Interesting, it seems one dose not have to know much about the real concepts of photography these days, especially knowing your light.
Not like the old days where if you didn't get it right the first time, tuff.
It seems any photo can be made to look like a million dollar shot, I prefer the old way really, and rarely touch my images at all.
It has never been that you had to get it right the first time. We photographers have always dabbled with the image after taking the photo, from choosing how long to develop for, to the type of paper used, the amount of grain or contrast we wanted, to burning and dodging and blending images, long before photoshop came along.
Look at Hurley's Antarctica photography from before the first World War, much of it was heavily doctored in the darkroom, and to great effect. Messing with the image after it was taken is as old as photography itself.
Processing was always were half the fun was, and where the magic could happen. If more people get to enjoy it, then that is great stuff, it doesn't stop any of us doing it 'the old way' and understanding light, composition etc. will always lead to a better image to start from, you can only polish a turd to a certain point, it waill always be better to learn the craft and get a better image to begin with.
Now peter just to clear up one point, I happen to be one of the we, (We photographers have always dabbled with the image after taking the photo)
and have been photographing most of my life, and yes I too had my own dark room and fiddled with the Black and Whites.
You have missed the point, CS 2,3,4,5,6 or the ones prior to this are not the same as dodging a photo under the enlarger, not even close.
It was time consuming and hot in that little box, but the end result was sometimes worth it.
The technology available today can make a heap of crap look beautiful, you can say what you like but that is the reality of it.
Interesting, it seems one dose not have to know much about the real concepts of photography these days, especially knowing your light.
Not like the old days where if you didn't get it right the first time, tuff.
It seems any photo can be made to look like a million dollar shot, I prefer the old way really, and rarely touch my images at all.
Leonb
SO true!
A good photo done "in camera "is more rewarding.
H is right-why would people want to defraud themselves with all that HDR stuff when they pay
good money for L's and similar lenses
Here's one straight up out of camera no cropping or PP
(sure its good to do a few tweaks in PP and crops,But you have to ask yourself sometimes when a photo
is still a photo-or it becomes a 'fantasy image'.Nothing wrong with these,its good to have variety.But does seem
people put more and more time into PP these days,than getting it as close to right as possible in the field)
I'm only at 3:27m of the link supplied and have just read the other comments.
I am a beginner at DSLR Photography ( almost 2 years) and have had the oppertunity in my schooling years to be able to dabble in film processing an maniplulation.
Over the last year I have used PSE8 and enjoyed the things it can do, but still am miffed on some tricks. Then came the CS5. I have played with the trial version and then on a friends laptop. Whoha....content aware, Puppet stuff and all those masky thingymajigs!!!!!
CS5 made some things easier, but has made me learn more things in the process. (Cool)
Here it comes.......
Up to 3:27 into this vid, I have the feeling that I can take any photo with any camera ( iPhone, ixus90, D90, etc etc) coupled with CS6 and make it a Winning International World Photograph.........
So whats the point in having a High End DSLR?!?!?! You can take a shot with any point and shoot camera, and manipulate in CS6 and have a world class photo.{of course the photo does need a good subject and framing to boot.....but even a dog turd can be made appealing these days ...}
At 5:20 they show how motion blur can be eradicated.......
Leon +1
Bartman
P.S. If this is a hoax or some kind of joke then please!!!!!!!! put me back into my naive, ignorant crevice.........That I need to crawl out of......
Dragging a classic Ansel Adams image over the top of your own to create a theme or motif, is not going to turn your image into a masterpiece. Nor is it going to make you stand out -- there's more to the image than just processing. You only have to look at the garbage posted in one of the links in my signature to see how true that is.
Furthermore, this tool isn't going to replace compositional theory, balance, metering, or the understanding of (good) light and its use to make or break an image. Some people have an eye for photography; when their eye looks through the viewfinder, they subconsciously "see" a good image; there's no effort involved -- it just happens. Others don't have a clue.
This new thematic tool will deliver results to people who already know what they're doing, and, will just enhance to a degree what already is a good image to start with. The rest will be polishing turds or having fun.
I can see a couple of practical uses for this tool already -- for photographic essays and wedding photography, for example -- for consistency in white balancing, contrast enhancement and shadow detail.
I'll continue to dodge and burn my images in Photoshop (the digital darkroom), because that's what I would also have done in a darkroom if I had the opportunity. Unfortunately (fortunately?) I'm not as old as some of the previous posters, and, despite having a camera in my hands for half my life, my experience with film and the darkroom is very limited. I hope to resolve this issue soon by purchasing a medium or large format system. Having said that, I can't for the life of me see the advantage in /not/ knowing what you've captured (apart from the excitement of picking up your roll from the chemist) and be able to delete it immediately (not wasting film) if you don't like what you've just captured. If that's what defines a real photographer from a phoney, then, I'm as phoney as they come.
this tool isn't going to replace compositional theory, balance, metering, or the understanding of (good) light and its use to make or break an image. Some people have an eye for photography; when their eye looks through the viewfinder, they subconsciously "see" a good image; there's no effort involved -- it just happens. Others don't have a clue.
