Possible new feature for next Photoshop

On 2011-10-11 17:04:41 +0100, notbob said:

On 2011-10-11, Pete A wrote:

of hard-earned money that drives so many to pursue their hobby "If only
I had an xyz, I could do better." Adobe cashes in by indulging their
fantasy

I can't disagree. I'd rather spend my time/money on the front end of
the process. Equipment, location, composition, etc.

Agreed.

In fact, I'm rather dismayed by the change in perceptions of what
constitutes good photography in this post digital world. Too often I
see terribly garish HDR shots being passed off as good photography. A
recent issue of Outdoor Photography had one of the columnists patting
himself on the back about how he'd transformed his admittedly mediocre
shot of a lone pine tree with some low sun backlighting into a "WOW"
shot with HDR. It was hideous! Looked more like a LSD flashback gone
bad or a corpse in clown makeup. Sorry, but a crappy photo is a
crappy photo, regardless of one's "process".

Agreed again. I've never tried LSD so I am unqualified to assess most
HDR "photography"

"notbob" wrote in message
...

Too often I see terribly garish HDR shots being passed off as good
photography. [...] Sorry, but a crappy photo is a crappy photo,
regardless of one's "process".

This happens with everything. I thought the over-processed HDR fad had died
out but it seems there's still life in that meme. Kids are still getting
trashed in Majorca? Yeah, whatever.

The way I think about these things is to ignore them and just get on with
with it. Plus, they're not in my way if they want to be berks and dig a
different area that's their business.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

On 2011-10-11 14:28:20 -0700, Bruce said:

notbob wrote:
On 2011-10-11, Bruce wrote:
This is just an excuse for people not to learn to shoot sharp images.

An excuse to make more $$$$ for Adobe.


Yes, that is mostly what it is. The vast majority of Photoshop users
would be quite happy with a much earlier version of the software, or
Elements, but Adobe cleverly limits compatibility with RAW files from
recent digicams to later versions of the software. So unless you use
the same digicam for years, you are forced to upgrade the software
regularly and expensively.

While you are correct in that sticking to a camera /computer/software
system you might have invested in years ago will negate the need to
upgrade anything, sometimes it is those who finally decide to step up
to a new camera find themselves faced with the other costs of the
update.

While I would like to not be held captive by the Adobe ACR business
model, they are blameless when it comes to developments necessitated by
changes to the various common OS's, and demands to improve their basic
product to move with the times, improve the user IO & features. It
would be nice to have PS7 work with Windows 7/8 or OSX 10.6.8 or the
new Lion, but it won't. The same is true with trying to move CS2 to the
current OS's.

That said, while superficially CS5 performs the same basic functions as
CS2, it has added features and a new ACR process engine which make it a
very different piece of software to that sold just 3 years ago. It was
rebuilt and a simple upgrade to the earier versions was not feasible.
Denying any business the ability to recoup their development costs,
which are considerable, would lead to stagnation in the incremental
improvement of the state of this particular art.

The same is true for camera manufacturers.


The people who unthinkingly claim that digital is cheaper than film
never seem to factor in the costs of frequent camera, hardware and
software upgrades. Contrast that with film cameras that would last
several decades and could always take advantage of the advances in
sensor technology just by buying a few rolls of the latest film. ;-)

True enough, but developments in digital imagery, particularly those
built around the 35mm FF sensor have improved beyond that found by
seeking out "a few rolls of the latest film".
....and the changes, while not moving fast enough for the instant
gratification crowd, are moving faster with each generation of
development. That includes the related development costs.


--
Regards,

Savageduck

On 10/10/2011 11:47 PM, Savageduck wrote:
It seems this "Removal of blur" filter could possibly be included in a
future Photoshop release.
http://gizmodo.com/5848371/photoshop...y-pics-forever


timing is everything. I was shooting long exposures just after low
slack, and was so caught op in the beauty of long exposures that I
forgot the boats and floating docks moved. I have a glass bay with
blurry ships and docks. I will just have to wait for the confluence of
low tide, sunrise and slight fog.


