Comments on: Beware of content-aware fill: Stella Kramer on Photoshop CS5

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 23:50:57 +0000

But the technology IS accepted and commonplace — that is the point I was making! Adobe has simply made it easier to accomplish.

It DOES take a creative eye to create something beautiful in photoshop. Anyone beating their chests and tearing out their hair, wailing “but they didn’t create that in camera!” is going to be ignored. How could you tell in most instances?

Nor did I in any way “marginalize” photojournalism. I actually have a great respect for it and a strong belief that that is one area where photoshop should be used sparingly, for the reasons I already stated. We have had discussions on other blogs about the disturbing and apparent trend to photoshop and greatly alter images that are intended for news media. Such images by their very nature should present an accurate story to the public.

By: Stella Kramer

Stella Kramer — Wed, 14 Apr 2010 16:01:29 +0000

Why it’s considered naive and childish to raise questions about new technology? If you can draw a distinction for photojournalism, isn’t that enough reason to bring up concerns? I do know how much post-production work is done by photographers, and that it has gone on forever. But there are many people out there who are now photographers by dint of technology, not by having a creative eye or anything to say for that matter. And because of that I think it’s worthwhile to discuss these topics before the technology becomes accepted and commonplace.
Just because it will become easier for commercial and fine art photographers to create what they want doesn’t make it great. You’re dismissing me as someone who doesn’t recognize fine art photography, yet you are marginalizing photojournalism.
I’m just trying to get people talking, so thank you for that.

By: Carolyn

Carolyn — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 23:12:49 +0000

I’m sorry but I find this post ridiculous. Photography is art and so the final product is the vision of the photographer — whether created in camera or in post-production.

The only distinction that can be drawn is photojournalism. That is the only place where it matters whether the scene was altered, whether “a gun was removed,” etc.

You don’t sound like someone who (a) recognizes fine art photography, or (b) understands the widespread use of photoshop in today’s world. Ansel Adams would use photoshop if he were alive today. It is a fantastic tool to further a photographic vision. He dodged and burned for hours in a darkroom. Now you can do it on the computer in less time.

Moreover, commercial photographers are about to get a huge boost from the ability to use content aware fill. It will simplify their workflow tremendously.

Tsk, tsk…. This article seems very naive and childish.

By: David Saxe

David Saxe — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 22:34:42 +0000

The camera has always lied. Remember when they used to airbrush out members of the Politbureau for the May Day parade in the Soviet Union. This stuff has been going on since the thirties. The real change these days is how simple it has become and that it no longer requires a skilled professional. It will probably be a great tool for the advertising and studio photographers whose work has always been retouched but unfortunately it does not stop there. Ms. Kramer has a point—especially in regard to fine art and reportage.

By: Ihor Vorotnov

Ihor Vorotnov — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:28:12 +0000

Content-aware fill is just a tool in your hands, like camera, like your f/1.2 lens, like reflector or polarizing filter etc. To use it or not – that is the question. Using any tool you can improve your photography or completely destroy it. They are just tools. Photographs are made by photographers using some tools.

By: Stella Kramer

Stella Kramer — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:21:11 +0000

I was trying to think about the larger context in how this relates to where photography is headed. With so many people considering themselves “photographers” because they have a camera phone, and with some many publishing outlets using stock which they get from many sources (professional and not), it seems to me that a tool like this can make it easier to distort what I like to think of as reality (at least my reality). I think history is written by more than just words, but by images as well. So many events in history are remembered in the collective consciousness through photography, that I don’t want the easy use of a new technology to influence those memories.

By: Stella Kramer

Stella Kramer — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 17:14:21 +0000

Far be it for me to think I have the power to stop change. For me it becomes more about imagining how things can be subverted, and trying to nudge people to think and talk about these things. To simply jump on the bandwagon of new technology is not something I can do.
If it makes you think, even enough to disagree, then I am happy. So thanks.

By: Ihor Vorotnov

Ihor Vorotnov — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 10:08:12 +0000

First of all, there were tools for changing reality in PS before content-aware fill. Guys from Adobe just made this process easier. This tool doesn’t anything new!
Of course, photographer should think about the final image before pressing the shutter release button. But sometimes you just can’t remove some unwanted things from the scene… As for me, I know that I will use this tool regularly at least for cleaning studio backgrounds. I do it a lot of times, and with this new tool it will go much much faster! That’s all about this tool – to save some time with this little, but time consuming tasks.

By: photojosh

photojosh — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:45:54 +0000

I don’t understand how this is making photographers less of craftspeople? Photoshop is a tool, just like an enlarger and a burn and dodge stick are. You could argue that today’s photo-editing software is even more difficult to learn than the process of developing film is. You are also proposing that Photoshop has the power to change taste and what humans enjoy aesthetically. Trends come and go, the world changes, and Photoshop and image editing software is part of this. It comes down to an issue of trust. You do not trust photographers and artists to disclose when they are manipulating their images. I do trust these people to be straightforward with what they are presenting. As far as the implications with news photography and the history of our world goes, you act as if photography was a way to save us from deceipt. The history of the world is written with words, which can distort the truth. Contextless images can also help serve this distortion. Whoever has the power writes history. In some cases photography can attempt to thwart this trend, but it’s successes are few and far between. As far as the implications for artistry? Embrace all new tools as new possibilities. Technology is not the enemy of tradition, it is an evolution of it.

By: William Wallis

William Wallis — Tue, 13 Apr 2010 03:24:24 +0000

It is not a big deal.
You have to know composition to do post production anyhow. Who cares if it is in-camera or afterwards in post? What is important is an asthetic image.
There is really no difference than cropping and retouching…
A good photo is more than composition: it is capturing the character of a subject or the character of a setting.