I agree, .......(I'm not sure at the moment where I'm at with the visual thing, and that is a personal opinion), and I can see where you are coming from.
But any "hack" can now just shoot, crop( standard), auto WB (standard), auto any other photo adjustment, and then apply those fandangled CS6 features to make a more fandangled picture..........without the time and effort you have made trekking out to those remote areas, setting up the (insert camera of choice), waiting for the right sunrise moment, testing and testing the shots until you get it just right.....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane
This new thematic tool will deliver results to people who already know what they're doing, and, will just enhance to a degree what already is a good image to start with. The rest will be polishing turds or having fun.
Sorry ....Me personally....dont agree.
If a person who knows what they are doing (as a photographer) then a 'thematic tool' would only be a bit of fun for them. They are surely professional enough to create those 'themeatics' themselves....
Quote:
Originally Posted by Octane
I can see a couple of practical uses for this tool already -- for photographic essays and wedding photography, for example -- for consistency in white balancing, contrast enhancement and shadow detail.
I must admit I am out of my depth here........., but doesn't PS already cater for that?( please H, and all pro Photographers, I am not - ummm for a better word ....I am not dissing u ....)
I want to produce the same quality of images as the pros do, but not by pressing a button or two in CS6.
I aspire to be able to reproduce ( not exactly of course heheheehhe) images that forum members here do by natural means........
That is a really lovely photo Leon,beautifully composed.I like how the eye is lead along-giving the viewer a 3D feel,as he or she was really there.That is going to look so good in a big frame in your study,mate.
just to clarify,I am not at all anti PP,its just how its applied,some images I see are just over PP,they have what I call 'The Plastic-Barbie Doll sheen'.I saw some bird images on another forum,and I politely said they looked 'plastic'-well it kinda ruffled their feathers a bit.But I said whoa up a bit,just show us the out out of camera image,and I felt it looked better,it really does'nt take much to go back into RAW and re do a bit of PP,which many of the others on the forum jumped in a did,So the toned down PP looked better than the over cooked one.
Waiting for the right moment to pull the trigger and doing a few sample runs before the right moment,learning how to anticipate,and observe-you cannot do that in CS XX,Its a tool to help us get the very final stages of a photo finished,not the whole tool kit.
Chris I to am not against PS, and i'm sure it is a very powerful program, but it takes out the true photographic challange, compared to the well seem subject from the photographer, IMHO.
I spent years learning about light and how to capture a frame nicely. I still need more practice after nearly 40 years. This stuff is for the me now generation, who don't want to learn but be an instant star. Makes me want to vomit.
One word comes to mind here: Cheating.
It is a cheat to use such an application. It is insulting to those that actually learnt the craft. Ansel would be shocked I reckon.
What sickens me more H is the new HD cameras (yet to be released) where you change the focus point and depth of field in software on the computer. The image can be totally out of focus. Not much skill in that.
Maybe it will serve the masses but more likely serve the wallets of Adobe.
So this means next time any of you shrink your stars using a layer selection or apply unsharp masking to tighten up some soft focus. or use a gradient exterminator tool you are CHEATING
Its all about degrees.....
The old joke kind of applies
M: Will you sleep with me for $50
F: Sir what do you take me for a common prostitute ?
M: What about for $500
F: Out of the question
M: What about for $5million
F: Well for $5million I would
M: Well then its clear you are a prostitute and we are just hagggling over the price
Having said that I kind of like this hobby becuase it is so darn hard to get everything right to take a decent picture. Some tools that mean anyone can be Rob Gendler is probab;ly not best thing for this hobby but in my view they are just tools and you still need a lot of skill to get to a point where a tool will even help.
I spent years learning about light and how to capture a frame nicely. I still need more practice after nearly 40 years. This stuff is for the me now generation, who don't want to learn but be an instant star. Makes me want to vomit.
One word comes to mind here: Cheating.
It is a cheat to use such an application. It is insulting to those that actually learnt the craft. Ansel would be shocked I reckon.
What sickens me more H is the new HD cameras (yet to be released) where you change the focus point and depth of field in software on the computer. The image can be totally out of focus. Not much skill in that.
Maybe it will serve the masses but more likely serve the wallets of Adobe.
It is yet to be released and played with but I doubt it will be a bypass of knowing your gear and your PS basics. If an image is poorly focused with light pollution and is only 40 minutes long its not going to be transformed into a Gendleresque masterpiece with a few clicks in Photoshop.
You have to have the correct data there in the first place to do that.
What it may be useful for is if you get an image really right and you then save that as a model for your future processing of your own images it could work well.
Looks like programmatic HDR. H's gonna love it 
especially knowing your light.
(We photographers have always dabbled with the image after taking the photo) 
)
