Guess I have to stop deleting my blurry keepers...

huntersdad wrote in post #13239564
I think Shane's remark kind ties to yowzer. Salvaging the occassional shot is one thing, using it to fix bad shots is another. It will become a replacement for good technique by some.

Whatever, if you practice bad techinique but rely on photoshop to cover your ass, you might get more comments on flicker but youre never going to produce any masterpieces or likely even sell a print any larger than 8x12. These guys should not even be a blip on your radar because your work will crush theirs in the long run.

If you're a real photographer, your competition is not the schmuck who cant operate a camera properly only to use PS as a crutch. If they are your competition, you're doing it wrong.

Your competition should be those photographers that do great work in camera and improve it even more in post. If you choose to use purist techniques, just know that you'll be working that much harder just to keep up with your peers, because they will no doubt use any tool in their arsenal to beat their competition.

th0rr wrote in post #13240432
Seems like every time something new comes along some folks believe it signals the death of something. Meh. I just see it as another tool in the arsenal for me to use as I see fit. Personally I can't wait to check it out. Especially as I get older and shakier

From my understanding it won't fix out of focus shots but merely correct motion blur.

I agree.

cdifoto wrote in post #13240510
You guys seem to fail to grasp the notion that the real creativity is knowing where to place the camera in relation to the subject. No machine can decide that for you or let you skip it altogether.

Didn't some guy by the name of Adams say something along those same lines?

But people want technology do it all for them....notice how few people can do simple math in their heads, because they have become used to using a calculator to do the math for them.

How do you tell a person with a GPS to get lost?

In the old days if they couldn't read a map and have a sense of direction they were in big troubles.

Bosscat wrote in post #13240545
Didn't some guy by the name of Adams say something along those same lines?

Yeah I think it was something overly simplified like "the difference between a great photo and a bad one is knowing where to stand" or some such. I don't know it exactly or who said it, so I didn't use it.

As far as the rest, I use and rely on technology to make my life easier but I also try to make sure I know what to do if it fails. People that don't know what they're doing aren't my competition so they're free to do, rely on, and be screwed by whatever they want. It's no concern of mine.

SimplyShane wrote in post #13238494
To be honest, I'm very sad at hearing this news as well.

I know it seems quite stupid to say that taking the challenge out of photography will destroy the art, but that's how I feel.

The challenge of photography has noting to do with focus or blurriness.

The challenge is in creating an image that tells a story, an image that draws the viewer into it.

An apple on a plate, in focus or blurry pretty much has the same artistic value.

Now place that apple somewhere else, and it's a whole new ball game.

A room is just a room, the difference between two shots of the same room is the location of the camera.


But there will always be people who use software in post processing as a crutch to create images.

The real challenge in photography is creating an image with the camera that does not need post processing to make it worth looking at.

At the end of the day there will be Great Photographers and Great Photoshop Users who know how to use a camera.

.

In general a captured image contains the information of a focused shot which is then blurred from motion etc.. The software will simply look for like pixel vectors and calculate mass densities to determine a probable reverse vectors to apply and basically shift the image back to the beginning of the image. As someone else said basically it will attempt to clean up motion blur through math. Kind of like after the fact IS. I have over simplified this but thats the gist.

In the end ART is art and creative people will use infinite tools to try and deliver their vision. I look at many many photos from people like these on the forum and can clearly see thoughtful composition, planning and effort that no software will recreate in my lifetime (I Hope!)

Bill

Just ask the Crackberry users right about now, who have come to rely on their little device and now that it isn't working for like the 3rd day in a row, how thats working out.....LOL!

Just a step closer to making the mid level pro obsolete--no need for fast primes or proper technique.

Find a pose you like on Flickr to knock off--a quick run through to fix blur and focus--shoot it over to a program like Portrait Professional to smooth and reshape--and pick up you prints @ Costco for next to nothing.

The "digital darkroom" takes very little skill or effort compared to when the process was done under an enlarger with a negative--and it will only get easier and more automated.

harcosparky wrote in post #13240817
The challenge of photography has noting to do with focus or blurriness.

The challenge is in creating an image that tells a story, an image that draws the viewer into it.

An apple on a plate, in focus or blurry pretty much has the same artistic value.

Now place that apple somewhere else, and it's a whole new ball game.

