Bruce Fraser, noted author and color theory expert, died Saturday, December 16th of lung cancer.
Here is short note by Jeff Schewe, a friend of Bruce's:
http://www.photoshopnews.com/
More information, and a list of comments from Bruce's friends and admirers:
http://photoshopnews.com/2006/12/14/bruce-frasers-serious-illness/
He was a great soul of the Photoshop and color theory world, and will be sorely missed.
Mike
Bruce Fraser's Death
The following was written by Dan Margulis for the colortheory group on yahoo:
List,
With deep sorrow, I report that Bruce Fraser died yesterday. His
contributions to our understanding were great. He was also a gentleman in every
respect. Our field is diminished by his absence.
His achievements are widely known and need no repetition here. Since, for
more than a decade, our names have been frequently associated by those who
mistakenly assumed that we were polar opposites, it is appropriate to share some
memories of him.
I first encountered Bruce's name in the early 1990s. His background was as a
writer and amateur photographer, not in heavy-duty Photoshop production. But he
was developing a specialty as a writer about color. In around 1992, I
believe, another publication featured a long panel discussion involving four
color experts who were talking about what the future would bring. One was a
Pantone executive, I forget the other two, and one was Bruce, which I thought
was quite odd. What was odder was that I thought he had more intelligent ideas
to offer than anyone else on the panel.
In 1993, along with Thad McIlroy and Rudolph Burger, he published a monograph
entitled "Using Color Management Systems for Pushbutton Color" That "pushbutton
color" phrase got rubbed in his face for many years, particularly by me, as it
became apparent that no such paradise was going to be achieved in that century,
let alone the next one.
In 1994, I published the first edition of Professional Photoshop, followed
around a year later by Bruce and David Blatner's Real World Photoshop 3. Anyone
who has given the matter much study knows that there is not now and never has
been much overlap between those two titles--my books historically compete more
with Barry Haynes' Photoshop Artistry than with RWP. However, in the parts that
they did overlap, there were fireworks. My book targeted "calibrationists", a
position that was somewhat, but not exactly, similar to Bruce's views, with
which I was not yet fully familiar. In RWP, Bruce struck back with a lot of
shots across the bow of CMYK dinosaurs who did not realize where the industry
was headed. No names were mentioned, but it was clear that there was one
particular dinosaur to whom he was referring.
At that time, we did not know one another, maybe we had shaken hands at an
industry conference, nothing more. We both assumed the worst of each other. It's
understandable that we each thought this: it was an age of rampant idiocy.
Much of the prepress industry was in a state of denial about the move to the
desktop, and Bruce naturally assumed I was one of "them". Many of the
self-styled color theorists of the time were pompous fools, and I naturally
assumed he was one of "them", too.
We were both to discover that we were mistaken. Over the years we became good
friends and shared many a happy moment. I don't know exactly when the suspicions
broke down. It took a great deal to surprise Bruce, but I actually saw his jaw
drop on one occasion. We were trying to make small talk early in our
relationship, and a subject came up in which I have considerable experience and
expertise, to wit, whisky. It would be hard to express how shocked Bruce,
immensely proud of his own Scots heritage, was to learn that I could distinguish
not just Lagavulin from Laphroaig, but Ardmore from Bowmore from Cragganmore, to
say nothing of Craigellachie from Glenallachie. I believe that it was only after
that time that he began to seriously consider the possibility that CMYK was a
useful colorspace.
At that time, online commentary was just becoming an important factor. Bruce
and I were both Compuserve subscribers; with the Web a non-factor, this was a
place where much serious discussion took place. The swordplay that Bruce and I
indulged in caused much amusement, as we went from topic to topic--I can't even
summarize all the things we argued about, except to say that some
exquisitely refined barbs found their marks on each of us.
From this, some assumed that Bruce was the progressive, and I the
traditionalist, but this missed the mark. In most ways Bruce was more
conservative than I was--particularly with respect to the field he had written
about, color management. I had never expected much of a contribution from
vendors, and therefore was not surprised when they let us down. Bruce held them
to a much higher standard.
