Photoshop content aware...BIG DEAL!

[arnab_das]

Some are calling it MAGIC, eg. Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com/5501167/photoshops-upcoming-content+aware-fill-feature-looks-like-magic), the same thing is seconded by the 'great' Chris Pirillo in his latest youtube video, and says that its 'won him over'. Its content aware fill from photoshop which is the new feature in CS5 and thats why they are gonna charge $2500 for it (erm excuse me $2500!!! for a freakin software? okay drop in suggestions about what you would do if u had 2500 bucks to spare :P).

the real thing is, GIMP Resynthesize which does EXACTLY that has been around for years and how much does gimp cost? oh $100,000. oh wait, its free! and its open source! :D (http://linuxers.org/article/adobes-content-aware-fill-huh-gimp-already-had-it-years)

i cant believe how companies overcharge customers for softwares which have a cheaper counterpart. this is a real shame.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

How about just taking the shot right to start with instead of spending hours dicking about with it in photoshop afterwards?

[ssj6akshat]

The algorithms in these Content Aware Fill and Scale that Adobe claims to have invented were invented by University Students.

[arnab_das]

How about just taking the shot right to start with instead of spending hours dicking about with it in photoshop afterwards?

thats the problem with some people. its not about just taking shots. its about justifying why u take the shots. otherwise one's no good than the pirillo types.

completely misinterpreted it. SORRY man! :(

[Meep3D]

the real thing is, GIMP Resynthesize which does EXACTLY that has been around for years and how much does gimp cost? oh $100,000. oh wait, its free! and its open source! :D (http://linuxers.org/article/adobes-content-aware-fill-huh-gimp-already-had-it-years)

i cant believe how companies overcharge customers for softwares which have a cheaper counterpart. this is a real shame.

Straw man is straw.

Photoshop's actual competition is Photoshop. If you do not consider these features significant enough to upgrade, don't - nobody is forcing you to. Adobe have to keep adding value to each release to keep paying for development. Use Photoshop 5 if you want - if someone wants to make the choice to pay for this then they should be allowed.

Gimp is over a decade behind Photoshop, it lacks even basic, taken-for-granted things, such as layer groups, non-destructive effects, CMYK, macros, etc. Nobody who knew anything would ever seriously consider Gimp to be on the same level as Photoshop.

Sure Photoshop is a professional tool and Gimp is fine for basic tasks - this has been done to death. Ultimately though in the professional high-end space Gimp is simply inadequate. Fact.

[Grenage]

Gimp is over a decade behind Photoshop

Makes you wonder how those poor Photoshop users ever coped, 10 years ago; it's amazing that marketing ever happened!

[note32]

how do they come up with pricing?:confused:

[Dayofswords]

how do they come up with pricing?:confused:

dartboard

[V for Vincent]

The algorithms in these Content Aware Fill and Scale that Adobe claims to have invented were invented by University Students.

Can you link me to wherever it is they claim to have invented this? Because, well, the algorithm is out there, so they're free to implement it and use it to show off what their product can do. Don't get me wrong, though. Seeing this described as "magic" irks me, as well.

[Chrysantine]

How about just taking the shot right to start with instead of spending hours dicking about with it in photoshop afterwards?
Ah yes, luckily the world has a rewind button that allows us to set up things exactly the same thing every time we wish to take a photo of something.

[NCLI]

Straw man is straw.

Photoshop's actual competition is Photoshop. If you do not consider these features significant enough to upgrade, don't - nobody is forcing you to. Adobe have to keep adding value to each release to keep paying for development. Use Photoshop 5 if you want - if someone wants to make the choice to pay for this then they should be allowed.

Gimp is over a decade behind Photoshop, it lacks even basic, taken-for-granted things, such as layer groups, non-destructive effects, CMYK, macros, etc. Nobody who knew anything would ever seriously consider Gimp to be on the same level as Photoshop.

Sure Photoshop is a professional tool and Gimp is fine for basic tasks - this has been done to death. Ultimately though in the professional high-end space Gimp is simply inadequate. Fact.
WTF have you been smoking? Gimp has both CMYK (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CMYK_support_in_The_GIMP) and layer groups (http://registry.gimp.org/node/16563). Sure, it doesn't have the other stuff you mention yet, but it will surely come.

