During Adobe MAX 2016, the company gave a behind the scenes look at a new technology that they’re developing called SkyReplace. The new software makes it very easy to replace the sky and even adjust the overall look of a photo with little to no Photoshop knowledge.
Adobe says SkyReplace uses deep machine learning to automatically figure out where the boundary lines lie between the sky and the rest of the elements in the photo such as trees, mountains and buildings. It can then not only swap out the old sky and insert a completely new one, but it can also adjust the rest of the photo to take on the same look and feel as the replaced sky by adjusting color, light and contrast thus creating a more realistic look.
I agree fatdeeman. It all comes down to the quality and accuracy of the mask. Most photographers sometimes encounter the huge DR difference between the ground and the sky in some lighting conditions. I'm sure they still consider themselves to real photographers if they bracket and use HDR, use graduated ND devices, or push raw files to the extreme in PP.
The ability to easily take a bracketed shot and replace a blown out sky with a shorter exposure (taken a fraction of a second later) would be very useful if the masking is done well.
Looks like it would be interesting to try out, I'm sure I wouldn't use it to "cheat" with every photo but we've all been in the situation where everything was perfect except the sky/lighting, especially a place we may never go to again or an event that will never happen again so I could see it coming to the rescue in those situations.
I have to laugh at the flock of purists posting about this new tool. Reminds me of those who flamed Dylan and other artists who moved on in their careers to new forms of expression, much to the delight of the more enlightened, less dogmatic and non-fundamentalist. I sure hope all of you have gone back to Kodak Brownies or pinhole cameras for a purer expression.
Photoshop and Lightroom are extremely impressive tools that can do a lot and already well worth the subscription. What's wrong with further updates and improvements? Just because PS & LR have a new feature it doesn't mean you have to use it.
What's with all the negativity in the comments? Photoshop is an image manipulation tool. For all the purists out there that believe everything should be done to perfection in camera, I assume you won't be using Photoshop or Lightroom at all so why would it matter to you if Adobe release a new feature. I'm a wedding photographer and I'd certainly consider using this feature. If a bride and groom were hoping for a nice day with a beautiful blue sky and a few clouds but end up with a dull overcast day I'd happily replace a few skies to give them what they wanted. As an added bonus it makes my photos look better to potential future clients. So what if it isn't what was actually there at the time, it's what they wanted there at the time and with this new feature I can make it happen with little editing time as long as I have a stock of nice skies to pick from.
Very few photographs have ever been a simple matter of record. Printing lighter or darker, altering contrast levels, and even cropping can dramatically alter the original image. People were air brushing and retouching images long before photoshop came along.
And what do those basic adjustments have to do with this??? It's like putting your head on a photo of mr. olympia. Would you call that fair or even close to real?
I've replaced seascape skies with the sky from the same series 5 min. later. My only issue with this software is that there was no talk about the "quality" if the mask itself. An instant, accurate mat edge would be a useful tool.
Groan. Yet another casualty of the "anything goes" crusade in modern post-production.
I'm not against mastering advanced techniques, whether for personal creative expression or paid commercial work.
However, we need to stop calling it photography. It's not. It's Photoshop. It's digital composite art.
If you feel that "ordinary" photographs aren't impressive enough for our modern eye-candy standards, that's fine, do whatever you want! Just don't be insecure about it. Own it. Don't lie about the level of truth in your imagery, or get aggressive when someone asks questions. And don't feel insulted when at least a few folks start mentioning that they're simply not as impressed by composite artwork as they are by "real" images.
Those claiming that composite art is not the same as a real photograph forget that the photo produced with tricks like this IS technically possible to achieve without cheating, it just means you don't have to wait for the perfect weather or time to achieve that look.
If I go to Venice for the day and the sky isn't very nice, and then the next day it is, that doesn't make me a better photographer because my image+sky looks better on day 2. It just means I was there at the right time and mother nature made it look better.
You have a point if you're talking about things which are being done automatically which are not possible to do IRL, but photography is not rocket science.
You also overlook that you're already using technology to capture things you could not without it, where do you draw the line without looking a hypocrite?
The line is quite easy to draw. You either intentionally alter a scene even though you know that's NOT what actually happened in that one single moment, on that one particular day, ...or you intentionally keep your post-production to a minimum so that it simply allows the scene you actually witnessed to do all the talking.