In April 1997, at the Seybold Conference in New York, Thad McIlroy and Bruce
Fraser held a session discussing how the field had progressed since the
"Pushbutton Color" monograph of four years earlier. Naturally, they were
disappointed. Thad described himself as "bitter" and stated flatly "color
management has failed." Bruce lit into monitor vendors. He said that the
calibration assistance they were providing was "worse than useless", and the
built-in profiles they supplied "a cruel joke". In using those words, Bruce was
not joking. There was no smile on his face. He meant them to be taken literally.
The above says a lot about why Bruce was so effective in his writing. You may
not agree with his ideas but there is no difficulty understanding them. A lot
of what he discussed was highly technical, but he would always get to the
point in a very comprehensible way. The main problem with technical books is
that they are written either by knowledgeable people who can't express
themselves very clearly, or by people whose skill in writing disguises the fact
that they don't know what they're talking about. Bruce was the rare writer who
could combine understanding of the subject with the ability to explain it. That
ability to condense complicated topics into language people can understand is
why, to me, his finest work was Real World Color Management, on which he was
lead author, along with Chris Murphy and Fred Bunting.
Bruce's dry wit emerged in his last public post (AFAIK) in October, he
thanked all those who had expressed concern about his condition, conceded
gracefully that he had a terminal illness, and apologized for not having
responded earlier, saying, "being sick is a full-time occupation."
The funniest thing he ever wrote was in a vicious magazine review panning an
early version of profiling software known as ColorBlind. He illustrated it
with several images of absolutely appalling color produced by profiles from said
product, which had an interesting marketing slogan. Somewhere in my office I
have a copy of this magazine, but it has made itself scarce, so I am going to
have to paraphrase what Bruce said: this isn't word for word, but it's close:
"This product's slogan is, 'Perfect Color With Your Eyes Closed'. And so it
is--for as long as you keep them closed. It's only when you open them that you
can see how dreadful it is."
********
It is hard to believe that more than five years have passed since the 9/11
attacks, but I'd like to go back to that time, to San Francisco, Bruce's adopted
home town, for a defining moment in our relationship.
The fall 2001 Seybold Conference took place only two weeks after the attacks,
which naturally devastated attendance. Many companies forbade their employees to
travel on what most certainly were the safest flights in this country's history,
and about half the attendees also cancelled.
From time to time the two of us had appeared together on panels to discuss
various aspects of color management, being that this was still a hot topic. For
this Seybold, we had been scheduled for such a panel, with four other people,
of whom Thad McIlroy was one. Two, plus the moderator, pulled out because they
were afraid to board the aircraft to San Francisco. The fourth panelist
refused to appear for fear of finding himself in the expected crossfire between
Bruce and me. Thad then suggest that *he* become the moderator, and that the
entire 90-minute session be a debate between the two of us. Both of us agreed
that this would be a poor idea under normal circumstances but that the
circumstances were not normal, and that anyone who had made the effort to come
to San Francisco deserved to see some fireworks. So, flyers were printed up and
distributed on the show floor announcing the program change.
Moderating, Thad correctly noted that nobody knew what kind of people were
attending Seybold, so instead of announcing an agenda, he would ask the audience
what they wanted to hear Bruce and me talk about. He pointed at the first
person, and asked, "You, sir, why are you attending this session?"
To which, the reply was, "I came to watch the death match."
That attendee was disappointed. I asked Bruce whether he now concurred with my
assessment that Photoshop 5 was "a major disservice to the industry." He replied
that he did. He asked me whether I thought service providers were unduly
resistant to change and I launched a five-minute tirade about how true that was.
I asked about the technical capabilities of most color-management
consultants and he attacked them. And then we both ranted about how poor
implementation of color management discredited the entire concept. Thad threw up
his hands and yelled, "Don't the two of you disagree about *anything*?"
No, the truth is, we didn't, not about very much, not after the turn of the
century, anyway.