[Chrysantine]

WTF have you been smoking? Gimp has both CMYK (http://wiki.archlinux.org/index.php/CMYK_support_in_The_GIMP) and layer groups (http://registry.gimp.org/node/16563). Sure, it doesn't have the other stuff you mention yet, but it will surely come.
You should read your own links more carefully;


Gimp still lacks full CMYK color model support. The ability to separate and then edit an image in CMYK mode is still a long way down the list of features to be added (if on the list at all). However, there is a plug-in called Separate that offers a partial solution to the problem.

A bit like saying OpenOffice has full Office file support because it can open .doc/x files.

[P4man]

Straw man is straw.

Photoshop's actual competition is Photoshop. If you do not consider these features significant enough to upgrade, don't - nobody is forcing you to. Adobe have to keep adding value to each release to keep paying for development. Use Photoshop 5 if you want - if someone wants to make the choice to pay for this then they should be allowed.

Gimp is over a decade behind Photoshop, it lacks even basic, taken-for-granted things, such as layer groups, non-destructive effects, CMYK, macros, etc. Nobody who knew anything would ever seriously consider Gimp to be on the same level as Photoshop.

Sure Photoshop is a professional tool and Gimp is fine for basic tasks - this has been done to death. Ultimately though in the professional high-end space Gimp is simply inadequate. Fact.

Layer groups. Pfft. thats hardly a show stopper!. But if you need it, you can have it;
http://registry.gimp.org/node/16563
Its also making its way in 2.7/8

non destructive editing is a better point, but its also coming in the next release. CMYK separation is available through a plugin (http://cue.yellowmagic.info/softwares/separate-plus/index.html). Macro's, well gimp has srcipt-fu which arguably is a lot more powerful, but not as easy to use.

Mind you, photoshop has its strengths and gimp isnt alternative for everyone for every use, but the slogan that photoshop is for pro's and gimp just a simple bitmap editing program is very much not true. It has its own strengths, it eclipses PS in some regards.

edit: wrote this then went to eat wihout submitting, so I missed the above posts. Do check out seperate+ as it fixes some of the shortcomings of the original. Still I wont argue that for prepress, gimp isnt the tool to get.

[Dixon Bainbridge]

Ah yes, luckily the world has a rewind button that allows us to set up things exactly the same thing every time we wish to take a photo of something.

I'm a full time pro photog. Never once had to use photoshop to retouch, remove or fill in anything. I don't even own a copy of it. I used to use it for noise reduction occaisionally, via NeatImage, but Ive stopped with that too.

Photoshop is fine for graphic design work, but I don't see the point of it as a photographer. If something is in your shot that you don't want, don't shoot it to start with. If you have sunflare in a shot, use a filter, or move. This is basic compositional stuff. Getting a shot right to start with saves ten times more time later dicking about with trying to remove it in post process.

Thats not an opinion, thats experience. Feel free to share yours with me on this.

[NCLI]

You should read your own links more carefully;



A bit like saying OpenOffice has full Office file support because it can open .doc/x files.

I've used it, and it works. Isn't that what matters?

[Meep3D]

Layer groups. Pfft. thats hardly a show stopper!. But if you need it, you can have it;
http://registry.gimp.org/node/16563
Its also making its way in 2.7/8

non destructive editing is a better point, but its also coming in the next release. CMYK separation is available through a plugin (http://cue.yellowmagic.info/softwares/separate-plus/index.html). Macro's, well gimp has srcipt-fu which arguably is a lot more powerful, but not as easy to use.

Mind you, photoshop has its strengths and gimp isnt alternative for everyone for every use, but the slogan that photoshop is for pro's and gimp just a simple bitmap editing program is very much not true. It has its own strengths, it eclipses PS in some regards.

The real question is, if Photoshop was FOSS and Gimp was commercial, would you still be promoting Gimp like you do? I really don't think any of the people pretending like Gimp holds a candle to Photoshop would still stick with it if Photoshop was free.

Surely judging software on its release license is one of the worst possible ways to judge it, especially if you are using the software professionally?

