Photoshop CS5

[Greg_Nuspel]

Yes it's coming and damn they added stuff that I may be forced to buy the upgrade John Nack on Adobe: Video: Sneak peek of Content-Aware Fill in Photoshop (http://blogs.adobe.com/jnack/2010/03/caf_in_ps.html)

[ericmark]

I saw a few months back about CS5 and have held off buying as a result but soon college course ends so I am hoping it is available educational package and it comes out before course ends.

The Clone tool seems really good.

[Mad Aussie]

Holy crap. That Content Aware Fill is awesome.

[Michaelaw]

This is gonna bring truth in photojournalism to a whole new level!

[JAS_Photo]

I like one of the comments on You Tube. "Nerdgasm". :D

[craigUK]

OMG! looks like the cheque book is coming out again!

[kat]

I can't see it!!!! :( Am I going to want this? I am.. I know it...

[AntZ]

Holy crap. That Content Aware Fill is awesome.

Sure is. The extra info it add to the pano at the end of the video is fantastic. I wonder what it would look like under real scrutiny.

And that flare removal was pretty cool.

[AcadieLibre]

I saw that a few days ago, looks interesting just wonder how much lazier photographers will be now or how generic most photos will look, people will be removing things left, right and centre. Works for me, mine will be the messy looking photos with stuff around and heaven forbid garbage on the ground lol. Those who do ad type photos this will be a great time saver, both good and bad sides to all new software and technological advancements.

[Greg_Nuspel]

I can see many wedding photographers jumping for this. Advertising will also love it.

[AcadieLibre]

Parody (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3ScWu7pG7r0)

[jjeling]

I know this software has its reasons and functions, BUT.........What has been happening to photography?!?!?!

Tried and true, One man, One Camera. Not One Man, One Camera, and a Whole bunch of PP techniques.

Honestly, I prefer to keep it simple, with little or no PP at all. I like how our options are expanding, but I think HDR, or multiple exposures is as far as Id like to go.

[Mad Aussie]

It's not just about photography JJ.
I do a bit of graphic art and use photography for designing and building webpages. For instance, I designed 4 websites last week alone! These leaps in technology help me in my work.

[kat]

I don't think it's even about HDR anymore....

It's scary how easy we can minipulate a photo now....... even scarier..how the newbies can do it before me.

[jjeling]

MA, I know its not just about photography. I am understanding of the different media applications this software is capable of. Just consider myself a stickler when it comes to photography. I really hope people do not lose sight of what it is. This may be a little on the crazy side, as people will probably always have that feeling. I think sometimes it just needs to be reinforced.

[Mad Aussie]

I have nothing against being a purist JJ :) In fact I think it's great and I'm really happy when I take a shot that needed nothing in PP. I think also, as technology moves forward ... the purist approach to photography will be applied by less and less people, which in itself will make it more sort after and appreciated more in time. In the meantime though, the novelty runs full steam ahead ;)

[Greg_Nuspel]

Just remember some people don't think it's art if it's not hand drawn, painted, sculpted etc. They don't think photography is art at all. They also stick their noses higher by classifying stuff as a craft. So we all have levels of what we accept in our definition of good art/photography. I agree that this will allow some people to clean up bad technique, but no matter how good this gets it a photograph that starts off well composed and exposed will always look better.

[ericmark]

I am a little surprised to see so many not liking the idea of processing the images. I do realise that in the days of film all processing was out of the hands of the photographer as very few developed their own. But I have in the past walked away without exposing any film as I realised I would be unable to do anything and they just would not come out.

However today I look and think if I use HDR or if I was panorama I can do this or that to the image and the exposures are made with whole idea of using Photoshop.

The problem is of course the failure rate and using the depth of field combining of images has been very poor on failure rate and it would have been so much easier to have used a small aperture and a lot less time consuming. I suppose there are cameras when you can’t select a small aperture. My microscope is like that.

So I can see where one can rely on Photoshop where one could used other safer methods. But when using Black and White I would mask areas to increase the dynamic range so why should I not continue to do same in digital age?

One pet hate was to find after experimenting with POP filters to get some odd effects, that the processors had corrected it, and they were returned as if no filters were used. In fact I have had the first in a group corrected then whole of rest of group done the same so messing up the rest of pictures in the role. Slide did stop this but it was so hard to get any dynamic range with slide so although colours were better exposure suffered as a result.

So having the process tools in my hands instead of the process house has to be a plus.

[scorpio_e]

SO there has been all of this talk about content aware fill. We quite frankly,I think it sucks !!!

I had a person with a hotspot on their head . Content aware fill to the rescue. Guess what..It gave him a THIRD EYE !!!!!

So I wanted to touch up a bridal gown. It added part of a table leg.......GEEZEEEEEE

[Bambi]

SO there has been all of this talk about content aware fill. We quite frankly,I think it sucks !!!