********
The most disagreeable feature of this field is how it seems to bring out the
worst features of people's personalities. There have been far too many
regrettable instances of user-bashing, often by people who share some of Bruce's
views.
It is a testimony to Bruce's character that he did not indulge in this. I
never knew him to berate users even when he was convinced they were wrong. When
he found that he had misstated any of my views he invariably corrected himself.
When he needed to say that he had changed any of his own views he did so
gracefully. He was very patient in answering questions that many other experts
might have had difficulty being patient with.
In setting this example for others, Bruce changed our lives for the better.
This list has had its share of hate speech recently. I am happy to say that
elsewhere, moderation reigns. I see very little of the "you don't agree with my
workflow, therefore you are a fool" rhetoric that was so common just a few
years ago. Bruce does not deserve all the credit for this development but he
certainly deserves a lot of it, which brings up the natural question of how he
will be thought of ten years from now.
********
It's not easy to outguess history's judgment. This is particularly true in
Bruce's case because his most valuable contribution was probably behind the
scenes.
Based on his public writings, the contribution is a mixed bag. Unquestionably
he helped popularize Photoshop and, later, Camera Raw. He made the concepts of
color management accessible to many more people than otherwise would have been
the case. As against that, I am not going to sit here with a straight face and
pretend that I think that his histogram-worship and overweening concerns about
data purity did anything but set us back.
What Bruce had, though, was common sense, and he also had the ear of many
influential people in the industry. He knew that the biggest obstacle to
workflow adoption was making it too complex. The term "rocket science" as
applied to many color management concepts was his. He was continually saying to
vendors, "you are making rocket science out of a simple concept!" He was,
therefore, an advocate for you and me.
How successful he was at this is anybody's guess. If the vendors implement
something successfully that was actually Bruce's idea, they're unlikely to give
him the credit for it. If they ignore his advice with disastrous results, they
won't tell us that, either.
My suspicion is that we all owe a lot to Bruce in ways that will never be
obvious.
********
Late last year, while on a business trip in Europe, Bruce collapsed at an
airport. Upon being transported back to California, he had emergency bypass
surgery (his second such operation). The recuperation period was lengthy and he
received, naturally, many expressions of support from well-wishers. In
mid-October, he posted a public thank you, acknowledging the seriousness of his
condition, and adding,
"But my prognosis is excellent...I'm feeling a little better every day, and
most of all, this whole thing has given me the tools and insights to
disempower, finally and with prejudice, some of those self-destructive demons
that have been with me for most of my life. You've all made me realize how much
I have to live for."
It is heartrending to read those words and realize that only around six
months later doctors would give him a diagnosis that no one deserves to hear.
This serves as a reminder to all of us about the perils of putting off making
certain changes, because we don't have any assurance that we'll have the time to
make them. Bruce's life was tragically short. There, but for the hand of
Providence, go you or I. For myself, I aspire to arrange my life so that if it
comes to an early end, I should have few regrets over how I chose to spend
what time I had been permitted on this earth.
Will I be able to say that, when the hour comes? Will you?
While this is a sad occasion, it is perhaps a happy one in the sense that we
know Bruce would have been able to answer the question the way we would all like
to. He worked in a field that he loved. He aspired to make a difference,
and he did. He aspired to be respected, and he was. He served as an example to
all, and all are poorer for his passing.
Dan Margulis
List,
With deep sorrow, I report that Bruce Fraser died yesterday. His
contributions to our understanding were great. He was also a gentleman in every
respect. Our field is diminished by his absence.
His achievements are widely known and need no repetition here. Since, for
more than a decade, our names have been frequently associated by those who
mistakenly assumed that we were polar opposites, it is appropriate to share some
memories of him.
I first encountered Bruce's name in the early 1990s. His background was as a
writer and amateur photographer, not in heavy-duty Photoshop production. But he
was developing a specialty as a writer about color. In around 1992, I
believe, another publication featured a long panel discussion involving four
color experts who were talking about what the future would bring. One was a
Pantone executive, I forget the other two, and one was Bruce, which I thought
was quite odd. What was odder was that I thought he had more intelligent ideas
to offer than anyone else on the panel.