It's actually the main reason I avoid FOSS generally - it's largely hyperbole and propaganda with people promoting it because it's free, not necessarily because it's any good. Witness the people saying 'It has CMYK' when in reality it is nowhere near, but this isn't about which is best, it's about which is free-est.

[Grenage]

Photoshop is probably a lot more advanced than Gimp; considering its funding, I would be disappointed if it was not. Then again, I have no doubt that most photoshop users don't really need that level of graphical manipulation (likely those running dodgy copies).

I never have, and probably never will.

[EarthMind]

Watching the two videos it makes me feel like Adobe has just stolen the source code of the GIMP plugin.

[P4man]

The real question is, if Photoshop was FOSS and Gimp was commercial, would you still be promoting Gimp like you do?

Most photoshop users I know use a pirated copy and use it only to touch up their holiday pics and run some filters. They dont need 99% of the functionality of PS (or 94% of that of gimp) but they still think its gotta be better than gimp because PS is expensive and they read about posts like your's that it doesnt do stuff they have no clue what it even is, much less need. Much of the above is even true for semi pro's (including the pirating). Its like home users using XP professional. Has gotta be better than "home" no, even if they dont have a clue what dynamic disks are or a network domain.

So to answer your question: if PS was free and gimp $2500 I wouldnt recommend it to anyone except those needing gimp's features or OS compatibility.


It's actually the main reason I avoid FOSS generally - it's largely hyperbole and propaganda with people promoting it because it's free, not necessarily because it's any good.


LOL. Pot kettle?
FWIW, you;ll never hear me say there is a good OSS alternative to Premiere or AE, because there isnt. Its not a OSS vs closed source thing to me, apparently it is to you though.

[NCLI]

FWIW, you;ll never hear me say there is a good OSS alternative to Premiere or AE, because there isnt. Its not a OSS vs closed source thing to me, apparently it is to you though.

Actually, now that Lightworks has been open-sourced, there is :guitar:

[Meep3D]

Most photoshop users I know use a pirated copy and use it only to touch up their holiday pics and run some filters. They dont need 99% of the functionality of PS (or 94% of that of gimp) but they still think its gotta be better than gimp because PS is expensive and they read about posts like your's that it doesnt do stuff they have no clue what it even is, much less need.
To quote myself from my very first reply to this: "Sure Photoshop is a professional tool and Gimp is fine for basic tasks - this has been done to death. Ultimately though in the professional high-end space Gimp is simply inadequate."

I deliberately specified I was talking about the high end. Obviously nobody in their right mind would buy Photoshop for random family snapshots - that is not why it exists. I was more arguing against comments such as:


Mind you, photoshop has its strengths and gimp isnt alternative for everyone for every use, but the slogan that photoshop is for pro's and gimp just a simple bitmap editing program is very much not true. It has its own strengths, it eclipses PS in some regards.

Which makes it seem like both are just as 'pro', and it's just a matter of preference, which is entirely untrue. Basic things which you take for granted in Photoshop are simply impossible in Gimp and I have yet to see a feature from Gimp that Photoshop lacks and that is in "can't live without" territory.

You cannot even do something as simple as 'Look it's italic text' in Gimp as you can't apply formatting to individual words in a textbox - you have to apply it to the whole box with a new layer for each different style or font. It's freaking amateur hour, I'm sorry, but it's true.

[P4man]

Actually, now that Lightworks has been open-sourced, there is :guitar:

Wow. Thats news to me. I googled and found this link:
http://ostatic.com/blog/powerful-video-editor-lightworks-released-as-open-source

Now that looks promising. Do you know more about this? Will they provide the base app for free (its not because they opensource it, that its also free, and I suspect this thing costs a TON currently,way out of reach of home users).

[NCLI]

Yes, it looks like it'll be free to download and modify (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODE1MQ), so expect a Linux port to be made shortly after it's made available in Q3 of this year.

[P4man]

Yes, it looks like it'll be free to download and modify (http://www.phoronix.com/scan.php?page=news_item&px=ODE1MQ), so expect a Linux port to be made shortly after it's made available in Q3 of this year.

No need to port, it already runs on linux. Obviously like almost anyone else I never saw, much less tried lightworks, but im definitely looking forward to trying this later this year.