Both are forms of art, indeed, but one is more "photography" than the other. Photography is indeed not rocket science, but it is still science, and is capable of being downright forensic when desired.
I'm at that point in my career that the true art of photography is passing by me. I totally agree with Matthew that post production is the new era of photography. David R. Miller
I thoroughly agree, but things change with the times. Post-camera-processing is here to stay; the genie won't go back in the bottle. Advertising and commercial photography depends on it. It's now just matter of personal satisfaction to be able to get a shot out of the camera that stands on its own without the need to tinker with it. Much of my photography in the past was on 35mm transparencies, for use in a projector for training sessions, so they had to be right straight from the camera.
I have made this same argument several times: composited photos are not pure photography in my view. Anything more than cropping and perhaps exposure adjustments is not photography in my book. When you cross the line from swapping and compositing shots, that's where you go from photography to creative art in my book. There's nothing wrong with it, except for when someone praises someone for a great shot. For one, the image is composited, so it's not like it came out of camera. The way I see photography (real photography) is what you get out of camera, with minimal adjustments (cropping, maybe some exposure adjustments to bring out or hide the highlights) but nothing dealing with changing elements in the actual photo (skies, people, buildings, etc).
I could say the same thing and say anyone who does not paint what they see on a canvas with paints is a fraud because they are using a machine to simply take the easy way out.
Whatever worth you have in photography is misplaced, by using a camera you are already admitting defeat.
Stick two people in a portable toilet for 6 hours.
Give the pro artist his canvas and paints. Give the pro photographer his camera. Let's see who comes out with something special ,and who comes out with virtually nothing because without a subject photographers cant do anything.
I like photography, but in no way do I think it requires any real talent, once you know how to expose, and get the shutter speeds right, the rest is mostly down to finding subject, of which anyone can do if they can be bothered or mother nature is kind enough.
Most of the famous pics in the world are often of things the photographer has no control of other than being there to press a button. Not really a big deal is it.
I won't go as far as to call someone a fraud because they composite their shots. And I'm not saying people shouldn't composite shots to make something. What I"m saying is don't composite images and then act like it came out of the camera that way. Once you composite (in my opinion) its no longer a photograph. It's a work of art, but not a photograph. Photograph (in my view) is what came out of the camera, and maybe with minimal retouching (adjustment of exposure a little and some cropping--but NO compositing--so basically the image you see is pretty mu;ch the same composition that came out of the camera, with some minor adjustments. I know that there really isn't a fine line between this, but that's just one area of the hobby that bothers me with certain people, who think that making some unrealistic photo through compositing a few different photos is still photography. It's creative art.
Let's go with your premise: Photography doesn't require much talent, it's mostly technical knowledge.
In fact let's go even further, and dismiss the "creative eye" that chooses the viewpoint, the angle, and the timing, the keys to making a photo that is dramatically different from all the others.
What's left? Simply being in the right place, at the right time, with the right lens. That's it.
You're right! That really doesn't hold a candle to someone who can paint the same scene beautifully, let alone create a scene from scratch. (Or sculpt a statue, or perform a symphony, etc.)
I used to struggle with this truth, but no longer.
The journey is what matters to me. I get enough excitement from planning a trip, hiking, camping, and even sitting there waiting, that by the time I click the photo, my "creativity" is satisfied.
I couldn't care less if it's classified as art or not. All I know is that viewers enjoy the results, and I enjoy creating photos that are "not fake".
Yuck! I'm not against post processing, but I guess for me it is a matter of degree and these examples seem to be taking it a bit far for my taste. I can see real-estate agents using this just as they do with over processed HDR images today.
In the first example the clouds obscured the top of the building a bit - almost like the clouds appear in front of the building top.
Well, Keith, this product IS still under development. As for how it might be used, we all need to remember that photography is used in many ways and for many different purposes ... and not just the ways we personally use it ourselves.
There are many interesting utilities (for lack of better word) discussed where the "SkyReplace" was. It is not difficult to replace the sky and make adjustments to the landscapes in most instances. However some of the other utilities were really desirable. It would be nice if Adobe dribbled them out of the lab in a beta form and let the photographers play with them.
