May 24, 2008
“Oct. 1” (aka, “Just make something up”)
It seems that news of the demo I did the other day (a repeat of what we’d shown publicly three weeks earlier) is bouncing all around the online tech press. People are excited that the Photoshop team is exploring ways to make the app feel faster and smoother, and that’s all good. What’s irritating, though, is just how much bogus info is getting invented, passed around, and swallowed without question.
Gizmodo is repeating info found on a site called TG Daily, stating that "Photoshop CS4" (a term that I’ve never heard anyone from Adobe use publicly) "is expected to be released on October 1." Uhh… expected by whom? And based on what?
I didn’t say anything about schedule. In fact, I never said that any of this stuff is promised to go into any particular version of Photoshop. Rather, as with previous installments, it’s a technology demonstration of some things we’ve got cooking–nothing more.
Doesn’t matter, though: Someone pulled a date apparently out of thin air, and now everyone who can copy & paste is dutifully repeating it. The fish story grows with the telling, too. In addition to repeating the date, Electronista is inventing new details (e.g. "CS3 has already had limited support for graphics processing units (GPUs) for certain filters"; sorry, no; "An upcoming wave of video cards with special physics processing will also help, Adobe explains"; nope, didn’t say that; and more). Where do people get this stuff? It’s particularly annoying to see made-up info presented as a response from Adobe–to questions that were never asked. (Contacting Adobe PR, or me directly, to confirm some detail isn’t exactly tough.)
I’m not feeling a lot of confidence in the tech press these days. People just make up whatever they want, creating a bunch of expectations & misperceptions that people like me have to try to unravel. There’s no disincentive to doing so: the sites still get their ad impressions, and clearly bloggers and readers are all too happy to take what they read at face value.
I don’t know what to tell you, as the quest for ad bucks is eroding journalistic standards across the board. "Caveat lector," and I’ll keep trying to share actually legitimate information here.
PS–I found this warez link kind of hilarious. Not only are people inventing product info in order to entice you to download a bunch of unknown executable code onto your machine (something from the Eliot Spitzer Memorial Hall Of Unprotected Terrible Ideas); now they’re actually using Photoshop to design fake Photoshop packaging! (Screenshot here in case the shady server disappears.)
New fatherhood -> sleep deprivation (yeah, still) -> abandoning any pretense of categorization. That said, here are a few interesting bits I’ve seen lately:
- The New Yorker reports on the world of high-end retouching in "Pixel Perfect — Pascal Dangin’s virtual reality." (Hey, someone uses the Smudge tool!) [Via Ivan Cavero Belaunde, Clare McLean, Gary Cosimini, Claiborne Brown, and seemingly everyone else I know ;-)]
- The Times Online features "Billion-pixel panoramas — from your own camera" [Via Jeffrey Warnock]
- As I’ve said before, Logo design = Bullet magnetism. Now "OGC unveils new logo to red faces," says the Telegraph. Er, um, yes. (But hey, it’s no worse than the "Lisa Simpson" London Olympics logo.) [Via Lori Grunin]
- "Oh man… two words: Photoshop Filter," says Adobe’s Chris Arkenberg. Behold Man Babies.