In 1993, along with Thad McIlroy and Rudolph Burger, he published a monograph
entitled "Using Color Management Systems for Pushbutton Color" That "pushbutton
color" phrase got rubbed in his face for many years, particularly by me, as it
became apparent that no such paradise was going to be achieved in that century,
let alone the next one.
In 1994, I published the first edition of Professional Photoshop, followed
around a year later by Bruce and David Blatner's Real World Photoshop 3. Anyone
who has given the matter much study knows that there is not now and never has
been much overlap between those two titles--my books historically compete more
with Barry Haynes' Photoshop Artistry than with RWP. However, in the parts that
they did overlap, there were fireworks. My book targeted "calibrationists", a
position that was somewhat, but not exactly, similar to Bruce's views, with
which I was not yet fully familiar. In RWP, Bruce struck back with a lot of
shots across the bow of CMYK dinosaurs who did not realize where the industry
was headed. No names were mentioned, but it was clear that there was one
particular dinosaur to whom he was referring.
At that time, we did not know one another, maybe we had shaken hands at an
industry conference, nothing more. We both assumed the worst of each other. It's
understandable that we each thought this: it was an age of rampant idiocy.
Much of the prepress industry was in a state of denial about the move to the
desktop, and Bruce naturally assumed I was one of "them". Many of the
self-styled color theorists of the time were pompous fools, and I naturally
assumed he was one of "them", too.
We were both to discover that we were mistaken. Over the years we became good
friends and shared many a happy moment. I don't know exactly when the suspicions
broke down. It took a great deal to surprise Bruce, but I actually saw his jaw
drop on one occasion. We were trying to make small talk early in our
relationship, and a subject came up in which I have considerable experience and
expertise, to wit, whisky. It would be hard to express how shocked Bruce,
immensely proud of his own Scots heritage, was to learn that I could distinguish
not just Lagavulin from Laphroaig, but Ardmore from Bowmore from Cragganmore, to
say nothing of Craigellachie from Glenallachie. I believe that it was only after
that time that he began to seriously consider the possibility that CMYK was a
useful colorspace.
At that time, online commentary was just becoming an important factor. Bruce
and I were both Compuserve subscribers; with the Web a non-factor, this was a
place where much serious discussion took place. The swordplay that Bruce and I
indulged in caused much amusement, as we went from topic to topic--I can't even
summarize all the things we argued about, except to say that some
exquisitely refined barbs found their marks on each of us.
From this, some assumed that Bruce was the progressive, and I the
traditionalist, but this missed the mark. In most ways Bruce was more
conservative than I was--particularly with respect to the field he had written
about, color management. I had never expected much of a contribution from
vendors, and therefore was not surprised when they let us down. Bruce held them
to a much higher standard.
In April 1997, at the Seybold Conference in New York, Thad McIlroy and Bruce
Fraser held a session discussing how the field had progressed since the
"Pushbutton Color" monograph of four years earlier. Naturally, they were
disappointed. Thad described himself as "bitter" and stated flatly "color
management has failed." Bruce lit into monitor vendors. He said that the
calibration assistance they were providing was "worse than useless", and the
built-in profiles they supplied "a cruel joke". In using those words, Bruce was
not joking. There was no smile on his face. He meant them to be taken literally.
The above says a lot about why Bruce was so effective in his writing. You may
not agree with his ideas but there is no difficulty understanding them. A lot
of what he discussed was highly technical, but he would always get to the
point in a very comprehensible way. The main problem with technical books is
that they are written either by knowledgeable people who can't express
themselves very clearly, or by people whose skill in writing disguises the fact
that they don't know what they're talking about. Bruce was the rare writer who
could combine understanding of the subject with the ability to explain it. That
ability to condense complicated topics into language people can understand is
why, to me, his finest work was Real World Color Management, on which he was
lead author, along with Chris Murphy and Fred Bunting.
