Content Aware / PhotoshopCS5.. step too far?

GooGaBu

GooGaBu

Suspended / Banned
Messages
1,457
Edit My Images
Yes
there probably is a thread for this already.. but didn't find it on a quick search.

Have had a look at the Content Aware in CS5 and is it just me or has the actual action of taking a good photograph being reduced to a second place in the attempt to getting a good photo.

With the image-software taking big steps like this.. soon the people (and I am not one of them) who can actually take a great photo, will be over-taken by people who are good at using Photoshop.

Isn't part of the fun and challenge to go that extra mile to get the right angle of view for the image, making sure there are no distractions on the background, getting the exposure correct so that you don't need to 'fix the sky' in Photoshop.
Now .. well you can snap a photo and worry about all that later on.
That.. for me isn't photography anymore, it is just creating something on the computer - which in itself is a talent and produces some excellent images that are great to watch.
But it's a shame that nowadays one can't really tell the difference between a great photo that has been taken 'without' the aid of extensive photoshopping.. or a poor image that has been processed for five hours on teh computer..

Maybe the 'new stuff' is where the line between photographs and photo-creations is getting wider and wider...

Oh well... rant over and I am off to photograph some gymnastics... :thumbs:
 
it will only be too far when photoshop comes with a free robot who goes out and takes the photographs for you.
 
I fail to see the issue. Easier PP techniques just mean more people can get decent looking images (which is a good thing!), whilst the truly excellent and original photographers will always shine through.
 
Content aware fill will never turn a bad photo into a good one. It just makes it easier to remove unwanted artefacts than other image manipulation programs and a lot easier that it use to be in the darkroom.
 
As I thought... it was just my opinion and not shared by others that much.
And I am sure it will be a useful tool for Photoshoppers who do edit their photos a lot.
And just like some people still prefer to work with film and shun all things digital.. I guess that the new features in editing will divide people in the same way as well..

I do slightly disagree with the view that the end result is the thing that matters.. not the way you get there. I would like to think that the way you do it is an important part of the process as well..
 
GooGaBu said:
As I thought... it was just my opinion and not shared by others that much.
And I am sure it will be a useful tool for Photoshoppers who do edit their photos a lot.
And just like some people still prefer to work with film and shun all things digital.. I guess that the new features in editing will divide people in the same way as well..

I do slightly disagree with the view that the end result is the thing that matters.. not the way you get there. I would like to think that the way you do it is an important part of the process as well..
Click to expand...

I have to agree to an extent (especially with the last bit).. although to me, as a journalistic photographer I cannot use tools like these, photographs have to be relatively untouched. So on the whole it doesn't bother me too much, but if it does see the general standard of photography decline then of course that will raise concern! I'm running CS4, which easily does everything I need to (and am allowed to) do so I can't see myself upgrading! Levels, crop and sharpen.. jobs a good'un ;)
 
GooGaBu said:
I do slightly disagree with the view that the end result is the thing that matters.. not the way you get there. I would like to think that the way you do it is an important part of the process as well..
Click to expand...

Not to a client :)

If it cuts down the amount of time I need to spend at the computer then that is time freed up for me to be more productive. As the shot Simon posted on the bridge illustrates so well, we cannot always control our environment to the degree we would like so to be able to enhance that for the client is a major boost for me. :thumbs:
 
purpleclouds said:
Levels, crop and sharpen.. jobs a good'un ;)
Click to expand...

Shouldn't you get those right in camera ;)

Anyhoo...

Photoediting's been around a while 1860's at least, and even with journalists (John Filo's Pullitzer prize winner for example).

Have a nose on this page...

http://www.cs.dartmouth.edu/farid/research/digitaltampering/

As with everything, technology simply makes the tools more accessible.Photoshop's a tool, not a crutch and can't fix a bad shot, lots of people struggle to use is successfully even on good shots.

Content Aware Fill is just a tool to make a previously long, tedious, and therefore expensive (time is money, even if you're a hobbyist) task.

It's not doing anything we couldn't already do, it's just making it quicker, and as Alison's pointed out, we can spend this time being more creative, not just removing Exit signs and litter bins....

As for CS5 experiences so far, well, I've installed it on the main editing rig, now just need a couple of days to methodically work through the new features (Edge Detection could save me hours, if it works as well as claimed)
 
purpleclouds said:
Levels, crop and sharpen.. jobs a good'un ;)
Click to expand...

JasonRS said:
Shouldn't you get those right in camera ;)
Click to expand...

