Photoshop CS6

johnmcdnl

I was just having a browsing session on the old interweb and came across this :eek:

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UvOjjjFdZw0&feature=player_embedded#


that does look pretty impressive

basically 1 click or 2 clicks and the photo is where you want it to be with no effort at all - that's really going to help out anyone like me who gets lost using photoshop sometimes and end up giving up

DaireQuinlan

I'd view it more like 1 or 2 clicks and your picture is exactly the same as everyone elses, and looks like what a bunch of engineers in adobe think a photo should look like.

magicbastarder

aka how to make one photo look like another.

magicbastarder

also, assuming he's on good hardware, that's a lot of processing time for not much benefit.

dazftw

Horrible! The laziness of it all..

johnmcdnl

The very first line of the video did say who it was aimed at - "I am not a great artist"

it'll be great for people who aren't great with photoshop but you could do it all yourself if your good with photoshop yourself..

I'm not great with photoshop or editing and a lot of bland photos I take will remain bland unless I get really lucky with something I try..
It'll be good for me and others like me



the blur reduction tool is looks promising as well and should be good enough to let you hand held for even longer exposures if you have a steady hand

charybdis

Does anyone else foresee a slew of threads in 6 months bemoaning Adobe's inability to make the poster Ansel Adams a la the outcry when content-aware fill wasn't actually technically magical or powered by rainbows and unicorn tears?

magicbastarder

johnmcdnl wrote: »

I'm not great with photoshop or editing and a lot of bland photos I take will remain bland unless I get really lucky with something I try..
It'll be good for me and others like me

this kinda hearkens back to the thread i posted about the paradox of choice - this will possibly just help engender the feeling of not needing to try; why learn how to use the tools when photoshop can do it for you?

horses for courses, i suppose.

dazftw

johnmcdnl wrote: »

it'll be great for people who aren't great with photoshop but you could do it all yourself if your good with photoshop yourself..

Yes! Although I can see poeple who want think they can become a professional photographer overnight use it to fool people into thinking they can produce great photos.

sineadw

Surely a cheaper,simpler tool like lightroom or photoshop elements is better for people who don't feel comfortable with the full PS?

Thecageyone

It looks no better than the Lightroom presets to me. You can get some mad effects by just using them and a few minor tweaks.

Content aware was the biggest failure in the last decade I think. I very rarely use it as it's almost always way off. Patch tool kicks it's butt.

Zillah

So, this is how photography dies; with thunderous applause.

101001

ah here! Photoshop is an image manipulation tool. Its not photography. I for one was quite impressed I can think of a load of uses for this in graphic design and video grading. I for one am very impressed.

But calm down adobe Im still recovering from the content aware fill orgasm*

*ive just shopped 50 odd images to have foreground midground and bacground so they feel dimensional and can be panned acrossed and tilted. content aware fill saved me HOURS!

Thecageyone

A manipulation tool used a hell of a lot for photography. Or .. bastardising it, whichever.

I'm glad content aware sucks [for the most part, I mean, at times it struggles to smoothen out a facial spot! where patch tool has it sorted in seconds because you choose what to replace it with] as it'd just make processing too easy.

I love processing much as the next art-iste, but I like it to at least pretend to feel like work

Promac

I've had great results with content aware delete where the cloner just wouldn't have worked.

pixbyjohn

O thank god for those pneumatic tyres replacing the solid tyres of yore on wheelbarrows.....progress

charybdis

101001 wrote: »

ah here! Photoshop is an image manipulation tool. Its not photography. I for one was quite impressed I can think of a load of uses for this in graphic design and video grading. I for one am very impressed.

But calm down adobe Im still recovering from the content aware fill orgasm*

*ive just shopped 50 odd images to have foreground midground and bacground so they feel dimensional and can be panned acrossed and tilted. content aware fill saved me HOURS!

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Photoshop doesn't have legitimate uses, just that the way Adobe pimps it (or appears to pimp it) is as a "fix photograph" application.

I mean, HDR photography has legitimate uses, it doesn't mean that people tend to not be able to use it well or keep their expectations realistic about what it can do.