Premiere is one of the last remaining reasons I need windows and I feared it was going to take a decade for linux apps to catch up with premiere and vegas, much less aftereffects, but who knows, this time next year it might well be the opposite?

[Nonno Bassotto]

You cannot even do something as simple as 'Look it's italic text' in Gimp as you can't apply formatting to individual words in a textbox - you have to apply it to the whole box with a new layer for each different style or font. It's freaking amateur hour, I'm sorry, but it's true.

Wow, I just realized that! Why don't they fix their text editor before discussing of such advanced features as CMYK?

[sxmaxchine]

i would like to have cs5 but i really dont care if i dont get it because i prefer gimp to photoshop anyway

And if i had a spare 2500 dollars i would buy a good pc.

[LMP900]

I'm a full time pro photog. Never once had to use photoshop to retouch, remove or fill in anything. I don't even own a copy of it. I used to use it for noise reduction occaisionally, via NeatImage, but Ive stopped with that too.

Photoshop is fine for graphic design work, but I don't see the point of it as a photographer. If something is in your shot that you don't want, don't shoot it to start with. If you have sunflare in a shot, use a filter, or move. This is basic compositional stuff. Getting a shot right to start with saves ten times more time later dicking about with trying to remove it in post process.

Thats not an opinion, thats experience. Feel free to share yours with me on this.

Well, since you're a professional you may have the final word on this, but I would imagine a company wanting a photo of their campus on a brochure would hate to have trash on the grass . Sure, the photographer could go back and shoot it again, but that would be a waste of time.

[V for Vincent]

Watching the two videos it makes me feel like Adobe has just stolen the source code of the GIMP plugin.

Try not to make groundless accusations. You can dig up the algorithm easily enough on the net - just like whoever made the GIMP plugin did.

[forrestcupp]

okay drop in suggestions about what you would do if u had 2500 bucks to spare :P).

If I had $2500, I sure wouldn't spend it on a Photoshop plugin! I'd buy nine 12 foot trampolines from Walmart and line them up in a circle so I could jump from trampoline to trampoline.

[Grenage]

If I had $2500, I sure wouldn't spend it on a Photoshop plugin! I'd buy nine 12 foot trampolines from Walmart and line them up in a circle so I could jump from trampoline to trampoline.

Lol, excellent idea.

[ade234uk]

How about just taking the shot right to start with instead of spending hours dicking about with it in photoshop afterwards?

So true.

[arnab_das]

How about just taking the shot right to start with instead of spending hours dicking about with it in photoshop afterwards?

+1

but most of us arent professionals. so, i guess taking that 'perfect' shot is almost next to impossible.

[madjr]

all this talking about gimp and photoshop, makes me wonder if krita (http://www.koffice.org/krita/) is too far behind for basic and/or pro stuff

[arnab_das]

all this talking about gimp and photoshop, makes me wonder if krita (http://www.koffice.org/krita/) is too far behind for basic stuff?

oh thats something nice! as good as gimp?

[Phrea]

How about just taking the shot right to start with instead of spending hours dicking about with it in photoshop afterwards?

Not really possible, is it.
You can't pose everything, and sometimes a shot is too good to pass up, but there's a few things in the way or that need a bit of cleaning up.

On Resynthesize, I LOVE it been playing with it for some time now, just take pics off of the internet and try out different things and settings.
Brilliant tool !

It's a bit big, so I'll just link the picture: http://imgur.com/KPNSt.jpg That was just a flat picture, no layers, just a run of the mill .jpg I found on the net.
That's some amazing resynth power right there, and I've got hundreds of examples like that. :)

LOVE IT !!

[kelvin spratt]

I'm a amateur photographer and enter competitions. My friend is a pro we don't use photoshop to touch up photos as this guy said.
Originally Posted by Dixon Bainbridge http://ubuntuforums.org/images/buttons/viewpost.gif (http://ubuntuforums.org/showthread.php?p=9186128#post9186128)
I'm a full time pro photog. Never once had to use photoshop to retouch, remove or fill in anything. I don't even own a copy of it. I used to use it for noise reduction occaisionally, via NeatImage, but Ive stopped with that too.

