those who are … those who are familiar with the basics of creating aesthetic photos (basics like golden ratio) will not ever use this kind of softwares, but what is wrong with creating great photos at home? and obviously this is just the first step on this field, later this can be something like Photoshop
@BrainSeepsOut: … @BrainSeepsOut: guess how many famous photographers use Photshop; and how many famous DJs use mixing, tagging and ripping etc. softwares it’s not they are not talented – also if you give these stuffs to someone not talented, the difference will be evident
As if the myspace ” … As if the myspace “fat girl angle shot” wasn’t irritating enough, with this kind of “help” every photo on myspace will look like a stock photo you see in insurance leaflets.
So essentially you … So essentially you want to have a camera that builds a picture from scratch using a database of items? Why is it even a camera then? You know, taking pictures of whatever the lens is pointed at is kind of the whole point of the camera. If every shot is perfect, it becomes boring. Casual photos’ charm is the spotaneous nature of them. If you have everything perfectly aligned, it looks staged. And you don’t want that now, do you?
This software is … This software is for the artist with the ability to incorporate it into his ‘palette’ of techniques. It shd not be an end in itself. This is enhancement 4 those with the ability to use it, along with their genius, to best effect. We shall see…
Not really. … Not really. Photo-editing techniques and rules of composition have been around for ages.
I agree that it would be unethical and unappealing for professional photographers (who make art, not magazine covers) to enhance their works. However, professional photographers wouldn’t use this like they don’t use Photoshop to change their works. It’s not art that’s changing, it’s the thousands of amateur pictures taken daily.
It only crops and … It only crops and dramatically changes background elements of pictures. Key elements are only moved or slightly resized. The new picture mimics real life. It’s just from a different angle. This is different from, say, increasing the contrast on a picture, which would not accurately copy real life. It’s also different from cropping the entire photo, which is more accurate but less aesthetic. Whether or not it accurately reflects real life usually isn’t an issue in intended amateur photos, though.
“and remains … “and remains faithful to the original” – ermmm…. how changing the original remaining faithful to it? What’s the alternative there, a computer program that draws spacemen and rainbows everywhere? That would be MUCH better than this.
I guess it’s kind … I guess it’s kind of okay for learning, but a computer can only know so much about art. If it hits a situation too far outside its parameters, it won’t know what to do; then it will make the photo worse, and an untrained photographer will assume it’s right and just go with it. Plus, this is yet another great way to make people think you’re better than you actually are.
Read more: http://www.newscientist.com/article/dn18497
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
those who are …
those who are familiar with the basics of creating aesthetic photos (basics like golden ratio) will not ever use this kind of softwares, but what is wrong with creating great photos at home? and obviously this is just the first step on this field, later this can be something like Photoshop
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
@BrainSeepsOut: …
it’s not they are not talented – also if you give these stuffs to someone not talented, the difference will be evident
@BrainSeepsOut: guess how many famous photographers use Photshop; and how many famous DJs use mixing, tagging and ripping etc. softwares
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
this will find its …
this will find its way into iPhoto in 3..2…1…
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Well the way the …
Well the way the human mind perceives pleasure from art itself is scientifically explainable(psychologically).
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
next there will be …
next there will be a camera that makes you look pretty. we cant believe anything we see anymore. face it.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
As if the myspace ” …
As if the myspace “fat girl angle shot” wasn’t irritating enough, with this kind of “help” every photo on myspace will look like a stock photo you see in insurance leaflets.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Indeed
Indeed
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
It’s another thing …
It’s another thing to have simple convenience and it’s another to have paltry bullshit for people with no talent.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Seconded. This is …
Seconded. This is just stupid for losers who can’t even hold a camera properly.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
So essentially you …
So essentially you want to have a camera that builds a picture from scratch using a database of items? Why is it even a camera then? You know, taking pictures of whatever the lens is pointed at is kind of the whole point of the camera. If every shot is perfect, it becomes boring. Casual photos’ charm is the spotaneous nature of them. If you have everything perfectly aligned, it looks staged. And you don’t want that now, do you?
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
There is a point. …
There is a point. And even more of one at that.
Because a real professional wouldn’t have to resort to having a computer make the image good.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
what??? your …
what??? your talking about like 4 different things that have nothing to do with eachother…
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
w/e .. still …
w/e .. still photoshop> some crappy proprietary software that auto fixes the composition for you.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
so there’s no point …
so there’s no point of pro photographers now?
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
lol thnx for saving …
lol thnx for saving me the time
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
This software is …
This software is for the artist with the ability to incorporate it into his ‘palette’ of techniques. It shd not be an end in itself. This is enhancement 4 those with the ability to use it, along with their genius, to best effect. We shall see…
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Eh, I don’t like …
Eh, I don’t like the idea of having something automatically change a picture. I think it would work fine as a tool on photoshop.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
Not really. …
Not really. Photo-editing techniques and rules of composition have been around for ages.
I agree that it would be unethical and unappealing for professional photographers (who make art, not magazine covers) to enhance their works. However, professional photographers wouldn’t use this like they don’t use Photoshop to change their works. It’s not art that’s changing, it’s the thousands of amateur pictures taken daily.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
It only crops and …
It only crops and dramatically changes background elements of pictures. Key elements are only moved or slightly resized. The new picture mimics real life. It’s just from a different angle. This is different from, say, increasing the contrast on a picture, which would not accurately copy real life. It’s also different from cropping the entire photo, which is more accurate but less aesthetic. Whether or not it accurately reflects real life usually isn’t an issue in intended amateur photos, though.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
And thus art …
And thus art becomes science. I disapprove that.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
well this looked …
well this looked shooped.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
lol u read my mind, …
lol u read my mind, now i dont have to write all that
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
“and remains …
“and remains faithful to the original” – ermmm…. how changing the original remaining faithful to it? What’s the alternative there, a computer program that draws spacemen and rainbows everywhere? That would be MUCH better than this.
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
@superfisto …
@superfisto sometimes :p (about 50% of time)
March 30th, 2010 at 5:36 pm
I guess it’s kind …
I guess it’s kind of okay for learning, but a computer can only know so much about art. If it hits a situation too far outside its parameters, it won’t know what to do; then it will make the photo worse, and an untrained photographer will assume it’s right and just go with it. Plus, this is yet another great way to make people think you’re better than you actually are.