New Photoshop - Page 2 - ClubTread Community

User Tag List

Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools
post #16 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 08:42 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , , .
Posts: 705
Default

Now you can show us places you have been to that don't exist!
mrultralite is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #17 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 09:04 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Maple Ridge, BC, Canada.
Interest: Photography, Skiing
Posts: 795
Default

I love my photoshop, but this is a little too much. That last pano is completely fake, and I suspect the final version upon closer inspection is not as "neat" as it appears.

The point of the matter is, if you do not shoot directly into the sun, you won't get flare that you have to remove. If you take more shots to cover all the area you want in a pano, you don't need to fake more in. Good photographers won't become a dime a dozen because a really good shot takes planning, forethought and drawing upon experience to use the proper in camera settings at the time of shooting, not during post-processing.

I'm not saying I wouldn't love the opportunity to play with this, and I might save some snapshots that otherwise might go in the trash, but my experience has been that quality photos come that way out of the camera with minor amounts of tweaking and "digital processing" needed.
David and Karen is offline  
post #18 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 09:13 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
Join Date: Jun 2007
Location: Vancouver, BC, Canada.
Posts: 1,461
Default

If it works as advertised and those aren't just ideal examples it's going to kill a lot of work for people that do digital manipulation of images for a living both in good and bad ways.
hafilax is offline  
Sponsored Links
Advertisement
 
post #19 of (permalink) Old 03-25-2010, 09:58 PM
Super Moderator
 
KARVITK's Avatar
 
Join Date: Apr 2005
Location: Abbotsford, B.C., Canada.
Interest: Hiking, Snowshoeing, and Photography. Enjoying the outdoors fresh air and fitness experience.
Posts: 17,919
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by hafilax

If it works as advertised and those aren't just ideal examples it's going to kill a lot of work for people that do digital manipulation of images for a living both in good and bad ways.
Seems progress over the eons has cut down labour exp by making any kind of process more efficient with automation...

K
KARVITK is offline  
post #20 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2010, 09:06 AM
Banned
 
Join Date: Nov 2008
Location: Port Moody, BC, Canada.
Posts: 981
Default

That's one amazing feature if it really works how they say it does. Although, I do see imperfections in the grass after applying the content aware fill, and sure there will be a lot more visible imperfections once it's outside of a tiny, low-quality youtube video. But still, the benefits are huge even with some imperfections which can be cleaned up further. The pano example with the cloudy sky is truly amazing, but I think shooting it properly and cropping is a quicker and better way of doing it.

For those that say now every 10yo can be a great photographer, or that pictures must come out great straight out of the camera, are plain ignorant and incompetent to even say anything on this subject. Why on earth I would trust automatic camera settings to process my pictures? Most quality pictures are unique enough to require individual attention of a human being, or at least a better auto-post-process than cameras offer. If anyone really insists on great pics straight out of the camera, then they must turn off all in-camera processing by shooting in RAW...and then maybe they will realize how dumb they are. To be honest, Photoshop makes a bad photograher even worse.
Arnold is offline  
post #21 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2010, 09:47 AM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , , .
Posts: 705
Default

Quote:
quote:Why on earth I would trust automatic camera settings to process my pictures?

Exactly , there is one? camera that gets around that , the S90. Total control at your finger tips, not buried in some menu.
mrultralite is offline  
post #22 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2010, 10:04 AM
Headed for the Mountains
 
Join Date: Aug 2003
Location: vancouver, bc, Canada.
Interest: mtn biking, surfing, bmx, skimboarding, rock climbing, skateboarding, snowboarding and of course hiking.
Posts: 467
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Arnold



For those that say now every 10yo can be a great photographer, or that pictures must come out great straight out of the camera, are plain ignorant and incompetent to even say anything on this subject. Why on earth I would trust automatic camera settings to process my pictures? Most quality pictures are unique enough to require individual attention of a human being, or at least a better auto-post-process than cameras offer. If anyone really insists on great pics straight out of the camera, then they must turn off all in-camera processing by shooting in RAW...and then maybe they will realize how dumb they are. To be honest, Photoshop makes a bad photograher even worse.
Although you can't deny that it's absolutely essential now. Even if you do take a perfectly composed raw file you have to do a lot of tweaking of the colour balance and sharpening and whatever else otherwise they look awful.

Photo techs will never be out of work. A lot of commercial work ,especially for ads, are shot in fragments and then put back together computer can never automate that. Photographers don't really think about shooting everything in one frame anymore.
baminem is offline  
post #23 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2010, 01:00 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Dec 2003
Location: Maple Ridge, BC, Canada.
Interest: Photography, Skiing
Posts: 795
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Arnold

For those that say ... that pictures must come out great straight out of the camera, are plain ignorant and incompetent to even say anything on this subject. Why on earth I would trust automatic camera settings to process my pictures?
I'm hoping that comment wasn't directed at me because I said “quality photos come that way out the camera”. If so, you misinterpreted what I said. I said if you compose the shot correctly and use the right settings in the first place, you don't need to add things that aren't there, or alter the settings extensively after the fact. I never said anything about using auto settings or the having no need to post process RAW files.