Post processing is now part of the art of photography. The objects/scenes you photograph are elements of the art itself. I am not going to frame a beautiful scene taken in a far-off land which had a featureless gray sky. Who cares if the sky was replaced except for the purists? HAve a look at the work of Sandra Cunningham. Plentyiof layers in some of her shots. (http://www.sandralisephotography.com/). She is a true photographer and artist. Scores of book covers carry her work. And Nikolina Petolis (http://www.nikolinapetolas.com). Her last work took 60 hours of manipulation to get the final result. Her work floors me. Another wonderful photographer. Replacing one space in a frame with another is not a crime. Maybe the final print is not exactly what was seen, but if the client is happy. WHO CARES and for news shots that some have complained about, that is different. Athat should be a truthful record of an event. I agree there shouldn't be any manipulation
Steve, both are indeed sophisticated photographers and it is a joy to look at their work. I share your belief that postprocessing is a natural integral component of art photography. as long as it is understood by the viewer that they are not looking at a documentary photo (news etc.)
You say, "who cares" about the post-production used... so to you, I say, WHO CARES about the title of "photographer" in the first place? Why not own up to the fact that you're really more of a digital artist?
You can't have your cake and eat it too. If your passion is to create scenes from your imagination from scratch using 5-10+ different original photographs, 50+ layers and 20+ hours in photoshop, then own it. Don't lie about it. Also, don't make the mistake of thinking that no photograph is ever "good enough" unless it receives hours and hours of work.
The world is still a beautiful place, even when captured with a single click, and when viewed completely un-edited.
matthew saville, you need not feel insecure about being a photographer. You are one and and your photos are fine. The problem for me is that I have seen (and judged in competitions) many equally (very) good similar photos. When I myself take photos like that, I do not have a sense that I am developing a personal vision. The creative part has been done by the thousands that took similar photos before me and it is the creative part that motivates me to continue with (what I call) photography. You may call it raspberries if you like -that is your call and I do not really care what you call what I do. However accusing somebody of lying is an ad hominem attack that has no place among civilised fellow artists.
Of course, if you're only creating images as some form of contrived self-expression, or your clients/buyers are fine with this sort of thing, then feel free to manipulate your stuff. This isn't exactly new. One of my graduate photo professors at the U of Fl, Jerry Uelsmann, became famous as the forerunner of photomontage, but at least Jerry did it in the darkroom, with multiple enlargers and using only his own negatives; laborious craftsmanship meant something back then.
However, many organizations take this sort of image manipulation very seriously: "Up to 20% of World Press Photo entries that made it to the penultimate round of the contest were disqualified after they were found to have been manipulated." (Time, 2/12/15) With all the image manipulation going on these days, one wonders how long it will be before all photographs require a "real" or "fake" label, not just photojournalism?
I loved Jerry Uelsmann's work as a science grad. student. The "pictorialists" started manipulating images in 19th century https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Pictorialism. Ansel Adams never missed a post processing trick (like the Zone System" for example). I fully understand hower that photo manipulation needs to be reined in documentary photography and other application of camera used for documentary purposes. Needless to say, I use post processing extensively. I doubt anybody would confuse my photos with reality.
The question is, what does it take to make a photo "a fake?" For example, Is applying photo filters in post processing any different than putting them on the camera lens during the shoot? Is using localized dodging and burning in post processing unacceptable while Ansel Adams' manual use of it was "O.K.?"
The fundamental problem, it seems, is that some photographers insist that real photography is defined by the processes employed during the shoot rather than by the finished photo itself. To the extent that any photographer defines himself as an artist and not a journalist we should remember that true artists aim only to satisfy themselves and accept any wider acceptance of their work as validation that their vision is not limited to only themselves.
landscaper1, excellent comments. It seems that some like matthew saville see the title "photographer" as something more noble than mere"digital artist". In contrast, my sole ambition is to create what I would see as art. What matters is creativity, intent, storytelling, impact etc.
We photographers have a great deal to learn from painters. When painters were pushed out of representational painting by the advent of photography in 19th century, they produced a rich array of wonderful ideas and images. We artist/photographers are now pushed out of representational photography by billions of cellphone images. As a photography judge and a photographer, I know that it is harder and harder to create a unique representational photo. Millions of cellphones are pushing us beyond representational photography. I welcome this shove.
Indeed, Photoshop has always been an advanced "digital imaging" tool. Many pros create art from scratch in PS!
The phenomenon we've seen in the last 5-10 years is different: many still cling desperately to the title "photographer". They despise the idea of not being a photographer, and instead a "mere" digital artist.
