adobe cs5

Are you blaming a program for how people use it (guessing you do not like how some people use it)? Much like blaming the camera for bad images when it is really operator error.

Steve
 
No Steve ,thats not what Im thinking,these programs will be used by anyone,maybe even me in the future,I already scan my negatives into photoshop 7.The difference here and with future programs is the seamlessness of the deception.If one intends to deceive you now can.What I would like is proper discussion on how to inform people on what has been done to the original image..............for example,the inclusion by law in the exif data of a small jpeg of the original image..Ive no idea if this is posssible but I do feel that this has to be thought about.:bang:
 
taxi38 said:
No Steve ,thats not what Im thinking,these programs will be used by anyone,maybe even me in the future,I already scan my negatives into photoshop 7.The difference here and with future programs is the seamlessness of the deception.If one intends to deceive you now can.What I would like is proper discussion on how to inform people on what has been done to the original image..............for example,the inclusion by law in the exif data of a small jpeg of the original image..Ive no idea if this is posssible but I do feel that this has to be thought about.:bang:
Click to expand...

That's so ridiculous. CS5 does nothing that wasn't possible with CS4. It just does it more easily. So what if amateurs can manipulate their images more easily? Good for them.

Why in the world would you want the exif data to include the original image? People who manipulate their images usually do it because they prefer the way it looks. They don't want to show the original. If I make a painting, should I be obligated to show my sketches? That would be silly.

If you want to have a discussion about truth in photography, fine, but don't think that a new image editing software changes anything in this regard. And it definitely doesn't change the rules of what is and isn't permissible in editorial photography.
 
If all images can be freely manipulated you will be left with only your own experience as a reliable source of reality.
 
Actually the cs5 does have a few very impressive functions, much more complex and user friendly than previous versions. I saw the demo video a while ago. Very impressive.
 
Maybe there are two points being discussed here: photojournalism vs art? I agree that where a story is being told for reporting purposes any retouching that alters the story should be disclosed. However, retouching for the sake of art is subjective and a huge part of an artists vision.
 
What the hell is the fuss about? Even Ansel Adams used camera and processing tricks (like the Zone System), that helped him make his photographs fundamentally different to that of the tourists photographs of the Yosemite Valley. Manipulation starts by 'editing' the scene in front of you, and framing a picture to include one thing and not another. You are already manipulating the people who look at your photographs just by making a photograph, or are you assuming they come about by some divine intervention?

Steve
 
Finder said:
The Zone System is not a "processing trick." It is applied sensitometry.
Click to expand...

Its something that is used by the photographer to change the character of the scene from that natively recorded by the film and developer combination. We all know what it is in a technical discussion, but the thread is about manipulation. So using big words doesn't move things on much does it, particularly as Adams was not using a Kodak Instamatic and was not trying to record the scenes faithfully.

Steve
 
taxi38 said:
If all images can be freely manipulated you will be left with only your own experience as a reliable source of reality.
Click to expand...

Actually, your own experience (and especially your memory) is not as reliable as you might think. And what concept of reality are we talking about anyways? Are you even talking about reality or do you mean evidence? Last time I checked reality wasn't flat and printed on paper.
 
Even if we set aside the OP's naive notion that an unaltered photograph is a 'reliable source of reality' this argument is absolutely pointless.

Those few new features in Photoshop don't push the envelope for image manipulation at all. They push the envolope for image manipulation automation. All that can be done with CS5 can be done with previous versions of photoshop but with more work involved.
So yeah, it'll be easier for amateurs to maniuplate their pictures. So what? So a couple more amateurs on flickr will be able to remove a tree in the background of their kid pictures. Big deal! Since when does anyone turn to flickr for reliability and truthfulness?
The 'sources' we usually rely on (e.g. newspapers and photojournalists) were well proficient in photoshop a long time before CS5 and if they didn't manipulate their images it surely wasn't because they were to lazy to do it manually.
 
250swb said:
Its something that is used by the photographer to change the character of the scene from that natively recorded by the film and developer combination. We all know what it is in a technical discussion, but the thread is about manipulation. So using big words doesn't move things on much does it, particularly as Adams was not using a Kodak Instamatic and was not trying to record the scenes faithfully.

Steve
Click to expand...

The trouble is your assumption that if I use an instimatic and normal development that I have somehow made an "objective" unmanipulate image of the world is not true. I have just let the engineers and scientists decide things for me. The image itself is not a copy of the original, but an abstraction of the original. If Adams image is not "faithful," then the image from Kodak is not "faithful" either. (And how are you going to determine "faithfulness"? Your "vision"?)
 
photoshop is not used only by photographers, and I guess the new features would help alot of other professionals in their work. its not just photography.
i'm loving cs5 even before its out. and i dont even have a digital camera!
 
Hm... Don't use it if you don't like it? Not obligated to use the puppet tool... :)

I use photoshop extensively all the time for my job. It have a lot of interesting features.

But when I work on my pictures, I use it the way I want... Maybe a little more conservative, thought...
 
To all of you that think CS5 doesn't do anything that CS4 can't...you couldn't be more wrong. While the output in the video below was indeed possible in previous installments, the actual tool itself is the likes none of us has ever seen.

This has been said to by beta testers to be the biggest upgrade since Adobe Photoshop 6.

Here's a sneak peek at the feature that has all in awe: Content-Aware Fill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI
 
...just watched the demo on Content-Aware Fill.

Dang!

saiminyaku said:
To all of you that think CS5 doesn't do anything that CS4 can't...you couldn't be more wrong. While the output in the video below was indeed possible in previous installments, the actual tool itself is the likes none of us has ever seen.

This has been said to by beta testers to be the biggest upgrade since Adobe Photoshop 6.

Here's a sneak peek at the feature that has all in awe: Content-Aware Fill

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI
Click to expand...
 
saiminyaku said:
To all of you that think CS5 doesn't do anything that CS4 can't...you couldn't be more wrong.
Click to expand...

No one in this thread is arguing this. The new features are very impressive and CS5 seems to do A LOT more than CS4.

While the output in the video below was indeed possible in previous installments...
Click to expand...

This was exactly the point. CS5 doesn't blur the lines between reality and artificiality anymore than previous versions of photoshop.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top Bottom