Bruce's dry wit emerged in his last public post (AFAIK) in October, he
thanked all those who had expressed concern about his condition, conceded
gracefully that he had a terminal illness, and apologized for not having
responded earlier, saying, "being sick is a full-time occupation."
The funniest thing he ever wrote was in a vicious magazine review panning an
early version of profiling software known as ColorBlind. He illustrated it
with several images of absolutely appalling color produced by profiles from said
product, which had an interesting marketing slogan. Somewhere in my office I
have a copy of this magazine, but it has made itself scarce, so I am going to
have to paraphrase what Bruce said: this isn't word for word, but it's close:
"This product's slogan is, 'Perfect Color With Your Eyes Closed'. And so it
is--for as long as you keep them closed. It's only when you open them that you
can see how dreadful it is."
********
It is hard to believe that more than five years have passed since the 9/11
attacks, but I'd like to go back to that time, to San Francisco, Bruce's adopted
home town, for a defining moment in our relationship.
The fall 2001 Seybold Conference took place only two weeks after the attacks,
which naturally devastated attendance. Many companies forbade their employees to
travel on what most certainly were the safest flights in this country's history,
and about half the attendees also cancelled.
From time to time the two of us had appeared together on panels to discuss
various aspects of color management, being that this was still a hot topic. For
this Seybold, we had been scheduled for such a panel, with four other people,
of whom Thad McIlroy was one. Two, plus the moderator, pulled out because they
were afraid to board the aircraft to San Francisco. The fourth panelist
refused to appear for fear of finding himself in the expected crossfire between
Bruce and me. Thad then suggest that *he* become the moderator, and that the
entire 90-minute session be a debate between the two of us. Both of us agreed
that this would be a poor idea under normal circumstances but that the
circumstances were not normal, and that anyone who had made the effort to come
to San Francisco deserved to see some fireworks. So, flyers were printed up and
distributed on the show floor announcing the program change.
Moderating, Thad correctly noted that nobody knew what kind of people were
attending Seybold, so instead of announcing an agenda, he would ask the audience
what they wanted to hear Bruce and me talk about. He pointed at the first
person, and asked, "You, sir, why are you attending this session?"
To which, the reply was, "I came to watch the death match."
That attendee was disappointed. I asked Bruce whether he now concurred with my
assessment that Photoshop 5 was "a major disservice to the industry." He replied
that he did. He asked me whether I thought service providers were unduly
resistant to change and I launched a five-minute tirade about how true that was.
I asked about the technical capabilities of most color-management
consultants and he attacked them. And then we both ranted about how poor
implementation of color management discredited the entire concept. Thad threw up
his hands and yelled, "Don't the two of you disagree about *anything*?"
No, the truth is, we didn't, not about very much, not after the turn of the
century, anyway.
********
The most disagreeable feature of this field is how it seems to bring out the
worst features of people's personalities. There have been far too many
regrettable instances of user-bashing, often by people who share some of Bruce's
views.
It is a testimony to Bruce's character that he did not indulge in this. I
never knew him to berate users even when he was convinced they were wrong. When
he found that he had misstated any of my views he invariably corrected himself.
When he needed to say that he had changed any of his own views he did so
gracefully. He was very patient in answering questions that many other experts
might have had difficulty being patient with.
In setting this example for others, Bruce changed our lives for the better.
This list has had its share of hate speech recently. I am happy to say that
elsewhere, moderation reigns. I see very little of the "you don't agree with my
workflow, therefore you are a fool" rhetoric that was so common just a few
years ago. Bruce does not deserve all the credit for this development but he
certainly deserves a lot of it, which brings up the natural question of how he
will be thought of ten years from now.
********
It's not easy to outguess history's judgment. This is particularly true in
Bruce's case because his most valuable contribution was probably behind the
scenes.
