Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop
 

Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

>It seems this "Removal of blur" filter could possibly be included in a
>future Photoshop release.
>< http://gizmodo.com/5848371/photoshop...y-pics-forever >


Just think of those millions of people, including professional
photographers, who have wasted hundreds of millions of dollars on
cameras with anti-shake and lenses with IS or VR.

This is just an excuse for people not to learn to shoot sharp images.
;-)

Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop
 

On 2011-10-11, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:

> This is just an excuse for people not to learn to shoot sharp images.

An excuse to make more $$$$ for Adobe.

nb

Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop
 

On 11/10/2011 16:11, notbob wrote:
> On 2011-10-11, Bruce<docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is just an excuse for people not to learn to shoot sharp images.

Sometimes you don't have the option of a second chance.

The number plate of a speeding getaway car for instance or the blurred
mugshot of a bank robber from CCTV.
>
> An excuse to make more $$$$ for Adobe.
>
> nb

Undoubtedly. It is unwise to put too much faith in its capabilities.

Regards,
Martin Brown

Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop
 

On 2011-10-11 16:11:59 +0100, notbob said:

> On 2011-10-11, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>
>> This is just an excuse for people not to learn to shoot sharp images.
>
> An excuse to make more $$$$ for Adobe.

Of course. Adobe can't make money from selling real brushes, paints,
canvases and frames so why not? MS Paint can produce better art than
most high-tech button pushers will ever achieve, but it is the spending
of hard-earned money that drives so many to pursue their hobby "If only
I had an xyz, I could do better." Adobe cashes in by indulging their
fantasy :)

It seems to me that some spend more on Adobe software than on their
camera equipment. I call it a demonstration of Adobe's astute business
acumen.

Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop
 

On 2011-10-11, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> Well did you expect the changes in PS from PS7 to CS5 to be free?

Since I use Linux and FOSS, I expect exactly nothing from Adobe.

nb

--
vi ....the heart of evil!

Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop
 

On 2011-10-11, Pete A <pete3.attkins@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote:

> of hard-earned money that drives so many to pursue their hobby "If only
> I had an xyz, I could do better." Adobe cashes in by indulging their
> fantasy :)

I can't disagree. I'd rather spend my time/money on the front end of
the process. Equipment, location, composition, etc.

In fact, I'm rather dismayed by the change in perceptions of what
constitutes good photography in this post digital world. Too often I
see terribly garish HDR shots being passed off as good photography. A
recent issue of Outdoor Photography had one of the columnists patting
himself on the back about how he'd transformed his admittedly mediocre
shot of a lone pine tree with some low sun backlighting into a "WOW"
shot with HDR. It was hideous! Looked more like a LSD flashback gone
bad or a corpse in clown makeup. Sorry, but a crappy photo is a
crappy photo, regardless of one's "process".

nb


--
vi ....the heart of evil!

Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop
 

On 2011-10-11, Savageduck <savageduck1@{REMOVESPAM}me.com> wrote:

> So now that you have stated your position regarding OS & software, you
> need not comment further.

Thank you for your opinion, but I think I shall be the one who decides
whether or not I "comment further", and on what.

regards
nb

--
vi ....the heart of evil!

Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop
 

On 2011-10-11 17:04:41 +0100, notbob said:

> On 2011-10-11, Pete A <pete3.attkins@nospam.ntlworld.com> wrote:
>
>> of hard-earned money that drives so many to pursue their hobby "If only
>> I had an xyz, I could do better." Adobe cashes in by indulging their
>> fantasy :)
>
> I can't disagree. I'd rather spend my time/money on the front end of
> the process. Equipment, location, composition, etc.

Agreed.

> In fact, I'm rather dismayed by the change in perceptions of what
> constitutes good photography in this post digital world. Too often I
> see terribly garish HDR shots being passed off as good photography. A
> recent issue of Outdoor Photography had one of the columnists patting
> himself on the back about how he'd transformed his admittedly mediocre
> shot of a lone pine tree with some low sun backlighting into a "WOW"
> shot with HDR. It was hideous! Looked more like a LSD flashback gone
> bad or a corpse in clown makeup. Sorry, but a crappy photo is a
> crappy photo, regardless of one's "process".

Agreed again. I've never tried LSD so I am unqualified to assess most
HDR "photography" :)

Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop
 

"notbob" <notbob@nothome.com> wrote in message
news:slrnj98qab.1rq.notbob@nbleet.hcc.net...

> Too often I see terribly garish HDR shots being passed off as good
> photography. [...] Sorry, but a crappy photo is a crappy photo,
> regardless of one's "process".

This happens with everything. I thought the over-processed HDR fad had died
out but it seems there's still life in that meme. Kids are still getting
trashed in Majorca? Yeah, whatever.

The way I think about these things is to ignore them and just get on with
with it. Plus, they're not in my way if they want to be berks and dig a
different area that's their business.

--
Charles E. Hardwidge

Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop
 

notbob <notbob@nothome.com> wrote:
>On 2011-10-11, Bruce <docnews2011@gmail.com> wrote:
>> This is just an excuse for people not to learn to shoot sharp images.
>
>An excuse to make more $$$$ for Adobe.


Yes, that is mostly what it is. The vast majority of Photoshop users
would be quite happy with a much earlier version of the software, or
Elements, but Adobe cleverly limits compatibility with RAW files from
recent digicams to later versions of the software. So unless you use
the same digicam for years, you are forced to upgrade the software
regularly and expensively.

The people who unthinkingly claim that digital is cheaper than film
never seem to factor in the costs of frequent camera, hardware and
software upgrades. Contrast that with film cameras that would last
several decades and could always take advantage of the advances in
sensor technology just by buying a few rolls of the latest film. ;-)