Why are you making images dimensional for panning & tilting?

CabanSail

When cameras get to the stage where they can actually capture an image as the human eye sees it, then we will not require tools like Photoshop as a neccessity. Until then we have to process our images. This has been true since Photography started.

Kintarō Hattori

I stopped watching that half way through. Photography and processing should be about taking a good photo and then putting in an effort to make it better. Sure new features with Photoshop and other tools are great and could always be of benefit but sometimes it just seems lazy. It sometimes feels like the engineers want to remove all thought from the processing process.

5uspect

"Nothing to do."

charybdis

CabanSail wrote: »

When cameras get to the stage where they can actually capture an image as the human eye sees it, then we will not require tools like Photoshop as a neccessity. Until then we have to process our images. This has been true since Photography started.

I take issue with the idea that photography should logically progress toward capturing what "the human eye" sees. (I had about half a far longer reply on this topic on one of the recent HDR threads, but I never finished it.)

Photography is not about capturing things as we literally see them. You see things in terms of what two incredible cameras hooked up to a supercomputer see as they move through space and time in changing conditions. You see parallax, changes of perspective and light, dimensionality that is impossible to fully preserve in a flat photograph.

Even then, all aspects of photography relate to limiting the amount of information available to the viewer. Photography is fundamentally subtractive. Exposure, shutter speed, framing, composition, depth-of-field, colour (or lack thereof) are all means of removing information from a scene. Unlike painting or many other artistic media, photographs are defined by what was explicitly excluded as much as what was included.

Trying to produce a camera that "sees" like a human for the purposes of better expression is sortof putting the cart before the horse. We should really be trying to "see" like our cameras.

101001

charybdis wrote: »

I don't think anyone is suggesting that Photoshop doesn't have legitimate uses, just that the way Adobe pimps it (or appears to pimp it) is as a "fix photograph" application.

I mean, HDR photography has legitimate uses, it doesn't mean that people tend to not be able to use it well or keep their expectations realistic about what it can do.

Why are you making images dimensional for panning & tilting?

I think the 'fix photograph' application really is a great way for people to learn. It gives you a platform to 'develop' photographs. It makes it more accessible to folks. I have countless rolls of film undeveloped because it was expensive, I lost motivation, I thought they were rubbish etc etc. But with something like photoshop I can sit down on a tuesday, if Im bored and the mood takes me, I can look over a photograph and see how i can make it better. Shopping depth of field, trying to increase dynamic range even compose the shot differently and these are traits that you can bring back to the next photograph, it even helps you to see differently.

People say lazy and samey photographs. If you understand how good photographers make photographs work and you have the time and access to the tools that facilitate that it can only make you better.

oh and the tilting etc was making video from photographs, giving them faux dimensionality http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=nDrr5kMl96k its a long video skip to 1.30 youll see what i mean

melekalikimaka

101001 wrote: »

Shopping depth of field, trying to increase dynamic range even compose the shot differently and these are traits that you can bring back to the next photograph, it even helps you to see differently.

this is the very thing i dislike with ps. its always clear its been edited and loses any truth value it once had, something i think is key to photographs

101001

melekalikimaka wrote: »

this is the very thing i dislike with ps. its always clear its been edited and loses any truth value it once had, something i think is key to photographs

If you're good its not

What i meant was when you analyse your photograph and for example add a fake depth of field and you see the difference it makes you become more controlled when you next take a photograph. This is a silly and simple example but it lets you explore options so you can add more to your arsenal when you next snap

melekalikimaka

101001 wrote: »

If you're good its not

What i meant was when you analyse your photograph and for example add a fake depth of field and you see the difference it makes you become more controlled when you next take a photograph. This is a silly and simple example but it lets you explore options so you can add more to your arsenal when you next snap

or just make you lazy when you realise you can edit after.

photoshop is rarely good... imo of course some must use it, i am not a fan personally

stcstc

firstly, photography is a very small part of the market for photoshop

secondly the kind of tweaking etc and stuff like content aware works very well for commercial type designers, who are always chopping up shots for adverts, removing or adding objects etc

what we do, kind of traditional adjustments to photos, is only a very small part of photoshop

a lot of the latest additions to photoshop are not really aimed at traditional photo people for want of better way of explaining

101001

melekalikimaka wrote: »

or just make you lazy when you realise you can edit after.

