right. The folks that pass through are following their fun, wherever they are, it's all ok.

.?. A script for reducing noise .?. and you have been learning more than we would believe .?. do you mind if we beg for more info .?. from time to time .?. (spoken tentatively with a twinkle in the eye)

Roger

[Rexx]

Well, something I've learnt that cannot be taught in a tutorial is that I stand in awe before the people who have designed Photoshop. Being a somewhat accomplished software architect (and programmer) myself I am at loss of words when it comes to my admiration for these ... dare I say? ... colleagues.

I will not go into detail about the processes we go through in my profession (I've seen from profiles and postings that there are quite a few of you out there who know what I'm talking about - hi! ), but let me concentrate on three issues only. Conceptual model, flexibility and complexity.

When creating a software system we first need to understand what we are trying to achieve. In this case, what is image manipulation and processing all about. The Adobe "thinkers" have reached such an understanding of this it almost reminds me of meditation gurus or something. The underlying mechanisms of Photoshop are so incredibly much deeper than Lasso and cut-and-paste.

Then we (us software people) always like to pride ourselves of the flexibility we have built into our product. I believe I need not elaborate on this one. There are always many ways leading to our goal in Photoshop, some identical, some slightly (but significantly) different.

It takes a Master - or sheer luck - or at least three attempts - (personal empirical research...) to avoid complexity at the same time as achieving flexibility. You may not know, but that's how it is. Photoshop is vast, but yet it is not complex. Once you have started to get a grasp on the conceptual model behind it, everything is really simple.

Compare to Microsoft Word - the current King of word processing and my favourite peeve. Up until 5.1 (I'm on a Mac; you PC people missed this one. You jumped from 2.0 to 6.0 to get in synch with the Mac version) Word was about efficient writing and was supported by a sound model of a text document and word processing. I know; I've modelled it. After that, the main idea seems to be to add more features. The underlying model is now long gone.

Flexibility? Not really. There are several ways to do things, but usually one works (if it works...) and the others break. And Word tries to outsmart me. Sorry Word - I'm still smarter, and I take offense.

Complexity? Why do I need a "helper" or "wizard" to get things done? Why do I have to go through four dialogues to do something that took one click or keystroke in 5.1? (And why does Word X run slower on my 1GHz processor than Word 4 did on my 16MHz?)

Ponder this, and then look at Photoshop again. I think you will agree with me.

[Rexx]

Is this "cross-posting"? Sorry then.

In the discussion thread about the Blend-If tutorial Roger writes,

Originally Posted by Roger

"There is another factor to this that has been rumbling around in the back of my mind - The goal is to be able to think in 'blend-if', zen ''blend-if' if you will

This is what I mean. This is understanding the conceptual model behind Photoshop. Now I know at least you understand what I mean, Roger.

[roger_ele]

Rexx,

Rexx Wrote:
to avoid complexity at the same time as achieving flexibility

Amen, I agree 100%. I designed our business database program in Access (receivables, payables, contact manager - order tracking, payroll, etc. the whole ball of wax - now, I would purchase it, but when I started what I wanted wasn't available) - this balance of simple but flexible is the looks-easy-but-is-real-hard thing that I still struggle with. Fascinating - the perspective of a real programmer, Thanks.

And no, you don't have to worry about this being a cross-post - as long as you write that tutorial when it strikes your fancy ...

Roger

[Rexx]

Just a small teaser for you, Roger

I can promise you and everybody else something you have never seen before. No little promise I know, but I feel confident this is actually true since I have it right in front of my eyes. Whether it is useful or not, now that's another question...

Tutorial in progressssss...

[Flora]

WOW Vegard,

I'm really, really curious now!!!

My 'information junkie' nature is wide awake now ....

Pleeeeeeeeaaase .... don't keep us waiting too long .....

Just kidding ..... but still ... looking forward to it!

[Rexx]

Ha, got one fish!

Seriously, this is quite difficult. I have been working with one aspect of it for several days, getting nowhere. Finally had a breakthrough today. And -- I don't know if it useful for anyone, but it certainly is interesting! Hang on out there, I'll finish it, I promise.