Welcome to our community

Be a part of something great, join today!

Log in
  • Hey all, just changed over the backend after 15 years I figured time to give it a bit of an update, its probably gonna be a bit weird for most of you and i am sure there is a few bugs to work out but it should kinda work the same as before... hopefully :)

New Wizard feature in Photoshop

Damn!

I've spent years developing my Photoshop skills to enable me to do such complicated, tedious and time consuming touch-ups. But that was billable time. How will I make my money now? Please Adobe don't release this to the general public. If you must sell it, make it really expensive so that only professionals will pay for it. Then I can make money renting out my suite and not have to work any more.

For the sarcasm impaired; that was not meant to be taken literally. :-)
 
Scott Crawley said:
Damn!

I've spent years developing my Photoshop skills to enable me to do such complicated, tedious and time consuming touch-ups. But that was billable time. How will I make my money now? Please Adobe don't release this to the general public. If you must sell it, make it really expensive so that only professionals will pay for it. Then I can make money renting out my suite and not have to work any more.

For the sarcasm impaired; that was not meant to be taken literally. :-)
Click to expand...

Haha, I understand what you're saying. Honestly the thoughts going through my head as I was watching the video were, "HOLY SHIT!" and "Now everyone can be amazing photoshop artists!"

Quite an amazing feature.
 
David Wyatt said:
Amazing...If they could do this convincingly with motion images they would RAKE in the money.
Click to expand...

Painting, cloning, and supercloning was my specialty for VFX. Guess not anymore... Now anyone can fix one frame and then easily superclone from there to the frames before and after. There goes another job...
 
Cool yes, I guess I am part of that group that thinks that photoshop is killing photography. It makes it too easy to get great images and the images themselves look too perfect. Don't get me wrong, photoshop is very very useful and I use it for minor modifications to pictures but when you a producing a completely different image than what you started with, it becomes more like illustration than photography. Call me old school but I still shoot on film with a 40 yo Nikon and Mamiya TLR and while I scan most of my negatives and color correct in Aperture, Lightroom and Photoshop, I still enjoy traditional darkroom work, nothing like dodging and burning the traditional way, with a piece of card stock.
 
Yea, and great art can only be acheived through some arduous process. I've heard the position before.

Heck, If you prefer the results you get by dodging and burning on an enlarger then have at it. To me, it is fun, it was fun, and now I've moved along.

BTW, I love a good DI too. Do some take it too far? Hell yes, but that doesn't make it an inferior process.
 
Scott Crawley said:
Yea, and great art can only be acheived through some arduous process. I've heard the position before.

Heck, If you prefer the results you get by dodging and burning on an enlarger then have at it. To me, it is fun, it was fun, and now I've moved along.

BTW, I love a good DI too. Do some take it too far? Hell yes, but that doesn't make it an inferior process.
Click to expand...

I do not feel that it must be difficult to be art (Since I am also a painter, I could easily say that photography is way too easy as many other painters wrongly state). However with all the advances in photographic technology, I feel that something has been lost. I look at some wonderful digital paintings done with Adobe illustrator and Corel painter and they look great but something is missing. With all the photoshop mods, the images look perfect, almost too perfect, much of the digital photography I look at today feels sterile, almost plasticky. And with large cards, auto everything and digital cams, many new photographers go for the whole "spray and pray approach" shooting hundreds of photos in a day and overwhelming themselves on their computer later that night. I like to shoot one of two rolls of 35mm or 120 film in a day and after getting my scans back from the developer, having 10 or so solid shots to work with.

I guess growing up in a digital world, there is something romantic about the old way of doing things. I feel that I am contradicting myself since I am on a digi cine forum but my choice to embrace RED is due to the fact that that is the direction the industry is going. I will always love film and will shoot it as long as possible which will be much easier in still photography. In the movie world, rising production costs are pushing digital so it is best to adopt now. Since photography is a hobby, it is easier for me to be picky. For people who take photographs for a living, photoshop and digi cams make more sense. Since I wish to be a cinematographer, the Red system makes sense from a financial standpoint.
 
How is it a hoax? They did a presentation in front of the entire adobe developer team...

My favorite youtube comment was "So what you're saying is..Adobe = Skynet" :)
 
Why do I feel like I'm the only one who isn't going insanely stupid over this? The content-aware healing brush is what the healing brush should have been from the beginning, so "meh..." to that one. The content-aware fill is more impressive to some extent, but it looks exactly like the Resynthesizer and I'm willing to bet they're using the same algorithms (from Wei and Levoy). If that's the case, you guys won't be so amazed when you see it at high resolutions. It has a bad habit of repeating it's surroundings (duh). On an image like the stitched panorama, you should still be prepared to spend a long time after running the content-aware fill, to clean and re-paint all your desired details and make it look "right". Luxology's ImageSynth also uses these same algorithms to generate textured fill and create endless and/or repeating textures from existing images. So really, nothing to see here, tools are already out there. Adobe's going to bundle it into Photoshop in the near future.
 
Jeff Kilgroe said:
Why do I feel like I'm the only one who isn't going insanely stupid over this? The content-aware healing brush is what the healing brush should have been from the beginning, so "meh..." to that one. The content-aware fill is more impressive to some extent, but it looks exactly like the Resynthesizer and I'm willing to bet they're using the same algorithms (from Wei and Levoy). If that's the case, you guys won't be so amazed when you see it at high resolutions. It has a bad habit of repeating it's surroundings (duh). On an image like the stitched panorama, you should still be prepared to spend a long time after running the content-aware fill, to clean and re-paint all your desired details and make it look "right". Luxology's ImageSynth also uses these same algorithms to generate textured fill and create endless and/or repeating textures from existing images. So really, nothing to see here, tools are already out there. Adobe's going to bundle it into Photoshop in the near future.
Click to expand...

I would be kind of surprised if anyone thinks that they can use this content aware feature and get high quality results. Sure it takes about half of the leg work out of replacing an object or deleting it. But I can see the clean up job being the same if not more so. I guess we'll just have to wait and see when its out.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top