--
Peter

"tony cooper" wrote in message
...
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:36:35 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

One of the estate agents (realtors?) in the area of the UK where I am..

I doubt if there are realtors in the UK. In the US, the term
"Realtor" is a registered designation for a member of the National
Association of Realtors.

What, like that self-build shed association Sisker had going?

The NAR would write snotty letters because if you don't defend a trademark
you lose it but as it looks like it's status has been made generic by mass
use (to my UK ears) I'm not sure it would survive in court.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

"Martin Brown" wrote in message
...
Undoubtedly. It is unwise to put too much faith in its capabilities.

Since when do you put "faith" in any such tools, you use them if you think
think they might improve an existing photo, and ignore them when they don't.

Trevor.

"Pete A" wrote in message
news:2011101116371731193-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom...
MS Paint can produce better art than most high-tech button pushers will
ever achieve,


Wow, that says a lot more about you if you think any serious photographer
could manage with MS Paint! There are of course many reasonable alternatives
to Adobe Photoshop, but I wouldn't rate MS Paint as one of them! Hell most
camera's already come with far better software included, even the cheap
ones!


It seems to me that some spend more on Adobe software than on their camera
equipment. I call it a demonstration of Adobe's astute business acumen.

Perhaps, or just the stupidity of anyone who'd buy a cheap camera and Adobe
PS rather than a better camera and PS Elements, or one of the free
alternatives. Frankly I seriously doubt anyone who actually buys the full
version of Adobe PS is a novice with a cheap camera!

Trevor.

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
One of the estate agents (realtors?) in the area of the UK where I am
looking makes extensive use of crudely applied HDR images, and they
are really crappy. In most cases, the advert shows two images of the
same thing - one with HDR and one without. The HDR effect is extreme
but it is actually quite useful because it enables the interior of a
room and its view to the exterior to be seen together.

It's crappy photography, but good advertising. Unattractive, yes, but
strangely useful. I would not want it on my wall at home, but it
might help us to find the right property. ;-)


Exactly, seems he knows exactly the market he is addressing, and it's not
someone who is after a fine art print for the wall! Some just don't get it
though.

Trevor.

On 2011-10-12 00:54:24 -0700, Bruce said:

tony cooper wrote:

On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:36:35 +0100, Bruce
wrote:

One of the estate agents (realtors?) in the area of the UK where I am..

I doubt if there are realtors in the UK. In the US, the term
"Realtor" is a registered designation for a member of the National
Association of Realtors.

In the US, anyone licensed to sell or rent property is a real estate
agent. If that person joins and pays dues to the NAR, the person can
dub themselves a Realtor. Actually, NAR always capitalizes it thusly:
REALTOR®.

The NAR actually gives a **** and writes nasty letters to publications
that write "realtor". No one else gives a ****, though.


Thanks. I was in doubt, hence the question mark. So what do you
call, on your side of the pond, the people we call "estate agents"?
They are the people who market domestic property.

We also have "surveyors" who need to be professionally qualified,
whereas estate agents are just salesmen/women with no requirement for
qualifications.

A real estate agent, or real estate broker who is a member of the
National Association of Realtors (NAR) is termed a "Realtor" and they
serve the same purpose and function as an "estate agent" in the UK.
However in most States they have to be licensed, and have to pass an
exam to gain that certification and salutation. The NAR will not
certify those individuals without the appropriate State license and
successful board exam.
That does not mean that a State licensed real estate agent or real
estate broker has to be a member of NAR to conduct business, but they
might find conducting business difficult without such membership.

Surveyors in the US, as in the UK are qualified professionals.
Then there are real estate appraisers, another group with a finger in
the real estate pie.



--
Regards,

Savageduck

"Bruce" wrote in message
...
We also have "surveyors" who need to be professionally qualified,
whereas estate agents are just salesmen/women with no requirement for
qualifications.

Real Estate Agents have to be qualified (only a short course) and licensed
in Australia. Agents Representitives who do most of the work are not usually
qualified in any way however. Surveyors here play no part in selling
properties, but may be hired to check boundaries etc. during a sale.

Trevor.