Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop

Discussion in 'Digital Photography' started by Bruce, Oct 11, 2011.

  1. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    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-will-end-blurry-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.
    ;-)
     
    Bruce, Oct 11, 2011
    #1
    1. Advertising

  2. Bruce

    notbob Guest

    On 2011-10-11, Bruce <> wrote:

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


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

    nb
     
    notbob, Oct 11, 2011
    #2
    1. Advertising

  3. Bruce

    Martin Brown Guest

    On 11/10/2011 16:11, notbob wrote:
    > On 2011-10-11, Bruce<> 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
     
    Martin Brown, Oct 11, 2011
    #3
  4. Bruce

    Pete A Guest

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

    > On 2011-10-11, Bruce <> 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.
     
    Pete A, Oct 11, 2011
    #4
  5. Bruce

    notbob Guest

    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!
     
    notbob, Oct 11, 2011
    #5
  6. Bruce

    notbob Guest

    On 2011-10-11, Pete A <> 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!
     
    notbob, Oct 11, 2011
    #6
  7. Bruce

    notbob Guest

    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!
     
    notbob, Oct 11, 2011
    #7
  8. Bruce

    Pete A Guest

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

    > On 2011-10-11, Pete A <> 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" :)
     
    Pete A, Oct 11, 2011
    #8
  9. "notbob" <> wrote in message
    news:...

    > 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
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Oct 11, 2011
    #9
  10. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    notbob <> wrote:
    >On 2011-10-11, Bruce <> 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. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Oct 11, 2011
    #10
  11. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    notbob <> wrote:

    >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".



    I can't disagree with that either.

    I'm searching for some property (US English: real estate) for a
    relation. It involves trawling through endless adverts on a property
    web site, each of which has a selection of images (plus regular visits
    to the area and viewings).

    One of the estate agents (realtors?) in the area of the UK where I am
    looking makes extensive use of crudely applied HDR images, and they
    are really crappy. In most cases, the advert shows two images of the
    same thing - one with HDR and one without. The HDR effect is extreme
    but it is actually quite useful because it enables the interior of a
    room and its view to the exterior to be seen together.

    It's crappy photography, but good advertising. Unattractive, yes, but
    strangely useful. I would not want it on my wall at home, but it
    might help us to find the right property. ;-)
     
    Bruce, Oct 11, 2011
    #11
  12. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:36:35 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >One of the estate agents (realtors?) in the area of the UK where I am..


    I doubt if there are realtors in the UK. In the US, the term
    "Realtor" is a registered designation for a member of the National
    Association of Realtors.

    In the US, anyone licensed to sell or rent property is a real estate
    agent. If that person joins and pays dues to the NAR, the person can
    dub themselves a Realtor. Actually, NAR always capitalizes it thusly:
    REALTOR®.

    The NAR actually gives a shit and writes nasty letters to publications
    that write "realtor". No one else gives a shit, though.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Oct 12, 2011
    #12
  13. "tony cooper" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:36:35 +0100, Bruce <>
    > wrote:
    >
    >>One of the estate agents (realtors?) in the area of the UK where I am..

    >
    > I doubt if there are realtors in the UK. In the US, the term
    > "Realtor" is a registered designation for a member of the National
    > Association of Realtors.


    What, like that self-build shed association Sisker had going?

    The NAR would write snotty letters because if you don't defend a trademark
    you lose it but as it looks like it's status has been made generic by mass
    use (to my UK ears) I'm not sure it would survive in court.

    --
    Charles E. Hardwidge
     
    Charles E. Hardwidge, Oct 12, 2011
    #13
  14. Bruce

    Trevor Guest

    "Martin Brown" <|||newspam|||@nezumi.demon.co.uk> wrote in message
    news:0bZkq.2582$...
    > Undoubtedly. It is unwise to put too much faith in its capabilities.


    Since when do you put "faith" in any such tools, you use them if you think
    think they might improve an existing photo, and ignore them when they don't.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 12, 2011
    #14
  15. Bruce

    Trevor Guest

    "Pete A" <> wrote in message
    news:2011101116371731193-pete3attkins@nospamntlworldcom...
    >MS Paint can produce better art than most high-tech button pushers will
    >ever achieve,



    Wow, that says a lot more about you if you think any serious photographer
    could manage with MS Paint! There are of course many reasonable alternatives
    to Adobe Photoshop, but I wouldn't rate MS Paint as one of them! Hell most
    camera's already come with far better software included, even the cheap
    ones!


    > 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.


    Perhaps, or just the stupidity of anyone who'd buy a cheap camera and Adobe
    PS rather than a better camera and PS Elements, or one of the free
    alternatives. Frankly I seriously doubt anyone who actually buys the full
    version of Adobe PS is a novice with a cheap camera!

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 12, 2011
    #15
  16. Bruce

    Trevor Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > One of the estate agents (realtors?) in the area of the UK where I am
    > looking makes extensive use of crudely applied HDR images, and they
    > are really crappy. In most cases, the advert shows two images of the
    > same thing - one with HDR and one without. The HDR effect is extreme
    > but it is actually quite useful because it enables the interior of a
    > room and its view to the exterior to be seen together.
    >
    > It's crappy photography, but good advertising. Unattractive, yes, but
    > strangely useful. I would not want it on my wall at home, but it
    > might help us to find the right property. ;-)



    Exactly, seems he knows exactly the market he is addressing, and it's not
    someone who is after a fine art print for the wall! Some just don't get it
    though.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 12, 2011
    #16
  17. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

    tony cooper <> wrote:

    >On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:36:35 +0100, Bruce <>
    >wrote:
    >
    >>One of the estate agents (realtors?) in the area of the UK where I am..