I suppose there is that too but it has helped me understand photography greatly. Just wanted to put out a differing opinion that its not all about lazy or fixing bad practice it can help you learn. I guess it depends, as most things in life, on the person wielding the tool

stcstc wrote: »

firstly, photography is a very small part of the market for photoshop

secondly the kind of tweaking etc and stuff like content aware works very well for commercial type designers, who are always chopping up shots for adverts, removing or adding objects etc

Oh and the irony about content aware fill is im finding it works best when the photograph is well taken and properly lit. Im guesing the same thing will happen in cs6 as they are using the type of images that'll best fit what the tools do

Thecageyone

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

I stopped watching that half way through. Photography and processing should be about taking a good photo and then putting in an effort to make it better. Sure new features with Photoshop and other tools are great and could always be of benefit but sometimes it just seems lazy. It sometimes feels like the engineers want to remove all thought from the processing process.

Agreed.


I now feel strange


Oh, and I reckon I'm pretty handy with the tools, if ever anyone fancies a photography-processing face off!

I think I'm better on that end than the actual shooting. Good job with the gear I have ... *sigh*

Kintarō Hattori

Thecageyone wrote: »

Agreed.


I now feel strange


Oh, and I reckon I'm pretty handy with the tools, if ever anyone fancies a photography-processing face off!

I think I'm better on that end than the actual shooting. Good job with the gear I have ... *sigh*

Feic off- I thanked one of your posts the other day!

CabanSail

charybdis wrote: »

I take issue with the idea that photography should logically progress toward capturing what "the human eye" sees.

If you read what I wrote then you will see that I said "we will not require tools like Photoshop as a neccessity"

Most of the best Photographs do not reflect reality but interpretations of it. Most of do not see in Black & White, nor can we see IR.

So I think we agree, my reply was limited to the need for processing.

Thecageyone

Kintarō Hattori wrote: »

Feic off- I thanked one of your posts the other day!

Noted and will thank one in return :P

I was just kidding ... :cool:

I watched another clip and comments say it's a fake:



http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=YELPtkGlcdw

johnmcdnl

Remember the thread with the top 100 photos taken - out of pure curiosity - I wonder how many were photoshopped to some degree - how many were straight out of the camera images and posted directly up here

Then you go to the artistic point of view - that B&W picture in the video did look pretty damn good - personally I couldn't care less if it was photoshopped for 15 hours straight to get there - It's a great shot imo..
If you can take that shot straight from your camera fair dues to you - a lot of people wouldn't be able to do that - I think that's a fair comment to make - not everyone is an expert with the camera to be able to get amazing looking photos out of the camera so photoshop and other tools help so much in this regard..

at the end of the day - if a shot looks great it looks great - only the purists among you will be pissed off that it's photoshopped to look great - the rest of us will love the shot for being a great shot..

Pdfile

johnmcdnl wrote: »

at the end of the day - if a shot looks great it looks great - only the purists among you will be pissed off that it's photoshopped to look great - the rest of us will love the shot for being a great shot..

That is true but frankly, when shooting an important shot in less then ideal situations, obviously photoshop comes to the rescue But i think it is overkilled atm.

if anything its getting harder and harder these days to see any images that haven't been effected by the adobe virus.

sineadw

It's rare a shot comes straight out of the camera. As people have said almost ad nauseum here, even film has a massive amount of processing, from film, developer and paper choice to darkroom techniques that many of the PS tools mimic in the first place. There's nothing 'wrong' with photoshop. What's different here is the computer is making those choices, essentially making pretty pictures and not good photographs. If that's what you want then fair enough.

sineadw

Just read that reply back and it came out wrong. There are some good photographers using presets (I'm failing to see what's really new here). Suggesting (as I think the video does) that they make photos better is very misleading though.

