I found this on Adobe Lab's blog. This stuff is getting crazy.
Posted by Todd Caudle on March 24, 2010 at 5:40 PM
I was aware of some of the stuff the new content-aware fill could do, but I was completely shocked by that last example with the pano image. That's amazing! Also impressive was removing that huge road with one click. I've got a shot that didn't make it into the calendar this year, specifically because I had trouble removing evidence of a little two-track trail in the middle of it. I intentionally held it back so I could fix it in CS5 and use it at a later date.
Posted by D J Kuklinski on March 24, 2010 at 6:38 PM
Very cool. I'm looking forward to the version that will take the worst photo imaginable --regarding composition,subject, sharpness, lighting, etc.-- and with one click of a button turns it into a masterpiece. Hey, I need all the help I can I get.
Posted by bill meikle on March 24, 2010 at 7:00 PM
wow, wow, wow. Soon we won't even need to start with a photo!
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on March 24, 2010 at 7:38 PM
Looks like that content aware fill will be my primary motivation for getting this upgrade.
That last pano example is mind blowing!
But, I must say, the guy needs to learn how to shoot a pano sequence!
I thought about that too: you start with a palette of objects: trees, some mountains, a lake, some elk, then arrange them on a canvas then use the content aware tools to merge/blend/whatever all the pieces together.
...I must say, the guy needs to learn how to shoot a pano sequence!
Yep. Even if you are putting something together from parts, they still need to be quality parts. Or at least I hope so!
Posted by Joel Hazelton on March 24, 2010 at 10:12 PM
Hate to go on a rant here but... Another stab at making an old school landscape photographer go extinct. As if we didn't hear it enough at gallery shows when a random person off the street with a P&S complaints that they can do better than what's on the wall. Now they have the tools that helps them get there and they will never understand the process. Technology is great but when is great too great...
Posted by Todd Caudle on March 25, 2010 at 1:17 AM
I hear you, Aleks, but I'm not troubled by this at all. If I were an editor at a major newspaper or news magazine, I'd be all kinds of worried about what unscrupulous photojournos were gonna start sending across my desk. They've already coined a phrase for it: fauxtography. But I can honestly say that I'm comfortable admitting that I just take pretty pictures, nothing deeper meaning than that. I know where my boundaries are, while others don't have any, so I look at these simply as tools in a tool chest that will help me fix some problems. For instance, I see the new content-aware features as finally giving me a flare-erasing tool. Hallelujah!!! Technically, the flare is in the image, and it's a physical property of the equipment I use and the direction I choose to point the camera, but I have no problem getting rid of it after the fact. Same goes for the aforementioned road, seen here. The pic is actually not bad with the road in it, but I'd rather show the scene without any blatant hand of man. That's why I'm saving it for CS5, because I never really got a good result with previous attempts in CS3.
Others will go farther with these tools than I would, but their line is for them to place.
Posted by Bill Pelzmann on March 25, 2010 at 3:08 AM
Aleks, I agree that the new content-aware tools will add a new level to the term "photoshopping", and thoughts similar to yours did cross my mind. Certainly many more images created with terrible technique will be "rescued". The pano example in the video serves as exhibit #1.
I think the road in Todd's example is just fine as shot, but if he wants to remove it that's OK with me. I like "pretty" pictures. Just as before, we will need to determine where to draw our line.
The thing that irritates me the most are photographers that prominently market their work as "untouched", "straight from the camera", yet their images even include obvious composites !!!
Yeah, I'd hate to be a journalistic editor right now, but for flare, or eking out some of my badly shot panos, this looks great. On the other hand, I guess this is about the end of watermarks being good for anything at all.
Posted by Jeff Beard on March 25, 2010 at 10:25 AM
...I'm comfortable admitting that I just take pretty pictures
I want to take pretty and otherwise interesting pictures too. I accept the challenge of trying to put something interesting in the frame when I push the button. I fail more often than not but that's where the challenge and learning happens.
Regardless, I'm happy about painless lens flare removal.
Posted by Chris Rice on March 25, 2010 at 10:51 AM
Ah yes good old technology, making our lives easier and faster. Considering how long digital cameras have been around (11 years maybe), think about the next 10 years and where we'll be in 2020. Will we even need Photoshop? The term in-camera may have a whole new significance. I can't even begin to fathom the forthcoming processing power and the associated computer technology.
But why is this all bad? In reaction to what Aleks mentioned, I suppose it is a bit frustrating, however nothing will replace YOU, the ARTIST. Sure, there are lots of people with consumer cameras that claim to be able to re-create an image they see in a gallery. I would hear it all the time at Bentwave on First Fridays. I learned quickly that its just part of owning a gallery, and that people are generally interested in the art and are inspired by it also, which makes it all worth it in the end. The ones that say 'I can shoot that', probably can and will, but probably won't be showing in a gallery anytime soon. But if they are, hats off to them, and welcome to the artists' community.
In terms of modern tools facilitating the 'process' of photography, I suppose the big question is: has the process really changed at all? It used to be that you loaded film, adjusted your camera settings, set the lens aperture, focus, click, then develop and print. The only difference is you load a CF card, and download files to a computer. Everything else is the same. So, understanding the 'process' really isn't an issue in my opinon; if someone has a vision, they will make it work. A consistent message I hear is too many people talking about the rules of photography. Seriously? Rules are meant to be broken, and in photography anything goes, in my opinion.
