I'm one of the beta testers for Adobe CS5, and up until today we haven't been allowed to disclose such information.
Now Adobe suggests we post images produced by the new software, although we are not allowed to discuss the features until after the unveiling on April 12.
Here's one of my images using CS5. I'll add the before below as a reply.
Posted by Luke Ormand on March 27, 2010 at 11:16 AM
You must be pretty happy to be a beta tester.
If you used the content aware which is rumored in CS5 this probably didn't take to long which is good but the results aren't perfect. There are quite a few artifacts noticeable from the "cloning" or "healing" especially in the ULC.
That being said, to do this with say CS3 would probably take a lot longer than it took you.
Can you post a 100% crop of the healed area? As anything can look at web size, and I've yet to see the results up close! If they look good at 100% this would be truly incredible, and dangerous..
I'll join Floris's request to see the actual pixels for the affected area... If this is as easy as it appeared in the video, it's gong to change the rules...
OK, here's a couple 100% crops. I could say quite a bit about this subject, but am still under the Non Disclosure Agreement, which prevents me from more than posting.
Posted by Dan Borzynski on March 27, 2010 at 4:47 PM
There's definitely some wierd stuff going in the ULC with the leaves but it still looks a lot better than it should for an automated process. Even for a hand clone, it still doesn't look al that bad.
It will be interesting to see how this new tool plays out in the real world and how it affects trust/integrity.
Cool, thanks! There is indeed some weird stuff going on, but this could be a great first step for big cloning projects for some people... though I'd personally never be cool with cloning out that much material!
Cool, thanks! There is indeed some weird stuff going on, but this could be a great first step for big cloning projects for some people... though I'd personally never be cool with cloning out that much material!
Right. The object is to shoot it right the first time, but then there are exceptions and more tools are better than less tools.
Thanks for the heads up. Looks like a very powerful tool. How long did it take you to achieve this?
In approximately 1/100th the time on any other software. I'm guessing of course, but it didn't take long at all. The thing is it still needs some clean up, but been too busy testing the software to take the time.
"It will be interesting to see how this new tool plays out in the real world and how it affects trust/integrity"
Interesting, indeed, Dan. Photography, in and of itself, is a departure from reality. So, the big question is (has been?): How much such 'departure' is acceptable?
The answer to that question is debated elsewhere, and so we needn't discuss it here.
Discussion
14 repliesNow Adobe suggests we post images produced by the new software, although we are not allowed to discuss the features until after the unveiling on April 12.
Here's one of my images using CS5. I'll add the before below as a reply.
If you used the content aware which is rumored in CS5 this probably didn't take to long which is good but the results aren't perfect. There are quite a few artifacts noticeable from the "cloning" or "healing" especially in the ULC.
That being said, to do this with say CS3 would probably take a lot longer than it took you.
- Luke
It will be interesting to see how this new tool plays out in the real world and how it affects trust/integrity.
Thanks for the post of the images!
Right. The object is to shoot it right the first time, but then there are exceptions and more tools are better than less tools.
In approximately 1/100th the time on any other software. I'm guessing of course, but it didn't take long at all. The thing is it still needs some clean up, but been too busy testing the software to take the time.
Interesting, indeed, Dan. Photography, in and of itself, is a departure from reality. So, the big question is (has been?): How much such 'departure' is acceptable?
The answer to that question is debated elsewhere, and so we needn't discuss it here.
--P