Content Aware Fill, Child's play! What about the White Rabbit?

oshead

If you thought Content Aware Fill in CS5 was good. Just take a look at this. :eek: Bye bye Digital Photography as we know it......... :pac:

This is called Image Recomposition (Reshuffling).

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=dgKjs8ZjQNg

Lagnagoushee

^^^^^^
Holy Cow !!!!!

Borderfox

Heres the computer to run that software

magicbastarder

it's impressive, but it ain't photography.

charybdis

magicbastarder wrote: »

it's impressive, but it ain't photography.

What is photography?

magicbastarder

taking the easy option, from wikipedia:
Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a non-sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor.

this above, by definition, is CGI.

charybdis

magicbastarder wrote: »

taking the easy option, from wikipedia:
Photography is the process, activity and art of creating still or moving pictures by recording radiation on a non-sensitive medium, such as a photographic film, or an electronic sensor.

this above, by definition, is CGI.

These images were originally radiation recorded on a medium. At what point do they become "CGI"?

pete4130

charybdis wrote: »

These images were originally radiation recorded on a medium. At what point do they become "CGI"?

Maybe when you have an image of something that didn't exist or couldn't exist the way it is shown compared to the time it was captured?

For me it isn't photography, for some people it is. It depends how militant and how strict you are in regards to your photography really.

I'm militant when I shoot and print B&W. I filed out my neg holder on my enlarger to ensure I show the full frame image. With digital I'm less militant. I see printing as more of an art than with photoshop being more of a tool.

Some people will use features like these as a crutch to their photography, and will no doubt produce great images. These images won't be photos in my own opinion. You could argue that if you don't know the difference it doesn't matter. To me it does matter, to other people it won't matter.

The debate is on the topic is endless really. It's a great, powerful tool to use and I'm sure I will in the future use/play with it at some point if/when I have CS5 and play around with it to learn its limitations and what it is useful for.

I personally think dropping a different sky/background into an image makes it digital art and not digital photography. Yet I don't have a problem with similar techniques being used in the darkroom. Is this hypocritical? Maybe so but thats just me.

Morrisseeee

Its impressive alright, and no doubt will be utilised and abused to its max in the future. To pete's point, "The debate on the topic is endless really", is true and I suppose there's no need to start a whole new argument on it. I can see us 'debating' the winner of the Landscape photograph of the Year shot and saying its not fair as he/she used the 'bi-directional similarity algorithm with horizontal & vertical realignment' !!!! eeek :-0 I remember being involved in a thread here once, [when is a photograph not a photograph], needless to say it got heated, but that Q will never be answered !!

magicbastarder

charybdis wrote: »

These images were originally radiation recorded on a medium. At what point do they become "CGI"?

the missing bits are computer generated. so they are, by definition, CGI.

saying it's not photography is not passing a value judgment on it; as pete mentioned, the value judgment is a different argument altogether.

charybdis

pete4130 wrote: »

Maybe when you have an image of something that didn't exist or couldn't exist the way it is shown compared to the time it was captured?

For me it isn't photography, for some people it is. It depends how militant and how strict you are in regards to your photography really.

I'm militant when I shoot and print B&W. I filed out my neg holder on my enlarger to ensure I show the full frame image. With digital I'm less militant. I see printing as more of an art than with photoshop being more of a tool.

Some people will use features like these as a crutch to their photography, and will no doubt produce great images. These images won't be photos in my own opinion. You could argue that if you don't know the difference it doesn't matter. To me it does matter, to other people it won't matter.

The debate is on the topic is endless really. It's a great, powerful tool to use and I'm sure I will in the future use/play with it at some point if/when I have CS5 and play around with it to learn its limitations and what it is useful for.

I personally think dropping a different sky/background into an image makes it digital art and not digital photography. Yet I don't have a problem with similar techniques being used in the darkroom. Is this hypocritical? Maybe so but thats just me.

According to the definition above, strictly speaking, photography is selectively exposing a medium to radiation; so, arguably, anything beyond that is "not photography". Any sort of development, adjusting, processing, etc. isn't photography in the true sense of the word.

A photographer could be considered to be someone who exposes a medium to light, nothing more. It follows that photographs are the product of the work of a photographer and some processing. At what point in the processing does a photographer's work cease to be a photograph?

magicbastarder wrote: »

the missing bits are computer generated. so they are, by definition, CGI.

saying it's not photography is not passing a value judgment on it; as pete mentioned, the value judgment is a different argument altogether.

Well, there are many things that go on inside a digital camera that manipulate the recorded image to make it look "better" that, in effect, record something that wasn't there; the debayering algorithms, for example.


(It should be noted that I'm not saying anyone is wrong, in fact I broadly agree with a the opinions in this thread, I'm just interested in hearing where people draw the line on this issue and how they define photography.)

magicbastarder

from a quick google, it seems that the debayering process is an integral part of actually recording the image, rather than a vividness or colour temperature algorithm to modify the recorded info, unless I'm reading it wrong?

i'd usually separate processing from photography. partly because skill in one does not imply skill in the other; there's a certain talent in actually selecting the scene to be photographed and deciding how best to capture it, and another talent which takes a given image and extracts a different meaning out of it than the 'raw' capture.
and yes, the line is blurry; i tend to find processing images tedious, so i don't do much bar use some of the more obvious controls in camera raw. so that impatience with processing influences my opinion on where the balance lies.

part of my dislike of processing would come from the paradox of choice. i'm useless at deciding what 'improvements' should be made to my pics, and the spectrum available now is so broad that i find it's easier to focus more on improving them at the exposure stage.

gotta run for the bus.

Fenster

That's really is some amazing content manipulation.

pete4130

adding substantial information and moving information around in a big manner isn't photography. Like I said the debate is endless to it is pointless in engaging in this debate as to what is or isn't photography.

You could strictly say the latent image on an undeveloped negative (which is amplified 1 billion times when processed) is pure photography even though it can't be seen by the naked eye. How far are you prepared to go to make photography pure.

Photography to me, is capture an image you see with your eye onto a medium. If this image differs radically from what your eye sees, then this, to me, personally, in my opinion and is not reflective on the truth, purity are reality of pure photography....is my opinion of photography....so therefore moving a pice of a photo to another part of the image isn't what my eye would have seen.........................................................endless arguement.....its a matter of opinion.