Possible new feature for next Photoshop

"Pete A" wrote in message
news:2011101604063531730-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom...

To answer your question, photography generally suffers from all of this,
but good art has risen above it. Of course, that depends on how you define
"good."

I pretty much agree with what you said as near as makes no difference. It's
something I'm not trying to think about or fret over anymore because so I
can be left with more space to feel less stressed and happier. People will
figure it out on their own soon enough?

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

On Fri, 14 Oct 2011 17:10:54 -0700, nospam wrote:

In article 201110141652458930-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom, Savageduck
wrote:

There is no free route to ACR 6.5 without an upgrade to CS5 or LR3.

again, this is not true.

Then perhaps a read of Adobe's note from their very own Adobe Camera
Raw 6.5 page and the accompanying "ReadMe";

"The Camera Raw 6.5 plug-in is not compatible with versions of
Photoshop earlier than Photoshop CS5."

http://www.adobe.com/special/photoshop/camera_raw/
Camera_Raw_6.5_ReadMe.pdf


nothing about that contradicts what i said.

if you want to use camera raw *within* photoshop, you are restricted to
the version compatible with whatever version of photoshop you are using.

however, you can use the latest camera raw and dng converter, which is
*free*. once the image is dng, you can open it with older versions of
photoshop.

If you use the latest versions of Rawtherapee or Rawstudio they are also
free as well as being very good.



--
Neil
Linux counter 335851
delete ‘l’ and reverse ‘r’ and’a’

David Dyer-Bennet wrote:
Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

It wouldn't exactly be hard for Adobe to do a recompile.

However, *releasing* as commercial software something like that requires
extensive testing, and exposes you to support liabilities.

You must have missed a lot of commercial software. DOS 4.00.
Vista. Therac 25. Windows' infamous bluescreens. Tons of games
only completely playable after a series of patches (sometimes
without said patches appearing).


A recompile doesn't actually need lots of tests --- the code
hasn't changed. And support? You bought the software as seen,
with no guarantees.

-Wolfgang

Eric Stevens wrote:

There is also the very considerable testing required to ensure that
your software doesn't conflict with commonly available software from
others such as McAfee, Firefox etc.

And who does that testing? Nearly noone. If it conflicts with a
virus scanner, fix the scanner. If it conflicts with Firefox ---
and why should it, unless it uses it a lot --- claim that only
IE is supported. Done.

-Wolfgang

nospam wrote:

MS have moved to a two year product cycle for similar reasons when peoples
natural buying cycle is five years. (It's not a coincidence that business
has settled around five years because that's the psychological sweetspot but
the mass consumer is more easily manipulated.)

5 years is ridiculously long in this industry. typical product cycles
are 1-2 years, for both hardware and software. people upgrade when they
need the new features.

I see. When was XP introduced and when will XP support run
out?

Why do all the business users want systems that are supported
for at least 5 years?


In summary: the big vendors have moved like a cartel to sell worse **** for
more money. You're getting poor so they can stay rich.

nonsense. if you don't think the product is worth its asking price,
don't buy it. obviously, many people think it is worth it, which is why
the big vendors are big. people like their products and buy them.

That must be true, because it cannot be that only 1/3rd or 1/4th
--- or even less --- of the user population upgrade each time.

-Wolfgang

nospam wrote:

[DNG converter]

it's not a work around. if someone gets a new camera they can get a
newer version of camera raw and use dng converter to batch convert all
of them to dng and keep using their existing old version of photoshop.
it works fine and is fully supported. it's also totally free.

Totally free? You get the source code? You get the rights
to use, read, improve, share and share the improved versions?

Or is that just "free beer, but certainly *no* free speech"?

-Wolfgang

On 2011-10-10 23:42:12 -0700, "Trevor" said:


"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011101020474736716-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
It seems this "Removal of blur" filter could possibly be included in a
future Photoshop release.
http://gizmodo.com/5848371/photoshop...y-pics-forever

I love this : "Keep in mind that this won't fix your out of focus images..."
then says "...no more ruined personal photos".

Given that as many photo's are often ruined by being out of focus, or
commonly focused on the wrong spot with many people not knowing how to use
autofocus properly, I'd say the latter claim is fanciful unless they can get
another filter to fix all those out of focus shots too!

Trevor.

More of the proposed "deblurring technology" came up in discussion on
G+ today and this A-B comparison was shared.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotc...1/10/Plaza.png


--
Regards,

Savageduck

More of the proposed "deblurring technology" came up in discussion on
G+ today and this A-B comparison was shared.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotc...1/10/Plaza.png


--
Regards,
Savageduck

Seems far too good to be true. Was the original image RAW or JPEG?

Cheers,
David

On 2011-10-17 00:20:08 -0700, "David J Taylor"
said:

More of the proposed "deblurring technology" came up in discussion on
G+ today and this A-B comparison was shared.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotc...1/10/Plaza.png


--
Regards,
Savageduck

Seems far too good to be true. Was the original image RAW or JPEG?

Cheers,
David

Who the Hell knows?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Savageduck" wrote in message
news:2011101700335750073-savageduck1@REMOVESPAMmecom...
On 2011-10-17 00:20:08 -0700, "David J Taylor"
said:

More of the proposed "deblurring technology" came up in discussion on
G+ today and this A-B comparison was shared.

http://blogs.adobe.com/photoshopdotc...1/10/Plaza.png


--
Regards,
Savageduck

Seems far too good to be true. Was the original image RAW or JPEG?

Cheers,
David

Who the Hell knows?

--
Regards,

Savageduck

It could be important. In the blurred image there are areas where there
appears to be insufficient information to extract the detail shown. A RAW
image taken at low ISO would have more brightness levels, and may
therefore show more blurred detail when the contrast range is severely
expanded, but an 8-bit JPEG image would not have those fine brightness
levels.

The technique may require a very "clean" RAW input image, to work well.

Also note that the original blur appears to be in a uniform direction
across the image, possibly with a period without blur as well. No twist
to the blur, and no deviation from a straight line.

I welcome a blur reduction facility in the program, but wonder how useful
it will be to real-world blurred images such as I might produce!

Cheers,
David