Sidebar Sidebar
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.

Adobe Demonstrates Content-Aware Fill in Photoshop

Glad Adobe has all this time to dick around with new features when they apparently don't have time to fix the products they're shipping now.:mad:
 
Very cool... and looks easy to use as well... I can remember taking hours to do the same type of adjustments he just did.
 
baryon said:
You have to understand that photography in itself is subjective. This means that photography does not show the objective and undeniable truth, even if you don't modify the photograph. For example, taking a picture from one angle or the other, selectively framing an image, taking one image and not another, showing someone 3 images of something and hiding 6 images of something else, etc... all this is editing. The only question is: where do you trace the line between "pure truth" and "fake image"? That is purely your decision.

Documentary photography deals with the "truthful" depiction of reality, and it's very important to depict something "as it is" in this domain. However, that is impossible, mathematically speaking. The only thing that's possible is trying to get as close as you can to what most people see as the "truth".

You can pretty much do ANYTHING in Photoshop today, so this feature won't really bring edited images to a new level of un-realness. However, it will make it easier to accomplish things that have been done for years before with hard work.

I think we should not be afraid of freedom. By freedom I mean that Photoshop allows us more and more freedom to create whatever image we like, regardless of reality. We have to be aware that images do not always depict reality, and if we know this, there is no problem. People have to go through this stage of understanding that images are no different than text: i.e. you can write anything you want, that doesn't mean it's real, and the same is starting to apply to images.
Click to expand...

The problem is how we apply reason to what we see. I think we still have a "seeing is believing" mentality and that's why photojournalism has such an impact compared to a 4-page narrative. And I'm not afraid of freedom, I embrace it more than you can imagine and I'm not advocating for this "technology" to be removed or anything... However, I think we need to be careful on how we deal with images nowadays.

Let's take an example. There is a very polluted lake somewhere near an oil-field. Some Greenpeace guy writes a report about what he saw there, the damages to the ecosystem, blahblahblah. The PR campaign from the oil company company counters with a piece on how life is beautiful around the lake, with some locla fisherman interviewed saying fishing is still great...
Whatever, this is text, you apply critical reason to it, you have an opinion on it, I have probably a different opinion on it, it's fine, we know the limits of each argumentation.

Now the GreenPeace guy has taken a picture of the lake showing some dead fishes and some dead plants... Impact could be much greater again of the power of the iconography... Now to me, it is very different if the oil company counters with a picture of the lake with a different angle/perspective saying, look, it's not that bad if you look at it this way or if it takes a picture at the same time/place as the Greenpeace guy and doctors it to replace the dead fishes by jumping dolphins? Don't you agree?

Again, my comment was going beyond that particular demo from Adobe and doesn't want to forbid anything. But maybe we need to think more about how authentic digital media can be...
 
ValSalva said:
It's like magic! Philosophically, is this good though? Purists would cringe at this sort of thing.
Click to expand...

You must not be familiar with working for a living--especially in the graphic arts industry. You try to push your "pure" image of the woman on the bench on the golf course to your customer as is with all its flaws and you're minus a customer.

"Purity" is for Evian and Tropicana squeezed oj.

"Good" is what helps you not only get the job done, but done faster and better than anyone else.

Content aware fills is what we pay Adobe the "big bucks" for. If you're at all competent, you can make hundreds of times the cost of the tools in income.
 
Wow, finally this will make it easy for someone like me who has always been intimidated by Photoshop to easily get things done. I am AMAZED!! This is awesome! No longer a chore to photo shop your X out of a picture! :)
 
When clients ask "can't you just push a button to do that?", well it looks like that is become more true with every version of Photoshop. I hope they don't find out or my rates might go down.
 
doctoree said:
That part was so stupid. The cloudless scy up there in Photoshop terms is nothing else than a radial gradient. Ultra easy to correct, even with Photoshop 7 or so...
Click to expand...

The world is now full of cynics. Why is it that whenever something comes along that is innovative, helpful, or just cool, someone is quick to point out any flaws they can find. Debbie Downer.

Sure, the sky replacement is easy enough, but I bet you couldn't do it as easily or fast as Photoshop did it. If you're a hobbyist... no big deal to do it by hand. If you're a professional, every minute counts; especially on deadline.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Register on MacRumors! This sidebar will go away, and you'll see fewer ads.
Top Bottom
Back