Based on his public writings, the contribution is a mixed bag. Unquestionably
he helped popularize Photoshop and, later, Camera Raw. He made the concepts of
color management accessible to many more people than otherwise would have been
the case. As against that, I am not going to sit here with a straight face and
pretend that I think that his histogram-worship and overweening concerns about
data purity did anything but set us back.
What Bruce had, though, was common sense, and he also had the ear of many
influential people in the industry. He knew that the biggest obstacle to
workflow adoption was making it too complex. The term "rocket science" as
applied to many color management concepts was his. He was continually saying to
vendors, "you are making rocket science out of a simple concept!" He was,
therefore, an advocate for you and me.
How successful he was at this is anybody's guess. If the vendors implement
something successfully that was actually Bruce's idea, they're unlikely to give
him the credit for it. If they ignore his advice with disastrous results, they
won't tell us that, either.
My suspicion is that we all owe a lot to Bruce in ways that will never be
obvious.
********
Late last year, while on a business trip in Europe, Bruce collapsed at an
airport. Upon being transported back to California, he had emergency bypass
surgery (his second such operation). The recuperation period was lengthy and he
received, naturally, many expressions of support from well-wishers. In
mid-October, he posted a public thank you, acknowledging the seriousness of his
condition, and adding,
"But my prognosis is excellent...I'm feeling a little better every day, and
most of all, this whole thing has given me the tools and insights to
disempower, finally and with prejudice, some of those self-destructive demons
that have been with me for most of my life. You've all made me realize how much
I have to live for."
It is heartrending to read those words and realize that only around six
months later doctors would give him a diagnosis that no one deserves to hear.
This serves as a reminder to all of us about the perils of putting off making
certain changes, because we don't have any assurance that we'll have the time to
make them. Bruce's life was tragically short. There, but for the hand of
Providence, go you or I. For myself, I aspire to arrange my life so that if it
comes to an early end, I should have few regrets over how I chose to spend
what time I had been permitted on this earth.
Will I be able to say that, when the hour comes? Will you?
While this is a sad occasion, it is perhaps a happy one in the sense that we
know Bruce would have been able to answer the question the way we would all like
to. He worked in a field that he loved. He aspired to make a difference,
and he did. He aspired to be respected, and he was. He served as an example to
all, and all are poorer for his passing.
Dan Margulis
-
mikemeister_admin
- Posts: 4927
- Joined: Fri Sep 20, 2013 8:29 pm
I loved working with Bruce because he had a fine mind, was a scientist by nature, if not by training, and was as excited as I was about taking on the challenges and trying to find where the holes were. Dan, perhaps correctly, makes gentle fun of the book Bruce and Rudy and I did together, "Using Color Management Systems for Pushbutton Color." But remember, that was in 1993, when no one had a clue about what desktop color was capable of, and Bruce put a huge amount of work into devising the best tests he could to figure out just what these new-fangled systems could produce. I financed the effort, none of us made a sous, but by these efforts does an industry (slowly) move forward. Rudy then wrote (Steve Hannaford edited, and I published)
a more scientific guide to color management, and that was even better received, staying in print for a number of years.
Anyway, this is about Bruce. He was a great gentleman, and a gentle man, a true professional, an invaluable member of our profession. I'd like to think that he set an example that helped folks like Dan Margulis reach even higher, and become in turn great contributors to our profession.
I think that Bruce lived as he wanted to live, and was prepared to accept the consequences. Hence he was a brave man.
He was above all a lovely human being, with a gentle, funny and loving manner, and I will miss him a great deal.
a more scientific guide to color management, and that was even better received, staying in print for a number of years.
Anyway, this is about Bruce. He was a great gentleman, and a gentle man, a true professional, an invaluable member of our profession. I'd like to think that he set an example that helped folks like Dan Margulis reach even higher, and become in turn great contributors to our profession.
I think that Bruce lived as he wanted to live, and was prepared to accept the consequences. Hence he was a brave man.
He was above all a lovely human being, with a gentle, funny and loving manner, and I will miss him a great deal.
Return to “Interesting Images”
Who is online
Users browsing this forum: No registered users and 30 guests