A room is just a room, the difference between two shots of the same room is the location of the camera.


But there will always be people who use software in post processing as a crutch to create images.

The real challenge in photography is creating an image with the camera that does not need post processing to make it worth looking at.

At the end of the day there will be Great Photographers and Great Photoshop Users who know how to use a camera.

.

The challenge of making a photograph without post processing means nothing to those looking only at the end result. (Unfortunately.)

cdifoto wrote in post #13240721
Yeah I think it was something overly simplified like "the difference between a great photo and a bad one is knowing where to stand" or some such. I don't know it exactly or who said it, so I didn't use it.

As far as the rest, I use and rely on technology to make my life easier but I also try to make sure I know what to do if it fails. People that don't know what they're doing aren't my competition so they're free to do, rely on, and be screwed by whatever they want. It's no concern of mine.

That's just it though: How is the amature hack geting "screwed" IF this function of Photoshop allows for sharp images without penalty?

Raylon wrote in post #13240469
Yes it gets sharper but how true is it to the original photo had it been taken correctly? Also who knows if the program actually did anything or if the program he was using simply switched to a non blurry image when he pressed a button.

I doubt he would lie.
However, your first point is a good one: How DOES it compare to an original with perfect focus? That's a big, big question.

I don't get it. You'll all complaining about this, why aren't you out there shooting film and developing it yourselves? If the process matters that much to you why would you want to shoot digital? Can you not get the shots you want on film?

Everyone constantly complains that technology is taking something away from how things are supposed to be done without realizing that technology is really going to open new doors for creativity.

dave kadolph wrote in post #13241858
Just a step closer to making the mid level pro obsolete--no need for fast primes or proper technique.

By itself, this won't do depth of field - although there's work being done in that area too...soon you'll be able to add "no need for tilt-shift lenses or view camera movements" to the list of hardware supposedly obsoleted by software. You'll still get better results, and quicker, from using the real thing, although I'm sure PS will let you get some types of results better.

If your thing is rendering artistic scenes, well, there's 3D modeling packages and all sorts of rendering tools that can let you make whatever you wish, arbitrarily. You hear people in big film effects houses grouse now and then about too much digital work and not enough "old-fashioned craft" but the new stuff isn't a replacement for traditional work so much as a route to other avenues. There's some value in these new tools, from any perspective. You can make things adhere to some idea rather than to reality. This is more of the same.

Photographs never lie, now do they? I've become an anti-Photoshop purist (in my own workflow) in spite of myself, but despite how much they add to it, popping things into PS isn't faster than just converting the RAW in DPP, so I avoid it when possible. If that means another few seconds setting up a shot, no problem. However, some people will need this for various reasons. If it saves a news photograph that ends up winning the Pulitzer prize, I'm sure people won't be so dismissive.

I just got done reading about Lytro and its Light Field Technology. (Which is FAR more durastic than Adobe's effort.)

And all I can manage to say is one thing: Good-Bye Professionals.

(That's assuming there are no flaws with this approach, which has yet to be seen. All I know for certain is that times are changing and the future of photography remains VERY unclear.)

Lytro is too little, too early (or too late, depending on your perspective; it's not fundamentally a new process). Maybe in the future it will allow something, but I have to assume that even in the future people will like taking pictures more quickly and with more detail - the Lytro, which is a light field photograph, currently takes up so much resolution and so much processing power that you only get web-resolution thumbnails and they must be processed on powerful hardware for a VERY long duration.

Lytro or any other process will be useful in some situations, but all the technology it will take will simply allow "real" photographers to travel lighter and shoot even quicker than before. What's the use of being able to fiddle with sharpness front-to-back when your camera is shooting huge images of hundreds of megapixels at dozens of frames per second? You can just focus bracket in that case! (Lytro doesn't even really help speed-essential photography; it requires longer exposures since the system captures less light than your lens takes in - as Joseph S. Wisniewski points out on DP Review, the microlenses aren't round, so there's an extra stop lost right away. Assuming you have lens speed to spare, though, it might just help you get the focus right if you snap the shutter at the right time - and if you can afford to toss away 95% of the information, which is what the Lytro prototype does.)

Don't hold your breath on that one.

my question is ,,,, Is this Deblurring software already available in the market? How much?