My comment is not unfounded or ignorant. I've been shooting RAW and using photoshop for many years and the keepers have always been the ones that used the correct exposure, that didn't need to be cropped heavily, were taken during optimal light, that used a tripod/timer and mirror lock up etc. The ones that require a lot more time to re-work or fix, generally aren't a good shot to begin with.

Sure digital cameras still aren't perfect at capturing the whole dynamic range and often I need to blend in areas from a second exposure, and that takes time, but it is not compensating for something that I could have done in camera. Photoshop is a great tool for photographers, but this video is about the new cloning tool, which if you took a good photo, you as a photographer shouldn't have much use for. If you're a graphic artist for example and need to remove trees to add words, then sure, this is a huge improvement.

The point of my comment was advances in photoshop will not create a dime a dozen photographers because good quality work will always come from those that are more experienced and understand the basic principles behind photography, not computer whizzes that know how to alter images after the fact. We're arguing the same point.
David and Karen is offline  
post #24 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2010, 01:03 PM
High on the Mountain Top
 
vern.dewit's Avatar
 
Join Date: Mar 2008
Location: Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
Posts: 1,166
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by Arnold
To be honest, Photoshop makes a bad photograher even worse.
Yep. I agree 100%. I know a guy (who hopefully doesn't read this ) who desperately wants to be a good landscape photographer. He has a Nikon D300 with some very expensive glass, a carbon fiber tripod with ball head and has spent over $1000 on software (photoshop, sharpening, hdr etc) but his pictures still pretty much suck. [:0]

He's even taken 2 or 3 photography classes including seminars taught by some of Canada's leading landscape photogs including Darwin Wigget. In theory he has all the automation and technical ability to produce stunning photographs but the part that's missing is what really counts. And that part is something you either have or you don't and no amount of fancy software is going to give it to you.

That being said, this is darn cool stuff. No more cloning out that stubborn wire or twig that got in the way of a nice view!

V.
vern.dewit is offline  
post #25 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2010, 02:49 PM
Summit Master
 
AcesHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chilliwack, BC, Canada.
Interest: Women
Posts: 7,512
Default

It's not just the software (Photoshop for example) that is advancing, the cameras and hardware technology as well as the software within the camera is getting better.

The world of photography is always advancing.



AcesHigh is offline  
post #26 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2010, 03:14 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Sep 2003
Location: , , Canada.
Posts: 956
Default

Quote:
quote:Originally posted by AcesHigh

It's not just the software (Photoshop for example) that is advancing, the cameras and hardware technology as well as the software within the camera is getting better.

The world of photography is always advancing.
Actually, the tools available to photographers are advancing. Good photographers are just that, and no amount of technology can make a poor photographer a good one.

Think if it this way ... if you are a carpenter, you can choose to use the tools available to you. You can hammer in every nail by hand, or, based on your expert judgement, you can choose to use a nail gun. Does that make you any less of a carpenter? No, it doesn't, but that nail gun can be used by someone who is not a carpenter and the results can be similar. Does that mean that the non-carpenter has the knowledge and expertise to build a finely crafted home? Probably not.

I am getting really tired of the argument that photoshop is simply a means to cover up poor photography. It is a tool available to photographers and not some "cheat".

However, CGI is starting to be used much more extensively in commercial applications previously the realm of photographers and any photographer who is serious about staying in the business and adapting to the future would do well to learn these tools and understand the impact it could have on the industry. Everything evolves.

None of this takes away from the skill required to make good photographs consistently.
Kathryne is offline  
post #27 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2010, 04:11 PM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chilliwack + Osoyoos
Posts: 3,659
Default

OMG !!! People keep looking at my overly blue "Barn" pics... Is it raining outside ???

Stop already !!!... I'm jest an amateur who "needs" Photoshop CS5 !!!

Soooooooooooooo many people are sooooooooooooo much better than me...
OK Jack is offline  
post #28 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2010, 05:26 PM
Summit Master
 
Join Date: Jan 2004
Location: Chilliwack + Osoyoos
Posts: 3,659
Default

Here's a (boring) pic that couldn't be manipulated in real life, so Photoshop is/was mandatory... Not sure if you can "flip" between them to see the differences...

Original:

...

And the "modified" one:

...

Hope it works for you...

OK'Jack...

ps: I posted them at Flickr, so you can see them full sized...

Go here: for the original... and here: for the modified one !!!
OK Jack is offline  
post #29 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2010, 08:14 PM
Off the Beaten Path
 
Join Date: Jun 2005
Location: , , .
Posts: 705
Default

OK ,Jack , that looks like a good way to clean up my yard next time!
mrultralite is offline  
post #30 of (permalink) Old 03-26-2010, 10:24 PM
Summit Master
 
AcesHigh's Avatar
 
Join Date: Aug 2006
Location: Chilliwack, BC, Canada.
Interest: Women
Posts: 7,512
Default

Nice pic OKJack, the modified version is definately more colourfull if you ask me.
Looks like a nice camp setup btw!



AcesHigh is offline  
Reply

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Show Printable Version
Email this Page Email this Page



Posting Rules  
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts

BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Trackbacks are On
Pingbacks are On
Refbacks are On

 
For the best viewing experience please update your browser to Google Chrome
 

Search Engine Optimization by vBSEO 3.6.1