    >
    >I doubt if there are realtors in the UK. In the US, the term
    >"Realtor" is a registered designation for a member of the National
    >Association of Realtors.
    >
    >In the US, anyone licensed to sell or rent property is a real estate
    >agent. If that person joins and pays dues to the NAR, the person can
    >dub themselves a Realtor. Actually, NAR always capitalizes it thusly:
    >REALTOR®.
    >
    >The NAR actually gives a shit and writes nasty letters to publications
    >that write "realtor". No one else gives a shit, though.



    Thanks. I was in doubt, hence the question mark. So what do you
    call, on your side of the pond, the people we call "estate agents"?
    They are the people who market domestic property.

    We also have "surveyors" who need to be professionally qualified,
    whereas estate agents are just salesmen/women with no requirement for
    qualifications.
     
    Bruce, Oct 12, 2011
    #17
  18. Bruce

    Trevor Guest

    "Bruce" <> wrote in message
    news:...
    > We also have "surveyors" who need to be professionally qualified,
    > whereas estate agents are just salesmen/women with no requirement for
    > qualifications.


    Real Estate Agents have to be qualified (only a short course) and licensed
    in Australia. Agents Representitives who do most of the work are not usually
    qualified in any way however. Surveyors here play no part in selling
    properties, but may be hired to check boundaries etc. during a sale.

    Trevor.
     
    Trevor, Oct 12, 2011
    #18
  19. Bruce

    Bruce Guest

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

    >On 2011-10-12 00:54:24 -0700, Bruce <> said:
    >
    >> tony cooper <> wrote:
    >>
    >>> On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:36:35 +0100, Bruce <>
    >>> wrote:
    >>>
    >>>> One of the estate agents (realtors?) in the area of the UK where I am..
    >>>
    >>> I doubt if there are realtors in the UK. In the US, the term
    >>> "Realtor" is a registered designation for a member of the National
    >>> Association of Realtors.
    >>>
    >>> In the US, anyone licensed to sell or rent property is a real estate
    >>> agent. If that person joins and pays dues to the NAR, the person can
    >>> dub themselves a Realtor. Actually, NAR always capitalizes it thusly:
    >>> REALTOR®.
    >>>
    >>> The NAR actually gives a shit and writes nasty letters to publications
    >>> that write "realtor". No one else gives a shit, though.

    >>
    >>
    >> Thanks. I was in doubt, hence the question mark. So what do you
    >> call, on your side of the pond, the people we call "estate agents"?
    >> They are the people who market domestic property.
    >>
    >> We also have "surveyors" who need to be professionally qualified,
    >> whereas estate agents are just salesmen/women with no requirement for
    >> qualifications.

    >
    >A real estate agent, or real estate broker who is a member of the
    >National Association of Realtors (NAR) is termed a "Realtor" and they
    >serve the same purpose and function as an "estate agent" in the UK.



    That's what I thought, but I wasn't sure, hence the question mark.

    Thanks.
     
    Bruce, Oct 12, 2011
    #19
  20. Bruce

    tony cooper Guest

    On Wed, 12 Oct 2011 08:54:24 +0100, Bruce <>
    wrote:

    >tony cooper <> wrote:
    >
    >>On Tue, 11 Oct 2011 22:36:35 +0100, Bruce <>
    >>wrote:
    >>
    >>>One of the estate agents (realtors?) in the area of the UK where I am..

    >>
    >>I doubt if there are realtors in the UK. In the US, the term
    >>"Realtor" is a registered designation for a member of the National
    >>Association of Realtors.
    >>
    >>In the US, anyone licensed to sell or rent property is a real estate
    >>agent. If that person joins and pays dues to the NAR, the person can
    >>dub themselves a Realtor. Actually, NAR always capitalizes it thusly:
    >>REALTOR®.
    >>
    >>The NAR actually gives a shit and writes nasty letters to publications
    >>that write "realtor". No one else gives a shit, though.

    >
    >
    >Thanks. I was in doubt, hence the question mark. So what do you
    >call, on your side of the pond, the people we call "estate agents"?
    >They are the people who market domestic property.


    We call them "real estate agents" or "realtors". We often use and
    write the term "realtor" incorrectly, but it's a commonly used term.

    >We also have "surveyors" who need to be professionally qualified,
    >whereas estate agents are just salesmen/women with no requirement for
    >qualifications.


    Laws in the US vary from state-to-state, but in most (if not all)
    states one must be licensed to sell real estate. In Florida, there is
    a required training course and a state test. Additional training
    courses are required annually to maintain the license.

    Another difference is that we are not required (in most, if not all)
    states to use an attorney to complete a real estate transaction. The
    closing (final papers) can be done by a title company. We can, of
    course, use an attorney if we choose to.


    --
    Tony Cooper - Orlando, Florida
     
    tony cooper, Oct 12, 2011
    #20
    1. Advertising

Want to reply to this thread or ask your own question?

It takes just 2 minutes to sign up (and it's free!). Just click the sign up button to choose a username and then you can ask your own questions on the forum.
Similar Threads
  1. Alan Browne

    Next (the other next) Gen "DVD" storage

    Alan Browne, May 27, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    13
    Views:
    506
    Iain Laskey
    May 31, 2005
  2. Annika1980

    Best Photoshop Feature You've Never Heard Of?

    Annika1980, Dec 11, 2005, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    2
    Views:
    377
    Annika1980
    Dec 12, 2005
  3. Giuen
    Replies:
    0
    Views:
    1,251
    Giuen
    Sep 12, 2008
  4. Trevor

    Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop

    Trevor, Oct 11, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    9
    Views:
    260
    David J Taylor
    Oct 17, 2011
  5. PeterN

    Re: Possible new feature for next Photoshop

    PeterN, Oct 12, 2011, in forum: Digital Photography
    Replies:
    10
    Views:
    435
Loading...

Share This Page