Possible new feature for next Photoshop

On 10/12/2011 12:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:26:04 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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-will-end-blurry-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.

The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
"Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
photo is difficult to do.

There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.

A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
type of image has become a cliche.

My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.

It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg



Well, it's got good color saturation. Not y0our best work. A moving
pendulum would have worked better.


--
Peter

On 10/12/2011 9:54 AM, tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:40:55 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 10/12/2011 12:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:26:04 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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-will-end-blurry-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.

The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
"Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
photo is difficult to do.

There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.

A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
type of image has become a cliche.

My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.

It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg



Well, it's got good color saturation. Not y0our best work. A moving
pendulum would have worked better.

Sure, but I don't have a moving pendulum around the house to
photograph.

I was very close to going to a pet store and buying a Siamese Fighting
Fish in a small round bowl to see if I could photograph that with a
blur of movement. Didn't do it, though.

However, one of the other entries was a straight-down shot of a koi
pond. It was good, but not great.



As you pointed out: deliberate motion blur is not easy. My own suspicion
is that is why most CC judges like frozen objects. My bird images with
motion blur in the wings usually receive a comment that the wings are
blurry. Yet to me blurred wings can be a much nicer image.

--
Peter

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 11:04:09 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 10/12/2011 9:54 AM, tony cooper wrote:
On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:40:55 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

On 10/12/2011 12:43 AM, tony cooper wrote:
On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 19:26:04 -0400, PeterN
wrote:

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-will-end-blurry-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.

The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
"Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
photo is difficult to do.

There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.

A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
type of image has become a cliche.

My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.

It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg



Well, it's got good color saturation. Not y0our best work. A moving
pendulum would have worked better.

Sure, but I don't have a moving pendulum around the house to
photograph.

I was very close to going to a pet store and buying a Siamese Fighting
Fish in a small round bowl to see if I could photograph that with a
blur of movement. Didn't do it, though.

However, one of the other entries was a straight-down shot of a koi
pond. It was good, but not great.



As you pointed out: deliberate motion blur is not easy. My own suspicion
is that is why most CC judges like frozen objects. My bird images with
motion blur in the wings usually receive a comment that the wings are
blurry. Yet to me blurred wings can be a much nicer image.

You want motion blur?

I got motion blur.

See first http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2254.jpg

and then http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2256.jpg

Regards,

Eric Stevens

On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 18:45:52 -0400, tony cooper
wrote:

On Thu, 13 Oct 2011 10:27:48 +1300, Eric Stevens
wrote:

The latest theme for our camera club's monthly competition was
"Beautiful Blur". Evidently, *deliberate* blur in an otherwise good
photo is difficult to do.

There were about half the number of entries as usual, and many of
these were "zoom blur" and your kind of photo: abstract.

A few automobiles and a few bicycles (one very good one taken during a
bicycle race). The usual waterfalls taken at slow exposure, but this
type of image has become a cliche.

My entry received the lowest score I've ever received in a
competition: 70. The judges said it didn't have enough blur.

It wasn't a good photo for the theme anyway. I came up with it the
last day and shot it in my garage a few hours before the deadline. I
couldn't think of a good subject. (We submit online)

http://tonycooper.smugmug.com/Other/...10-05-1-XL.jpg



Well, it's got good color saturation. Not y0our best work. A moving
pendulum would have worked better.

Sure, but I don't have a moving pendulum around the house to
photograph.

I was very close to going to a pet store and buying a Siamese Fighting
Fish in a small round bowl to see if I could photograph that with a
blur of movement. Didn't do it, though.

However, one of the other entries was a straight-down shot of a koi
pond. It was good, but not great.



As you pointed out: deliberate motion blur is not easy. My own suspicion
is that is why most CC judges like frozen objects. My bird images with
motion blur in the wings usually receive a comment that the wings are
blurry. Yet to me blurred wings can be a much nicer image.

You want motion blur?

I got motion blur.

See first http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2254.jpg

and then http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2256.jpg

Great subject, but you wouldn't have fared any better than I did. The
judges confused most of us by wanting more blur in some photos and
more sharpness in other photos. What they wanted was an image where
part of the subject is sharp and part is blurred.

The photos they graded high were images of something like a bicycle
with the rider very sharp but the spokes blurred. Some of the "zoom
blur" shots fared well, but they were shots where the blur was created
in-camera and not in Photoshop.

How about this one then - from 50 years ago.
http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/Ard...Jan%201961.jpg

Regards,

Eric Stevens

You want motion blur?

I got motion blur.

See first http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2254.jpg

and then http://dl.dropbox.com/u/31088803/DSC_2256.jpg

Regards,

Eric Stevens

That works very well!

David

In article , Bruce
wrote:

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,

the vast majority would? where in the world did you come up with that
nonsense?

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.

nobody is forced to do anything. camera raw is completely free and you
don't even need photoshop to use it.

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. ;-)

digital is without question cheaper than film unless you shoot very,
very few photos, and that's including upgrading cameras periodically.

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

[...]
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.