Photoshop is fine for graphic design work, but I don't see the point of it as a photographer. If something is in your shot that you don't want, don't shoot it to start with. If you have sunflare in a shot, use a filter, or move. This is basic compositional stuff. Getting a shot right to start with saves ten times more time later dicking about with trying to remove it in post process.

Thats not an opinion, thats experience. Feel free to share yours with me on this.

[forrestcupp]

It's a bit big, so I'll just link the picture: http://imgur.com/KPNSt.jpg That was just a flat picture, no layers, just a run of the mill .jpg I found on the net.
That's some amazing resynth power right there, and I've got hundreds of examples like that. :)

So it can take something out of the picture and figure out what the background should look like?

[NCLI]

No need to port, it already runs on linux. Obviously like almost anyone else I never saw, much less tried lightworks, but im definitely looking forward to trying this later this year.

Premiere is one of the last remaining reasons I need windows and I feared it was going to take a decade for linux apps to catch up with premiere and vegas, much less aftereffects, but who knows, this time next year it might well be the opposite?

It is? Well then, that's awesome! I guess we'll be able to get professional video editing for free come this fall then :guitar:

[praveesh]

Some are calling it MAGIC, eg. Gizmodo (http://gizmodo.com/5501167/photoshops-upcoming-content+aware-fill-feature-looks-like-magic), the same thing is seconded by the 'great' Chris Pirillo in his latest youtube video, and says that its 'won him over'. Its content aware fill from photoshop which is the new feature in CS5 and thats why they are gonna charge $2500 for it (erm excuse me $2500!!! for a freakin software? okay drop in suggestions about what you would do if u had 2500 bucks to spare :P).

the real thing is, GIMP Resynthesize which does EXACTLY that has been around for years and how much does gimp cost? oh $100,000. oh wait, its free! and its open source! :D (http://linuxers.org/article/adobes-content-aware-fill-huh-gimp-already-had-it-years)

i cant believe how companies overcharge customers for softwares which have a cheaper counterpart. this is a real shame.

In my opinion, gimp is not a real substitute for photoshop . Gimp is really good for editing photos . But for creating graphics, gimp is not that good . Photoshop is the best in that area .

[Phrea]

So it can take something out of the picture and figure out what the background should look like?

Yes.
Which is pretty amazing, if you think about it. :)

I can post some more examples later tonight if wanted.
Not all of them have a before/after tho.

It's just a gimp plugin (http://www.logarithmic.net/pfh/resynthesizer), anybody can install and use it. :)
I believe it's even in the repo's, for convenience.

[P4man]

So it can take something out of the picture and figure out what the background should look like?

Its absolutely astounding.

To install:

sudo apt-get install gimp-resynthesizer

a simple how-to:
http://schwarzvogel.de/resynth-tut-sa.shtml

unfortunately there seems to be no progress bar, so you dont see its working (and it takes a while on a big image) but the results are pretty spectacular! I dont even want to think how much time this could have saved me!

[arnab_das]

Its absolutely astounding.

To install:

sudo apt-get install gimp-resynthesizer

a simple how-to:
http://schwarzvogel.de/resynth-tut-sa.shtml

unfortunately there seems to be no progress bar, so you dont see its working (and it takes a while on a big image) but the results are pretty spectacular! I dont even want to think how much time this could have saved me!

there is a progress bar. its in the main window at the bottom.

[Phrea]

there is a progress bar. its in the main window at the bottom.

Indeed.
Also worth mentioning: it's heavy on a computer, and it might take a while on highres pictures.

[P4man]

there is a progress bar. its in the main window at the bottom.

You're probably right. Im running lucid, just installed gimp on this machine, and it seems I got no progress bar at all. Its a bug:
https://bugs.launchpad.net/ubuntu/+source/gimp/+bug/537275

[mihai.ile]

Now what a great feature. didn't know about it.
This time GIMP got it first! :D

So for this particular feature in cs5, a message to adobe would be "been there, done that". ha!

[Spike-X]

how do they come up with pricing?:confused:

Total development cost / the three dozen users who actually pay for their copies + 10% profit = final price.

[Grenage]

That resynthesize tool is damn impressive.