http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI&feature=player_embedded
Apparently photoshop is now being developed by, literally, wizards. This shit is amazing.
:aaa:
so, is that from the creators of the tool?
does it work as well in general use?
that's madjicqual!
oh my god...
I like that.
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.
Oh, yeah. Almost at the end of the clip and I am ready to nuke humanity. I hate all of you. Die die die.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on April 20, 2010, 02:23:33 AM
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.
We took a picture of a road because we don't want a picture of a road - please remove the road. :lol:
That is really amazing though. It makes me wonder what kinds of horrors will be unleashed when one takes a small photo then use the tool to fill in a bunch of white space around it. Will you see madness?
The truth revealed
Lol.
I do like the new 3D Paint setup. Now, even if I have to 'un-wrap' my model (i.e. lay the points out into 2d space without much texture stretching), I can then see it pout back together in Photoshop and paint out any obvious seams in the texture.
Example: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-AYkdmAFjfI
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on April 20, 2010, 02:23:33 AM
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.
Hadn't caught on to that.
:horrormirth:
Quote from: EoC on April 20, 2010, 02:26:31 AM
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on April 20, 2010, 02:23:33 AM
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.
We took a picture of a road because we don't want a picture of a road - please remove the road. :lol:
That is really amazing though. It makes me wonder what kinds of horrors will be unleashed when one takes a small photo then use the tool to fill in a bunch of white space around it. Will you see madness?
That could be the only redeeming feature. The. Only. Redeeming. Feature.
Quote from: The Right Reverend Nigel on April 20, 2010, 02:23:33 AM
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.
unfortunately, i already saw somebody use the word 'Luddite' on the board today...
"i lahk mah lenz flares!"
:p
Wait, why is it wrong to want more powerful image editing software?
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.
I love this picture of the forest, but I kinda hate that tree right there. Get rid of it.
:lulz:
I'm with Nigel here. Photography has a certain veracity and value from the fact that it's capturing a real life moment. Finishing or editing a photo may make a pretty picture, but if it's adding in elements it never had, and the photographer was too lazy to find, it ruins that genuine source. National Geographic would not stand for that shit.
there's more than one purpose for photography. sure Nat Geo wouldn't stand it, because they're trying to show the world as it is. (would they allow lens flare removal?) I can understand the appeal of the veracity that you mention.
But, some photography is intended to show create an ideal scene for the sake of art or advertisement. it's just as valid a use though.
if in the example in the video, the photographer had taken the effort to modify the scene by removing those poles, cutting down that tree, going over the ground with a fine toothed comb to remove any trash and divets and then took the picture, would that be preferable?
This is pretty fucking incredible. I definitely agree with Nigel that I'm not into the "I don't want that tree there, remove it" is disgusting.
But, I got to the last photo, the panorama, and I thought HOLY SHIT. :aaa:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgKjs8ZjQNg&feature=related
HOLY SHIT THEY REPAIRED THE PARTHENON.
Quote from: Kai on April 20, 2010, 01:56:06 PM
HOLY SHIT THEY REPAIRED THE PARTHENON.
they came in first place in a non-existent race...
Quote from: Iptuous on April 20, 2010, 02:22:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 20, 2010, 01:56:06 PM
HOLY SHIT THEY REPAIRED THE PARTHENON.
they came in first place in a non-existent race...
What?
I think it's pretty clear that a person can't trust any digital photos anymore.
Quote from: Kai on April 20, 2010, 02:31:16 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 20, 2010, 02:22:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 20, 2010, 01:56:06 PM
HOLY SHIT THEY REPAIRED THE PARTHENON.
they came in first place in a non-existent race...
What?
I think it's pretty clear that a person can't trust any digital photos anymore.
The parthenon's in Greece.
Or was it Grease 2?
i can't keep my movies straight....
Quote from: Sigmatic on April 20, 2010, 12:30:25 AM
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI&feature=player_embedded
Apparently photoshop is now being developed by, literally, wizards. This shit is amazing.