But then, in 95% of the time, running a software on a newer
version of otherwise compatible hardware and OS and libraries is
just a compile away. In the rest 5%, usually only minor changes
are needed, e.g. when a deprecated part of an OS or library has
been finally removed and a replacement has to be used.

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

Nor would it be hard to add most RAW formats for new cameras
--- in fact, many are just a minor variation of a RAW format
of an earlier camera from the same vendor.

It just doesn't match their business model. (Compare that to
Bibble, where upgrades have been free within the same major
version up to now and where updated OSses (btw more than
Adobe supports!) and new cameras are handled as a normal
occurance. Oh, and Bibble has had features added. Many of
them.

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 fact that there are enough FOSS raw converters and that they
are improving (and are in certain areas, though usually not in
ease of use better than commercial offerings), should be enough to
prove that "recouping the development costs" is not as necessary
as you make it out to be for steady improvement.


The same is true for camera manufacturers.

Camera manufacturers have to transform matter to create each
camera. Buying the raw materials and transforming them into
the magical wonderful things that cameras are has a cost that
is borne for each single copy.

Adobe does incur rather negible costs per copy compared to that,
even if they mass-press CDs and operate download servers and
print manuals on dead trees.

In addition, the tools needed to build a prototype DSLR
camera (including the sensor and so on) have astronomical
costs and are still extremely expensive if you just hire them
for a few test chips, test camera bodies, test lenses etc.

Adobe can use commodity hardware (or souped up commodity hardware)
which isn't exactly dirt cheap ... but is well within the range
of the ordinary person, and many a computer gamer --- or DSLR
enthusiast has as expensive (or more expensive) gear.


Therefore I claim that you cannot compare software with hardware;
nor can you easily compare development costs for both; nor can
you claim the threat of stagnation would be even near similar.

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.

But not the prices Adobe is making --- they have nothing to do
with development costs, they're all about the highest gouging they
think they can get away with. After all, they're not a charity,
they're out for money, and lots of it.

If they included new cameras and features within a major version
and only changed the major version every 4 years and charged $100
or $150 for it, they'd still recover their development costs.
They'd just not make that much money.

-Wolfgang

nospam writes:

In article , Bruce
wrote:

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.

nobody is forced to do anything. camera raw is completely free and you
don't even need photoshop to use it.

This is entirely false. I have frequently found that I could not use a
newer ACR with an older Photoshop, and there is no way I have found to
use ACR without Photoshop.

Are you sure you're not confused with Adobe DNG Converter? That's
entirely free, is a standalone program, and supports the latest
cameras. And can in fact be used as a workaround for the ACR problem,
just convert to DNG and then use your old ACR on that DNG; that works.

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. ;-)

digital is without question cheaper than film unless you shoot very,
very few photos, and that's including upgrading cameras periodically.

Well, you're clearly not doing it "unthinkingly", since you felt the
need to qualify your statement in two directions.

Styles in photography vary a lot. I used to shoot a LOT of film. But
lots of major photogrpahic artists used relatively small amounts,
especially those shooting medium and large formats. For me, the fact
that film and processng is "included" in my digital camera purchase is a
big win. For somebody who really needs a medium-format digital back to
get the quality they're used to, and who used to shoot only a hundred
sheets of film a year, digital is not cheaper, not by a long shot.

Wolfgang Weisselberg writes:

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

[...]
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.

But then, in 95% of the time, running a software on a newer
version of otherwise compatible hardware and OS and libraries is
just a compile away. In the rest 5%, usually only minor changes
are needed, e.g. when a deprecated part of an OS or library has
been finally removed and a replacement has to be used.

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.

In article , David Dyer-Bennet
wrote:

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.

nobody is forced to do anything. camera raw is completely free and you
don't even need photoshop to use it.

This is entirely false.

it's exactly true.

I have frequently found that I could not use a
newer ACR with an older Photoshop, and there is no way I have found to
use ACR without Photoshop.

you haven't?? because you explain how:

Are you sure you're not confused with Adobe DNG Converter? That's
entirely free, is a standalone program, and supports the latest
cameras. And can in fact be used as a workaround for the ACR problem,
just convert to DNG and then use your old ACR on that DNG; that works.

dng converter is exactly how you use camera raw without photoshop, and
the resultant dng can then be opened with older versions of photoshop.

there is no need to upgrade photoshop just to use a later version of
camera raw unless you want the convenience of having it integrated in
one app, or want some of the newer features they added.

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. ;-)

digital is without question cheaper than film unless you shoot very,
very few photos, and that's including upgrading cameras periodically.

Well, you're clearly not doing it "unthinkingly", since you felt the
need to qualify your statement in two directions.

Styles in photography vary a lot. I used to shoot a LOT of film. But
lots of major photogrpahic artists used relatively small amounts,
especially those shooting medium and large formats. For me, the fact
that film and processng is "included" in my digital camera purchase is a
big win. For somebody who really needs a medium-format digital back to
get the quality they're used to, and who used to shoot only a hundred
sheets of film a year, digital is not cheaper, not by a long shot.

again, that's exactly what i said. film can be cheaper if you shoot few
shots. it's even cheaper if you don't shoot anything at all.