Ah it's an argument that goes round and round..

swingking

As photographers there are only a few things we can change and that's depth of field and exposure.

If we want more contrast and colour in our images, we have to shoot in lighting that allows that. Unfortunately dull lighting creates flat images and we have to improve the contrast using photoshop.

Promac

Sinead's totally right. It's all just the same as flicking on the full-auto switch on the camera.

Sometimes, like if you're on holiday and just want a load of holiday snaps, you take a compact/bridge or you put your camera in full-auto with jpeg instead of raw and let the camera do the work for you. Same thing here with this new photoshop (if this is real - and I'm sure it's close at least).

Not every shot has to be a work of art . Sometimes you just want pretty pictures. I reckon it's the choice though that's important.

eas

Promac wrote: »

Same thing here with this new photoshop (if this is real - and I'm sure it's close at least).

not to side line from the discussion - but it looks like a 3rd party plug-in or stand alone app rather than PS6

5uspect

Looks like it's experimental code he's running.

johnmcdnl

5uspect wrote: »

Looks like it's experimental code he's running.

it was an alpha test shown at an adobe show...
just a glimpse of what could be in the new version - won't be out for at least another 12 months anyways but it's interesting to see the new software all the same

5uspect

It's cool to see what can be done. As an engineer I love it, as a pretentious photographer I dislike the automation of it.

Thecageyone

It's good in one sense. Flickr will be overloaded with 1000's of images that all look alike, so images not overly processed will turn out looking much the better.

challengemaster

Just because an image isn't run through PS, doesn't mean it's automatically a good photo.

Thecageyone

I don't know about you, but I don't upload any pictures I at least personally don't like.

johnmcdnl

Thecageyone wrote: »

It's good in one sense. Flickr will be overloaded with 1000's of images that all look alike, so images not overly processed will turn out looking much the better.

this is the sort of attitude I don't really get - right now say you like a photo of a tree that has a wee bit of skilful photoshopping done to it - the picture ends up looking great - a great picture is a great picture is a great picture...

say if this software ends up working as it says it can and there ends up being loads of photos of trees that look like the first one and they look great but just because the computer did the hard work and lots of people did it some people are start going to say that they don't like that photo because too many people can do it now...

just because lots of people can do it some people will alter what they consider to be good - just to be different and seem like they know more than everyone else..


At the end of the day if a photo is processed or if it's straight from the camera it doesn't matter if it looks good - that should never change - it either looks good or it doesn't and that shouldn't be influenced by how many people copy that style..

it might get a bit boring to keep looking at them all but there still good photos and changing your perspective of what's good shouldn't change just because of how popular a style is...

Thecageyone

What's not to get? If everyone simply runs their images through the exact same filters, they will end up looking too much alike. No originality. if that's alright with you, great. It's a matter of opinion, and I'll keep mine, thanks

johnmcdnl

Thecageyone wrote: »

What's not to get? If everyone simply runs their images through the exact same filters, they will end up looking too much alike. No originality. if that's alright with you, great. It's a matter of opinion, and I'll keep mine, thanks

will you be able to tell the people who used the tool to make a photo now and the people who actually were genuinely creative and did their own thing??

will you dismiss any photo that seems to be photoshopped just because you'll assume it was just the computer doing it all and there was no creativity involved??

Thecageyone

Well of course I'm only going on that clip, looks like you will certainly have a good guess that they used it yeah.

I'll try it myself, but only to see how it actually works away from the spiel. Content aware turned out nothing near as good as their promo's suggested IMO. This could well turnout to be the same. And as already pointed out, it looks more like an external plug-in than a new in-built feature.

melekalikimaka

the line between photography and digital art is shrinking in this thread

Thecageyone

I'm only looking at this from a photography p.o.v to be honest. I don't care what else it'll be used for.

melekalikimaka

Thecageyone wrote: »

I'm only looking at this from a photography p.o.v to be honest. I don't care what else it'll be used for.

there comes a pont in an image where editing has changed it from a photograph, to digital art, alot of plug ins do that these days.



...imo