Sharpening is something the camera does anyway if you shoot in jpeg, if you shoot in raw then you can't get sharpening right in camera, it's not applied. A for crops, think about the times when you were using the max length on your telephoto and any step closer would make that bird fly away, you don't have the luxury of the 1200mm prime so a crop in PP provides your only solution.
 
We didn't do it in 'the old days' becuse we couldn't. Now we can - so we do.

It's about creating an image someone likes and there's a multitude of ways to do it now.
 
GooGaBu said:
As I thought... it was just my opinion and not shared by others that much.
And I am sure it will be a useful tool for Photoshoppers who do edit their photos a lot.
And just like some people still prefer to work with film and shun all things digital.. I guess that the new features in editing will divide people in the same way as well..

I do slightly disagree with the view that the end result is the thing that matters.. not the way you get there. I would like to think that the way you do it is an important part of the process as well..
Click to expand...

No, I agree with you. Since the advent of digital the hard-learned skills of the film user have become more and more irrelevant. I've noticed it in myself, a little bit of carelessness allied with the knowledge that I can "fix" the image later.... . Its not all bad of course, the ability to process images in Lightroom is a huge benefit and there are times when no matter how much care you take with an image, the clone tool will always come in handy.....;)
 
I disagree with it not being about the end result. Surely it doesn't matter how you create the image as long as it does its job. It's not like doing a botch job of building a house that will fall down after a couple of years.

I am a beginner in photography (2-3 months max) but an 'expert' in photoshop and I can't produce images like the ones posted up here. The photo has to be good first. No amount of fiddling can replace the perfect angle, focus, subject and it just isn't worth the hours trying to remove fringing, lens flares, motion blur etc.. that amateurs have in their photos.

Basically, you can make a crap photo decent and a great photo amazing! Maybe you can polish a turd now, but nobody will want it.
 
Third time lucky trying to post this question. (Mods seem to have a hang up about this topic? - genuine question. I thought it was particularly relevant to the business section, but never mind) :|

Regarding the whole content aware fill - a big light has suddenly gone off for me with this feature and water marked images. Just how 'good' is it, can it do an effective job of removing watermarks?

Worrying if so no?

Anyone had a go yet?
 
Dangleman,

It's very good and can easily remove some watermarks - all depends on whats around the watermark - I thought that, only a few days ago and have had a play - mind you if someone splatters a huge watermark through the middle of their image I tend not to bother looking at it too much anyway........ I would suggest that if you are a pro much better to provide client with low res images that cannot really do much with rather than watermark a larger image????? :shrug:

I cannot get hung up enough on my pics to bother with putting a watermark through them and at 800x600 resolution not a lot can be done with it really, other than rip it for another website I guess...........:shrug:
 
Lynton said:
Dangleman,

It's very good and can easily remove some watermarks - all depends on whats around the watermark - I thought that, only a few days ago and have had a play - mind you if someone splatters a huge watermark through the middle of their image I tend not to bother looking at it too much anyway........ I would suggest that if you are a pro much better to provide client with low res images that cannot really do much with rather than watermark a larger image????? :shrug:

I cannot get hung up enough on my pics to bother with putting a watermark through them and at 800x600 resolution not a lot can be done with it really, other than rip it for another website I guess...........:shrug:
Click to expand...

Cheers Lynton

I don't watermark images often at all, but do when necessary eg I sent some to a magazine client yesterday. As is often the case they need a number of images that they can use to test page layouts before they decide on the full res one they want to run with. I know some of the shi* that goes on in publishing, and don't be surprised that pics end up going places and being used where they shouldn't, hence watermarking is a good battle against such nefarious practices.

I say is, perhaps that should be 'was' now with CS5?, and that's the whole point of my question/ concern.

Going to have a go myself on my own watermarks and see what the beef is....
 
It's worth bearing in mind, I think, that the primary use of Photoshop (at least commercially) isn't "pure photography" (for want of a better term) but, rather, graphic design.
A lot of the features in photoshop may very well subtract from the art of taking a photograph, and that can be disappointing, but photographers are by no means the only target market for the product.
 
In my opinion content aware fill is a superb addition to the photographers workflow. Whilst it's obviously important to try and get things right in-camera (composition, exposure etc) sometimes there are things you just can't advocate for. Content Aware fill has allowed me to go back through my back catalogue and make minor fixes here and there to shots that have been close-to but not quite right, shots that would have required quite a lot of time and certainly a lot more skill than I posses to fix conventionally.
 
kimaldis said:
They care about how much. That's not the same thing as how.
Click to expand...

It's exactly the same, if one method takes 5 minutes, and the other takes 5 hours, I can make a sale and a profit with the first method... Time is money - if Howard Hughes had fitted his own shelves, they'd have cost more than my House!
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top