That's why we've seen a gradual increase in the tolerance for drastic manipulation, and yet it is still called photography. Now, "purists" are shamed and scoffed at for trying to make a big deal about the issue of differentiation.
Just own it! Be a digital artist. Stop feeling insecure. There's nothing negative or inferior about being a photoshop artist, it just ought to be differentiated.
I guess I just don't understand why some people cling to their title like it's crucial to their sense of identity. Nobody's asking you to itemize each layer you use in the caption, just make it clear that your creativity often leads you away from "the single click".
I shoot for my own pleasure but many (most?) here have to satisfy a client of some sort. Whatever the client likes / buys often determines your final product whether that be 'pure' or not. That is where PS comes in...
I am just happy I have a camera. I would not worry too much about what others are doing. Are you doing whatever you do the way you want to do it? If you say 'Yes' enjoy your good fortune...
primeshooter, I am not very fond of walling yourself in behind a label like "graphic design". Art has moved forward (or evolved, if you prefer) by shuttering the walls and proving the critics wrong in a long run. Nothing stands in your way if you wish to handicap yourself ( and perhaps avoid the pain of mastering post processing) and if you wish to avoid any post processing in camera (like the one involved in creation of JPEGs) or in software.
Pavel, there comes a time when it is no longer photography though. If you've take the sky from one image, the foreground from other? Come on man...that's just a sad state of affairs.
I think you underestimate / dismiss the joy and reward of turning "a single click" into your art form of choice.
I also think that you might be glamorizing the "mastery of post-processing"...
Yes, it is art. But don't think of it as "walling yourself in". Think of it as owning your craft. If you want to be a digital artist, be proud of it, stop clinging desperately to the title of "photographer". You can't have your cake and eat it too.
Digital artwork is beautiful, indeed. I do a lot of it for my job, and I've swapped plenty of skies in my day. In fact any Canon CPS member has probably seen one or two of my composite images used in their advertising.
However when it comes time for me to pursue my personal passion and hobby, I simply enjoy the art of capturing a beautiful landscape, or moment / event, with a single click. It results in more excitement in the field, and less frustration in post-production. Nothing evil about it, just a fun personal challenge.
Mathew, there is nothing wrong with your pursuit and I do understand the joy of that. A few of my photos are completely single click.
I hugely enjoy what I am doing (just as you do). I would have stopped long ago if I did not. I think that having a variety in art/photography and variety of opinions on art/photography is one of the very important attractions of art for me. I do not glamorize postprocessing. I just see it as an important tool for me. If you look at my website, you will see a lot of collages that help me express my thoughts and opinion, my sense of humor, my moods and my sense of aesthetics. It opens the door to a lot more.
I see myself as a photographer, because all my images start from my photos. I do not "desperately cling to that". If you wish to call me a digital artist, I do not care. I just like to do my thing and do not care what you call it.
I study photography (as well as visual art) and so I can relate to you. Good luck with what you do.
Too many purists here. How do i type a big LOUD Fart sound ? :) Lol This sounds awesome ! It's all about the end product ! How one gets there is completely not important.
Of course it's photography. The word "Photoshop" became a verb for a reason. It's up to photographers to decide how aggressively they wish to work on their own shots for artistic expression.
@madeinlisboa ... Who sold YOU the license to define what is "Photography?" Where does anyone get off telling others that what they do with a camera does not qualify as "photography?" Such arrogance!
The problem with allowing photography to be defined as anything that originally started as a photograph lies in the nearly two centuries that we have allowed the assumption of truth to become inherent. When people see a photograph, they assume that it hasn't been *significantly* altered.
Everybody knows a photo can/must be processed. Portraits are retouched, landscapes get distracting details and dust specks etc. cloned out, and so on and so forth. Is it still a photograph? Sure; it's an artistic representation, though, and there's nothing wrong with that.
But now, landscape / outdoor photography in particular has taken this culture of tolerance to a whole new level, with an absolute, "anything goes" approach to compositing. We now freely add, reposition, and/or enlarge the moon, blend focal lengths, swap skies, etc.
At a certain point, (a point which we will probably never define, and that's OK) this level of alteration departs from "photography" and becomes digital art.
Pavel, you're arguing that all photography must be journalistic to be considered true photography. I'm certain your views would have been greeted with astonishment by some of the early pioneers of photography.
