Camera Labs

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=GcJSV6lFcMI&


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NH0aEp1oDOI&


Yup. Can't wait.

I would like to pixel peep the result, but that looks insane!

_________________
Canon 5D MkII -|- Sigma 24mm f/1.8 | Carl Zeiss 35mm f/2.0 | Canon 50mm f/1.4 | Canon 100mm f/2.8 Macro | Lensbaby Composer
Canon A-1 -|- Canon 28mm f/2 | Canon 35mm f/2.8 | Canon 50mm f/3.5 Macro

That looks really big time saver.

_________________
PhilipGoh.com

This is like..........the invention of the wheel

And it's available in Photoshop CS5 so could be worth saving for the upgrade.

_________________
Nikon D90
Nikkor AF-S DX; 18-105 f/3.5-5.6G VR, 55-300 f/4.5-5.6G VR, 35mm f/1.8G
Speedlight SB-700

http://keystrokesukimages.com

Only just looked at this - as they say, to do that currently would be very difficult. I know, as I have tried and given up on similar examples to these. A serious time saver.

They just upgraded PS CS5 it from a "want" to a "need" as far as I'm concerned.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

It looks realy nice but I have this april fools thing going on in the back of my head....

_________________
I take pictures so quickly, my highschool was "Continuous High".

I think content aware fill is a double edged sword:

On the one end you can neatly and quickly fill in obscured details. However on the other end that detail may not be what you intended, you essentially are asking a computer to make a educated guess on filling in missing data, however a human might wish to influence what that area is filled with. Another thing content aware fill does is hamstring peoples efforts to watermark images because content aware fill painlessly and effectively allows "paving over" of ownership info.

Automated systems may not get it right 100% of the time, but getting it close requiring manual touch up is still easier than doing the whole lot manually.

As for watermarking, how paranoid you are defines how strong the watermark is. If it destroys the image, like some do, no amount of content aware fill is going to restore it. As you apply less, maybe there's more potential someone might "steal" a cleaned up image but that's where you probably should start looking at something like digimarc, which should be immune to fill.

_________________
Canon DSLRs: 7D, 5D2, 1D, 600D, 450D full spectrum, 300D IR mod
Lenses: EF 35/2, 50/1.8, 85/1.8, 135/2+SF, 28-80 V, 70-300L, 100-400L, TS-E 24/3.5L, MP-E 65, EF-S 15-85 IS
3rd party: Zeiss 2/50 makro, Samyang 8mm fisheye, Sigma 150 macro, 120-300 f/2.8 OS, Celestron 1325/13
Tinies: Sony HX9V.

This seems like an amazing tool. I just hope it doesn't get overused.


Photography was originally intended to reflect the world. I can imagine a few centuries from now people will look at the pictures we are making today and they won't be able to say that was the real world.

To be fair there are some old photos like the ones from the moon landing that some people question, thus photography was already questionable before photoshop. It's just that photoshop is in my opinion being used too much.

Soon people will relate a photographer to a graphics designer.

But like HDR it's a tool. It's good to have it just in case.

PS: There is a simple solution to watermarks, low resolution.