Photoshop Content fill

[Redpb]

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI

All I can say is HOLY CRAP!

[Cirrus2000]

Wow, that's amazing. I'm looking forward to being able to try this kind of thing out.

[R]

In some ways this is great, in others it is a threat to the integrity of photography. Maybe I'll blog about this - we are supposed to upgrade to CS4 later this year.

[asdf]

In some ways this is great, in others it is a threat to the integrity of photography.

Just curious but... if this was an "in camera" feature would it still be considered a threat?

[R]

In some ways this is great, in others it is a threat to the integrity of photography.

Just curious but... if this was an "in camera" feature would it still be considered a threat?

Every step toward making it easier to create altered photographs is a blow to the integrity of photography. I'm not talking about photography as entertainment or art, but as a means of recording the human, historical and natural worlds around us. How will we know in 50 years if the photo we see is a record of history or an excellent fake? So yes, of course, "in camera" is the same as in post-processing. Some people in my line of work, photojournalism, have lost their jobs because they faked content. But suppose in ten years, when Photoshop 1000 is out, it's completely impossible to tell if an image has been manipulated? Who writes history then?

[CarpeyBiggs]

that's some voodoo nonsense! crazy...

[Cirrus2000]

I would consider is useful as a tool, for things like website layout and photoshopping "art" - Worth1000.com (http://www.worth1000.com), and so on; I photoshop special projects for my wife now and then, and it would be useful.

When it comes to photojournalism and so on, yes integrity is important. But when it comes to art, well, who's the final arbiter on what is permitted or approved? How much is too much, when it comes to "improving" a model on a magazine cover? Cheating? Sure, kind of.

It's like auto-tuning in music. A little bit of it can help to smooth some ragged tones, and make a song sound "better". A whole lot of it, and it becomes an art form on its own. (Yeah, yuck. I can't stand that crap.) People like me would much rather hear the songs that Frank Black and the Catholics record live to a two-track, or the Eels on a four-track in the basement. Others want to hear polished, produced, technologically enhanced pap. (Oh, I guess that's a little judgmental, isn't it? Whatever.)

Technology is offering incredible tools, but it will be up to people to decide where and how to use it. News photographs should not be substantively altered. (Brightened, etc? OK) And people will have to use their critical thinking skills - not only can you not believe everything you read, but now not even everything you see.

:blahblah:

[mhambi]

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


"Everything you see is probably a lie" :roflol:


Cheating? Sure, kind of.

Kind of like removing the letters 'LP' from Winter Sunrise: Sierra Nevada from Lone Pine? :mrgreen:

In 'art' I feel it's up to the 'artist'. Given recent photojournalism scandals I suspect we'll see methods/technology implemented aimed at preserving the 'integrity' of images used in news and the like.

[mhambi]

http://www.theatlantic.com/past/docs/issues/98may/photo.htm

[Ryebrye]

As far as authenticating an image goes...

Canon has forensic validation available for their cameras. You turn it on and the camera signs the images, then someone can verify that the image wasn't edited or altered. Some of their models can even encrypt the images.

http://cpn.canon-europe.com/content/education/infobank/image_verification/canon_data_verification_system.do