Taking this one step further, if your argument is based on what "most people" think, then I would argue that it's way past time that all serious photographers disabuse the photo viewing public of the notion that ANY photographic image could look "just like what they'd see if they were there." The fact is that there never was, and quite possibly never will be, a camera capable of recording a scene in the same way that the human eye/brain combination can. For that matter, there is no evidence that any two different human beings actually see the same scene at the same moment in precisely the same way.
@landscaper1 search the meaning and origin of the word "photograph"
"The fact is that there never was, and quite possibly never will be, a camera capable of recording a scene in the same way that the human eye/brain combination can". You are right. They can´t merge multiple scenes in one ;) Because that's not a photograph
Keep in mind that human vision is just that, human. Try seeing the world as an arachnid or reptile!
Still, there's an obvious difference between using a camera and post-production to try and accurately capture tones, colors, and an accurate sense of scale....and using a camera as a starting point from which you go on to create whatever your imagination desires.
Too many purists here. How do i type a big LOUD Fart sound ? :) Lol This sounds awesome ! It's all about the end product ! How one gets there is completely not important.
The way it's going there won't be any real photographers around soon. I always thought the challenge in photography was to go out and get the shot in one photo.
That may be you reason you take photos (the challenge). Almost every photo has some type of manipulation whether it be filters, bracketing, tonal curves, etc, etc.
I am more interested in the final image I create. Sometimes it is OOC jpg (but not often). Sometimes a little tuning with DPP4 on a RAW (most often). Or a full blown PS edit with tons of manipulation. For me, creating the image as I visualize it is the challenge. Good to have choices though. Happy shooting :-)
When you shoot in raw you have to edit your shot. I have no issues with post editing on any format (raw or jpg) as long as the finished photo is still the one you shot and not six different ones layered.
Yes, a new term for chopping six scenes together is overdue.
It's embarrassing to see folks get insecure about disclosing their edits, for fear that viewers will think less of them and their beautiful artwork.
That's my whole point here. If folks would simply be proud of who they are as artists, and disclose up front that they're creating "fine art" with an anything goes approach to the digital darkroom, ...then viewers will appreciate their work all the more.
Nobody likes to be lied to, let alone ridiculed for voicing their opinion. I feel like some folks in landscape communities will get aggressive / defensive towards me if I leave a comment such as "this is a beautiful image, however my enjoyment of it is hindered by the fact that you had to move/enlarge the moon in order to make it "fit your vision". That's just my opinion; I would have appreciated the final product more if I had known that this was in fact exactly the composition / scale you actually witnessed."
Thankfully, at least for me, the target audience is not other photographers. I had prints in 10 shows last year, more this coming year. People looking at and purchasing art never, ever, talk about being lied to, or would even consider needing a list of edits made to a photo.
The only reason anyone here gets "agressive" is they are amazed that an artistic community is outraged by what tools, techniques, and philosophies are used and available to others.
I respectfully disagree. I'm not saying that every print ever hung should have a list of edits tacked on to the bottom of it, of course. However I think if you told your viewers / customers that you *significantly* altered a particular image, and the real scene was absolutely nothing like it is represented in the final product, (added a moon, crazy sunset, or wildlife, etc.) ...at least a few of the viewers would indeed think less of the image, and not care to have it on their wall.
'at least a few of the viewers would indeed think less of the image, and not care to have it on their wall.'
That would be some type of snobbery then, I never base my response to a piece based on who / how one created the piece.
PS: I was hanging around the portraiture people with their reflectors and hot boxes and umbrellas. Without significantly 'altering the light' (replacing real light with artificial light), most of those photos would be unusable. I really can't see replacing the background sky as a more significant alternation than replacing the actual light for a photograph... YMMV
If you can't tell the difference between lighting a portrait and swapping the sky in a landscape, then I'll be inserting a Picard+Riker double-facepalm here, and exiting the room.
Double-facepalm. That's a good one buddy, don't hurt yourself ;-)
My response (From Wiki, rewriting a similar thing myself would take far too long):
Various theories and views of truth continue to be debated among scholars, philosophers, and theologians.[5] Language and words are a means by which humans convey information to one another and the method used to determine what is a "truth" is termed a criterion of truth. There are differing claims on such questions as what constitutes truth: what things are truthbearers capable of being true or false; how to define and identify truth; the roles that faith-based and empirically based knowledge play; and whether truth is subjective or objective, relative or absolute.'