I had a person with a hotspot on their head . Content aware fill to the rescue. Guess what..It gave him a THIRD EYE !!!!!

So I wanted to touch up a bridal gown. It added part of a table leg.......GEEZEEEEEE

now those photos I would love to see!!!

[Michaelaw]

The first copy of PS I ever bought was 2.5 and for me It was all I ever needed. I use the same tools now as then and none of the new bells and whistles have done anyting but bloat the program IMHO:)

[Mad Aussie]

The first copy of PS I ever bought was 2.5 and for me It was all I ever needed. I use the same tools now as then and none of the new bells and whistles have done anyting but bloat the program IMHO:)
You obviously use the program in a more narrow way than others might then. I have CS4 to be a nice advantage over previous versions in many ways that I use. I do agree that many 'improvements' are simply bloating though.

[Michaelaw]

You obviously use the program in a more narrow way than others might then. I have CS4 to be a nice advantage over previous versions in many ways that I use. I do agree that many 'improvements' are simply bloating though.

Maybe you're right but I don't think so much a "Narrow" way but more I take the long way round. For example, rather than use a tool that clips an object from the background, I'll zoom in to the max, clip it out almost pixel by pixel, apply the appropriate selection feather, that sort of thing. Way more time involved but I like the control I feel I have over the end result. I can build an image from scratch in PS by using the tools as you've probably seen in a post long ago. Items like a smart cloning tool I have found through experience are not as good as good old fashioned time and effort. This is of course as seen by how my workflow is designed to suit me :thumbup:

[Mad Aussie]

I remember your PS render stuff very well. Astounding work indeed. Don't always take the words I choose too literally ... perhaps 'specific' might have been a better choice than 'narrow.'
I too, rarely use the 'auto' style tools for things like cutting out etc ... the magic/magnetic lasso etc are crap in my opinion. Zoom in and take your time is the best way for me also.

[Mad Aussie]

I should add though that I've found some of the newer features such as the photomerge and image processor functions to be far better in CS4 than previous versions.

[Michaelaw]

Specific it is then:laughing:

[Mad Aussie]

:) For some reason I'm having horrible mental blocks on words lately! Not just here but in general. So frustrating. I don't usually have too much trouble in this way but lately ...

[Michaelaw]

I should add though that I've found some of the newer features such as the photomerge and image processor functions to be far better in CS4 than previous versions.

I have to agree on photomerge and add lens correction as another useful feature. Yes without painting the entire program with the bloat brush, I have to admit that improvements have been made and some of them have added value. Probably just me giving a finger to progress again :laughing::laughing::laughing:

[Michaelaw]

:) For some reason I'm having horrible mental blocks on words lately! Not just here but in general. So frustrating. I don't usually have too much trouble in this way but lately ...

It get better MA...In your mid fifties, you type a sentence with little or no value, then pause to recall what you're point was:laughing: Something to do with aluminum and teflon which I don't use. The tinfoil hat...STAYS! :laughing:

[Mad Aussie]

It get better MA...In your mid fifties, you type a sentence with little or no value, then pause to recall what you're point was:laughing: Something to do with aluminum and teflon which I don't use. The tinfoil hat...STAYS! :laughing:
I think I'm there now :sad:

[Michaelaw]

Maybe you just need a week off MA...Sun, Tequila, and a Holga:)

[Mad Aussie]

Maybe you just need a week off MA...Sun, Tequila, and a Holga:)
I don't really drink anymore ... have had enough skin cancer and sun damage thanks ... and don't have a clue who ... or what ... Holga is! :rolleyes:

[JAS_Photo]

OMG! M.A. Holga is a cheap little formerly Russian made but now made in China, not much better than a pinhole camera that uses 120 film. It is very popular for taking "arsty" pictures especially cross processing them after. They are full of light leaks and not one thing on them is "automatic". Lomos are similar cheap but fun cameras.
Lomography (http://www.lomography.com/)

[Michaelaw]

You're probably wise to stay out of the sun, it's not what it used to be. As for Tequila....The real mexican stuff is awesome, sippin whiskey with a glow factor. But if not your style?...Your call:) The holga? a bit of fun to go with the other negated items:laughing:
SEE LINK BELOW:)
HOLGA (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Holga)

[Mad Aussie]

Ok ... now you mention it Jas I do remember the name Holga and looking them up ... and being totally unimpressed :)

[JAS_Photo]

Lol, I am confusing the Holga with the Lomo. The Holga is Chinese and the Lomos were Russian but both are of the same ilk. But hey, you can get that Lomo look without ever purchasing an actual Lomo or roll of film!

How To Make Digital Photos Look Like Lomo Photography (http://digital-photography-school.com/how-to-make-digital-photos-look-like-lomo-photography)

^That was a segue back to Photoshop. Ha!