But going back to the conversation, it's an unfortunate by-product of technological advances. The whole 'instant gratification' problem is alive and well in almost everything we do today, and its clearly evident with photography. I can walk outside right now, take a photo, and print it all within 10 minutes. That is quite remarkable, and yes, it gives people an opportunity to move quickly in their craft. An obvious thorn in the side of many who have been doing this awhile and for legitimate reasons. But, unfortunately, theres not much you can do about it, so embrace what we have, and go do your own thing in your own time.
(I'm thinking CS5 is going to be pretty sweet)
Posted by Jody Grigg on March 25, 2010 at 11:06 AM
WOW....
Posted by Carol Hyman on March 25, 2010 at 11:53 AM
I'll ditto Jody's W-O-W
That content-aware fill-in is amazing.
Carol
Posted by Brian Jackson on March 25, 2010 at 12:02 PM
But why is this all bad? In reaction to what Aleks mentioned, I suppose it is a bit frustrating, however nothing will replace YOU, the ARTIST. Sure, there are lots of people with consumer cameras that claim to be able to re-create an image they see in a gallery. I would hear it all the time at Bentwave on First Fridays. I learned quickly that its just part of owning a gallery, and that people are generally interested in the art and are inspired by it also, which makes it all worth it in the end. The ones that say 'I can shoot that', probably can and will, but probably won't be showing in a gallery anytime soon. But if they are, hats off to them, and welcome to the artists' community.
I couldn't agree anymore. Why worry about something you can't control.
Posted by Laurie Wendt on March 25, 2010 at 12:14 PM
The content-aware fill tool looks like a promising tool. If it's like other tools in PS it won't be perfect and touch ups will have to be done. It's hard to tell how accurate it will be in the video. I know I can't wait to use it.
It's hard to believe Photoshop has come so far. I started using it with the 2.5 version and its just amazing what they have done with it. For my day job I do Photoshop for a printing company. If they keep this up I may have to quit my day job and take photos full time to make a living!
Discussion
20 repliesThat last pano example is mind blowing!
But, I must say, the guy needs to learn how to shoot a pano sequence!
I thought about that too: you start with a palette of objects: trees, some mountains, a lake, some elk, then arrange them on a canvas then use the content aware tools to merge/blend/whatever all the pieces together.
Yep. Even if you are putting something together from parts, they still need to be quality parts. Or at least I hope so!
Others will go farther with these tools than I would, but their line is for them to place.
I think the road in Todd's example is just fine as shot, but if he wants to remove it that's OK with me. I like "pretty" pictures. Just as before, we will need to determine where to draw our line.
The thing that irritates me the most are photographers that prominently market their work as "untouched", "straight from the camera", yet their images even include obvious composites !!!
I want to take pretty and otherwise interesting pictures too. I accept the challenge of trying to put something interesting in the frame when I push the button. I fail more often than not but that's where the challenge and learning happens.
Regardless, I'm happy about painless lens flare removal.
But why is this all bad? In reaction to what Aleks mentioned, I suppose it is a bit frustrating, however nothing will replace YOU, the ARTIST. Sure, there are lots of people with consumer cameras that claim to be able to re-create an image they see in a gallery. I would hear it all the time at Bentwave on First Fridays. I learned quickly that its just part of owning a gallery, and that people are generally interested in the art and are inspired by it also, which makes it all worth it in the end. The ones that say 'I can shoot that', probably can and will, but probably won't be showing in a gallery anytime soon. But if they are, hats off to them, and welcome to the artists' community.
In terms of modern tools facilitating the 'process' of photography, I suppose the big question is: has the process really changed at all? It used to be that you loaded film, adjusted your camera settings, set the lens aperture, focus, click, then develop and print. The only difference is you load a CF card, and download files to a computer. Everything else is the same. So, understanding the 'process' really isn't an issue in my opinon; if someone has a vision, they will make it work. A consistent message I hear is too many people talking about the rules of photography. Seriously? Rules are meant to be broken, and in photography anything goes, in my opinion.
But going back to the conversation, it's an unfortunate by-product of technological advances. The whole 'instant gratification' problem is alive and well in almost everything we do today, and its clearly evident with photography. I can walk outside right now, take a photo, and print it all within 10 minutes. That is quite remarkable, and yes, it gives people an opportunity to move quickly in their craft. An obvious thorn in the side of many who have been doing this awhile and for legitimate reasons. But, unfortunately, theres not much you can do about it, so embrace what we have, and go do your own thing in your own time.
(I'm thinking CS5 is going to be pretty sweet)
That content-aware fill-in is amazing.
Carol
I couldn't agree anymore. Why worry about something you can't control.
It's hard to believe Photoshop has come so far. I started using it with the 2.5 version and its just amazing what they have done with it. For my day job I do Photoshop for a printing company. If they keep this up I may have to quit my day job and take photos full time to make a living!
http://o3.tumblr.com/post/470608946/photoshops-caf-content-aware-fill-unbelievable