I should have thought of a gentler statement. The Adobe tool is just a tool, use it or don't use it, the world will keep on spinning. It is good to have choices however. Cheers :-)
great.. might as well not even bother taking photos of real places any longer... just snap a photo... and replace everything with a few clicks... modern phofakery!
Why not an app that creates an entire individual shot?! GPS Information, the direction of the handy, a google search of pictures from this location and then the app creates a complete new picture out of it. Never miss a photo again! You can even do that from your home. you just have to tell the app the GPS data! Of course you can replace the sky too if it doesnt suit you...
The biggest problem with replacing skies, is that the overwhelming majority of photographers, including professional ones, don't understand the inner workings of environmental lighting to know that the lighting of the sky has to actually match the lighting on the rest of the environment in the shot. This kind of specialized knowledge is possessed by professional matte painters and illustrators/artists, or very advanced photo retouchers, because they study/train in depicting forms under all types of lighting, often from scratch and without any references, so they have to actually have a deep understanding of the fundamentals of visual art.
What's going to happen with this type of tool, is that the person will often end up with results where the sky's lighting condition doesn't match the rest of the photo--be it the general direction of the light source, the weather condition, the color cast, or other aspects that are incorrect.
Anyone who have eyes (or an eye) and is willing to use it to observe and see things, will see how light transform everything.
That isn't any kind specialized knowledge or talent or anything, just a patience and moment of learning to realize it.
And if you look the Adobe presentation, the later part they showed the building with different skies, and all the skies lighting values were used to re-color the building as well so they matched fairly well.
Watch the video. It adjusts the inner lighting of the rest of the photo to match the new sky (possible because it can analyze the difference between the two skies). It may actually be the real value of the tool.
But what happens when the person tries to use a sky that obviously has a different lighting direction than the rest of the scene, simply because he thinks the clouds look more dramatic/cool? The tool cannot drastically alter the direction of the form and cast shadows or the highlights in a scene to match the lighting direction of the clouds in the sky. Just changing color temperature is not nearly enough.
The tool itself is fine--I've got no problems with it. The issue is that I predict we'll see a lot of--poorly bashed together photos with the sky that doesn't even match the rest of the photo's lighting direction. And no, this isn't "just common sense," because if that was the case, then I wouldn't see so many poorly bashed together attempts at matte painting all over the web--and those are done by people who are passionate about visual art and aspire to do it professionally for Hollywood visual effects.
Rob - yes.. the photo will look like yuck... happens with all the "out of focus" bokeh faking software folks use.. as well as the "obvious content aware" swapping and "portrait/model" touchup.... in the hands of a skilled photoshopper - you can do amazing things... in the hands of a hack - it looks fake.. nothing new here.
The problem is, most people have no idea how to match the lighting CORRECTLY. They "think" they got it right according to their common sense, but one look from someone who actually can tell the difference, and it's obvious they are mismatched. Like I said, if it was simply common sense, then we would not see so many bad attempts at matte painting by aspiring matte painters out there, who pieces together photos using "photo-bashing" in ways that looks wrong. I teach do in-depth critiques at CGSociety.org and teach a workshop there, and I have seen way too many of these examples.
These kind demos should have a paid chillies in the audience to hype things. Just like the woman was hired to interview and do that as well. But nothing can be done when audience is full of nerds who doesn't know when to even applaud. Regardless is the presentation good or not, the audience has their part to play and today people don't know how to do it.
When will Adobe introduce software that will autonomously take my camera out into the countryside and take my sunset images, then automatically edit the captured images in camera to create award winning images while I sit at home in front of the TV enjoying a few cold brews?
I think it's a great tool to have. I noticed it had also changed the background colour within the bell tower in the example shown, which is quite clever. What I couldn't see too clearly if the sky in between the tree branches were changed. Changing the sky between tree branches is always a time consuming process, it would be great to see this work on a landscape photo with trees. At the moment I guess most use photoshop. I saw on you tube https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ZZZRKgiWy4c "detailed selection and background removal (trees)-photoshop by Andy Hobbs. Great vid, but it would be awesome if sky replace could get to this level of replacement in the near future.
