Sufficiently advanced photoshop is indistinguishable from magic.

[Cramulus]

I don't think you read what I wrote.

actually I was responding to Richter

It's not the tool itself, which is neat; it's that the video so well illustrated that ultimately it will enable advertising clients to be even more of unreasonable, demanding douches than they already are.

upthread, you said that client's demands were destroying the art of photography. But commissioning an artist to make something for you isn't anything new, it's thousands of years old. The artists are still making their own fine art when they're not on the clock. In the era of digital photography, manipulating an image until it looks the way you want is just part of the artistic process.

Also, a beautiful photograph created by Photoshop (the panorama, for instance) to me is far less impressive than a beautiful photograph created by the convergence of the skill of the photographer and the beauty of the subject.

But photosho didn't make the composition, the artist made it using photoshop. Doesn't digitial manipulation fall under "the skill of the artist"?

some photographers burn and dodge in the darkroom,
others do it on their computer

there are many exceptions --but to me, the quality of the art is revealed through my experience of it, not the means of its production.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Is there a sliding scale of skill respectability?



I would think that a beautiful end result of a picture that was edited in photoshop would take a lot of skill and aesthetic sense on the part of the 'shopper.  Otherwise, it just looks like a crappy photoshop job.

Is a picture that's been 'shopped somehow less artistic than one that hasn't?

Looks like the new software makes it a lot easier to achieve good effects.

If designers can more easily accommodate their douchebag clients with less time, frustration, and hair-pulling, that's great for them. If this is going to primarily be used for advertising, well, it's not like I expect much from ads.

But from an artistic perspective, I would want to know if an image has been altered in Photoshop, and depending on the art and skill in that alteration, it might increase my respect for the image, or it might decrease it. I'm not against effects. I just think that if a photographer relies on Photoshop to correct a poor eye and lousy composition in the original image, they're not a good photographer in the first place, so I wouldn't think as highly of them (as an artist) as I would of someone who was able to incorporate that tree and those pieces of garbage into a good composition in the first place.

That picture is a poor example, because it was for an ad, but you probably get my point.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Whatever. Douchey ad clients will go on being douchey ad clients, and I don't even have to deal with them anymore so I don't care.

[LMNO]

Is this about whether or not ad clients are pricks, or about whether image manipulation can be considered "art"?

Because that would have a big difference on the nature of this conversation.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

One thing this video did for me was intensify my hatred of "clients".

OMG THAT PICTURE LOOKS LIKE A PICTURE, FIX IT

I hate them.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

It's not the editing software. it's the clients who want the pictures not to look like what they are pictures of.

Also, I hate people. Especially clients.

Destroying the art of photography. If they wanted to shoop in unicorns and Bette Davis I would be OK with it.

[Eater of Clowns]

Ofuk.

Content aware fill is autotune for your eyes.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

I was just having a moment of misanthropy. Forget about it.

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

Ofuk.

Content aware fill is autotune for your eyes.

[Cramulus]

oookay





so now that we're done airing out our laundry

here's another cool sneak peek of content-aware fill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ScWu7pG7r0

[Doktor Howl]

Isn't this just more "silly pictures"?

[Eater of Clowns]

oookay


[ IMG]http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/forumspecific/originalpostthreaddirectionservice2.gif[/img]


so now that we're done airing out our laundry

here's another cool sneak peek of content-aware fill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ScWu7pG7r0

[Mesozoic Mister Nigel]

here's another cool sneak peek of content-aware fill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ScWu7pG7r0

That was awesome.  

I especially like "everything you see is probably a lie".

[Jasper]

here's another cool sneak peek of content-aware fill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ScWu7pG7r0

Flawless victory. 

[Rococo Modem Basilisk]

I'd be interested in seeing examples of what content aware fill handles poorly. It must be optimized for particular situations, or else you'd need some time of AGI to generate that kind of quality.