FUCKING PHOTOSHOP, HOW DOES IT WORK?
\
(http://www.arktimes.com/blogs/rockcandy/Image/icp2.jpg)
I am also confused about how having better tools to edit ruins something about photography
photoshop is for more than photography or fine art
sometimes you need a picture that doesn't have zits or garbage on the ground or whatever, is that "ruining" the photo?
(removed)
Quote from: Iptuous on April 20, 2010, 02:37:35 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 20, 2010, 02:31:16 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 20, 2010, 02:22:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 20, 2010, 01:56:06 PM
HOLY SHIT THEY REPAIRED THE PARTHENON.
they came in first place in a non-existent race...
What?
I think it's pretty clear that a person can't trust any digital photos anymore.
The parthenon's in Greece.
Or was it Grease 2?
i can't keep my movies straight....
Am I wrong about the ancient pillared structure where they repaired the roofline in that youtube? Or did I get it completely wrong?
Quote from: Kai on April 20, 2010, 03:58:20 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 20, 2010, 02:37:35 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 20, 2010, 02:31:16 PM
Quote from: Iptuous on April 20, 2010, 02:22:30 PM
Quote from: Kai on April 20, 2010, 01:56:06 PM
HOLY SHIT THEY REPAIRED THE PARTHENON.
they came in first place in a non-existent race...
What?
I think it's pretty clear that a person can't trust any digital photos anymore.
The parthenon's in Greece.
Or was it Grease 2?
i can't keep my movies straight....
Am I wrong about the ancient pillared structure where they repaired the roofline in that youtube? Or did I get it completely wrong?
When i make mistakes, i use a lot of salt.
salt makes m'steaks taste great...
Quote from: Cramulus on April 20, 2010, 03:34:37 PM
I am also confused about how having better tools to edit ruins something about photography
photoshop is for more than photography or fine art
sometimes you need a picture that doesn't have zits or garbage on the ground or whatever, is that "ruining" the photo?
I don't think you read what I wrote. 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.
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.
if the demands of the clients are now reasonable, and easily accommodated, isn't it a win for designer and douche alike?
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?
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 20, 2010, 06:25:07 PM
I don't think you read what I wrote.
actually I was responding to Richter
QuoteIt'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.
QuoteAlso, 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.
Quote from: LMNO on April 20, 2010, 06:32:58 PM
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.
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.
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.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 20, 2010, 02:23:33 AM
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.
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 20, 2010, 04:31:52 AM
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.
Ofuk.
Content aware fill is autotune for your eyes.
I was just having a moment of misanthropy. Forget about it.
Quote from: EoC on April 20, 2010, 07:05:18 PM
Ofuk.
Content aware fill is autotune for your eyes.
:potd:
oookay
(http://i9.photobucket.com/albums/a95/discordman/forumspecific/originalpostthreaddirectionservice2.gif)
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
Isn't this just more "silly pictures"?
Quote from: Cramulus on April 20, 2010, 07:13:33 PM
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
:lulz:
Quote from: Cramulus on April 20, 2010, 07:13:33 PM
here's another cool sneak peek of content-aware fill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ScWu7pG7r0
That was awesome. :lulz:
I especially like "everything you see is probably a lie".
Quote from: The Lord and Lady Omnibus Fuck on April 20, 2010, 07:36:35 PM
here's another cool sneak peek of content-aware fill:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ScWu7pG7r0
Flawless victory.
:mittens:
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.
Quote from: Enki v. 2.0 on April 20, 2010, 08:04:37 PM
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.
Here's one. (http://www.geekologie.com/2010/04/curses_photoshops_new_content.php) Possibly slightly nsfw.
Plausible, but less so given that Geekologie posted it. They gladly make shit up for comedic effect.
It fits. It looks like the other examples were mostly extrude-and-repeat-the-lumps-in-a-sawtooth-pattern anyway.
Don't try to impress me with your fancy technobabble. Content Aware is obviously done by genies.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=01hcB2zmMqM&feature=related