Seriously I cant remember ANY automatic feature that worked as great as in a demonstration from adobe. Can anyone point out ANY auto feature that actualy works so great without extra manual adjustments, that you included it into your professional workflow? I realy didn't achieve ANY cutout with an auto-feature, I ALWAYS use path (if the customer is not FULLY undemanding or blind)
Hm yes, but 90% of the time I have to add further adjustments. It's just not perfect (it can't be) and it never works as great as in the demonstrations. Filling small spots works great, but removing bigger areas like they do in the demonstration never works nearly that seamlessly. I use it to in my workflow and it is saving me a lot of time, but it is never as great as they make it look like.
As a photographer and computer scientist, these are the kinds of innovations we strive to achieve. Currently, I do this work in On1 and it involves masking, importing, re-working the mask, etc. Even though the current tools make the process fairly easy, they lack context. Having a tool which accounts for temperature, light direction, etc. is highly useful. Photography is about the manipulation of light, perspective, etc. and anyone who feels these alterations are invalid, don't understand the science and the art.
Nonsense. One can, for example, have a thorough intellectual understanding of fascism while simultaneously harboring an extreme dislike of it. The notion that anyone's feelings are invalidated because that have an aversion to something you like is not true(or useful). Feelings, by definition, are non-rational. Pitting facts against feelings is protectionist folly.
Capturing the light is an impossible task as the camera and eye/brain "see" and "capture" differently. Post processing involves manipulating the captured image to best resemble what the eye/brain "saw" or what the mind wants to achieve.
Every photograph is a manipulation of the 3 dimensional world into a two dimensional construct.
Can't wait until Adobe offers a 1 button masterpiece generator. Then I can just sit back and binge watch Netflix and occasionally push that button and Voilá!, my genius is validated yet again!
And it's a good thing that sky and subject are completely independent and can have totally different exposure and light direction and quality and you can just swap out one without it looking weird... /s
The problem is that when you photograph models, you have to pay THEM. But, when you're photographing fat, short, ugly, bald people with bad complexions, they're the ones paying YOU.
hahahaha anti-manipulation police here will turn this into a back and forth argument again. The pitchforks are out and nobody counts their blessings these days. Can we please just be thankful we have tools like these?
No we shouldn't be thankful. Healing brush tool is one thing. Changing the photo defeats the purpose, and skill it takes to get those results in camera. It insults the art!
The sample images don't look very appealing to me and this doesn't change by swapping the sky. I mean, isn't the goal of the picture with the girl to show, that she was there with that building? Does the sky really matter? And wouldn't the rainbow not distract completely from her?
In the end it probably will be a tool that can be used in a convincing way by some people, but with many others it will turn out the same overprocessed look like many HDR shots out there.
Hard to tell how good it is when the sample is as easy. If it also works for complex scenes with e.g. lots of foliage (which I kind of doubt), then it'd be quite useful.
This will be usefull for fashion shoots. No need to increase f to 11 in order to be within flash sync speed of 1/250. You can shoot f3 and than replace the sky afterwords. Cool
If your depth of field is shallow and the background is blurred but the sky/clouds is in focus it won't look natural. You'll still need an appropriate depth of field for natural looking results.
It's a great trick that in the wrong hands will produce really bad results. As with any effect, when used right it can be amazing, but when abused can incite colorful language.
The current Photoshop tools already allow us to make major transformations to models' skin and hair and body parts. I've even swapped faces on several occasions.
Yes, I've swapped faces on occasion, especially in a group shot when one person has his or her eyes closed. But, I was jesting that I'd like to swap people, say, get rid of Mary and replace her with, perhaps Stephanie.
Sorry I missed the joke. It did cross my mind but I didn't want to reach. Some people have the worst sense of humor on these boards and take offense to everything. Anyway, my bad! :)
The two examples he used were not particularly challenging and could have been done quite quickly in Photoshop without this new "feature". A pity he didn't show us a more difficult example, such as complex tree foliage or bare twigs against a more dappled sky.
The camera faked the mother nature in the first place since it lacks the dymaic range. Later technlolgies try to compensate it. Especially when the image is completely blown out, there is no reason why we have to oppose. So, fake done by the camera is OK? And fixing the fake done by camera is not OK ?
How is that fixing? The thing with color and local adjustment is that "what you see was there in some form or another". What you see in the faked picture is absolutely different thing. It was not there in the first place. While with altered shot you look at altered reality, in the "made up" shot, you look at mostly at "never existing" situation. You interchange interpretation and imagination (or flat out lie) in your brain...
While I agree with you in principle, both vision and sensors are subjective and compromised. That the rgb pixel references were 'there in some form or another' is arguably a false and weak starting point for attempting to attach objective rules to artwork and humanity's subjective, faulty memory systems. At its heart perhaps is the conflict between photography as memory replacement, memory confirmation, artistic or emotional enjoyment etc. I only shoot in raw and don't usually have a need for this technology, but used sensibly to replace blown out jpeg skies, it seems pretty clever to me, and I congratulate the creators of said technology.
No Nikon camera we've tested to date balances stills and video capture as well as the Nikon Z7. Though autofocus is less reliable than the D850, Nikon's first full-frame mirrorless gets enough right to earn our recommendation.
Nikon's Coolpix P1000 has moved the zoom needle from 'absurd' to 'ludicrous,' with an equivalent focal length of 24-3000mm. While it's great for lunar and still wildlife photography, we found that it's not suited for much else.
As a stills camera the Fujifilm X-T3 is a pleasant update to one of our favorite APS-C cameras, significantly improving the autofocus. If you're interested in stills and video, though, it's knockout.
The Nikon Z7 is slated as a mirrorless equivalent to the D850, but it can't subject track with the same reliability as its DSLR counterpart. AF performance is otherwise good, except in low light where hunting can lead to missed shots.
The Canon EOS R is the first full frame mirrorless camera to use the new RF mount. We're well underway putting it through our range of standard tests – take a look at how it compares to the competition and our thoughts on using it so far.
What's the best camera for under $500? These entry level cameras should be easy to use, offer good image quality and easily connect with a smartphone for sharing. In this buying guide we've rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing less than $500 and recommended the best.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Sony mirrorlses cameras in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Canon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
Whether you've grown tired of what came with your DSLR, or want to start photographing different subjects, a new lens is probably in order. We've selected our favorite lenses for Nikon DSLRs in several categories to make your decisions easier.
What’s the best camera for less than $1000? The best cameras for under $1000 should have good ergonomics and controls, great image quality and be capture high-quality video. In this buying guide we’ve rounded up all the current interchangeable lens cameras costing under $1000 and recommended the best.
The Z7 presented Nikon with a stiff challenge: how to build a mirrorless camera that measures up to its own DSLRs and can deliver a familiar experience to Nikon users. Chris and Jordan tell us whether they think Nikon succeeded.
Nikon's D3500 may be an inexpensive DSLR, but the company didn't cut corners when it comes to image quality. See how it handled fall colors and tropical seas in our sample gallery.
Nikon has released firmware version 1.02 that resolves a flickering issue when scrolling through images, an ISO limitation problem, and an occasional crash that could occur when displaying certain Raw files.
DxO announces the latest update to Nik Collection (version 1.1) that brings better compatibility, fewer bugs to the plugin suite it acquired from Google a year ago
Nikon USA has announced that its Z6 full-frame mirrorless camera will be shipping Friday, November 16th at a price of $1999 body-only and $2599 with the Nikkor Z 24-70 F4 S lens.
The Insta360 One X is the company's latest consumer 360-degree camera, supporting 5.7K video, including excellent image stabilization, as well as 18MP photos. And, in our experience, it's a really fun camera to use.
ON1 Photo RAW 2019 brings an updated interface, more powerful Lightroom migration, better camera/lens support, and more to ON1's flagship editing program.
Experiencing life through the lens of a camera might mean you miss out on special moments, warns Casey Cavanaugh as he shoots a short film through the viewfinder of his Hasselblad 500CM
The New York Times has teamed up with Google to start the process of digitizing more than five million photos stored in a vault nicknamed "the morgue."
Ambitious goals, new challenges and looking ahead to 100 years of the Z mount – we spoke with senior executives and engineers at Nikon about what lies ahead.
After years focused primarily on landscapes, Erez Marom leapt on an opportunity to return to his roots in wildlife photography. A trip to the mountains of Uganda photographing endangered mountain gorillas yielded some stunning photos – and an experience of a lifetime.
Digital cameras have made it incredibly easy to do time-lapse photography, thanks to the ability to take hundreds—or even thousands—of photos without interruption. This week, Chris and Jordan walk us through the process of planning and shooting compelling time-lapse videos.
Comments