Category: english

  • Adobe is getting really serious with AI.

    Adobe is getting really serious with AI.

    Adobe introduced some new impressive AI driven features that are in the making. Adobe Sensei are the brains. As a photo and videographer the most impressive possible future features for me where of course the ones that had to with video and photography.

    Content Aware Fill is a great toll, but it does not work with every image and situation. Deep Fill is Content Aware Fill with steroids. It does not only analyze the surroundings, but it also tries to understand whats really underneath the element we try to fill. Another technology that tackles the same problem is Scene Stitch. I think its even more impressive than Deep Fill. Scene Stitch will replace a part of an image by going through millions of image from Adobe Stock. It uses part of an image that it finds from the stock and replaces the part that you have selected. Scene Stitch rises a few questions about copyrights and about the document value of a photograph. I understand that this is not a problem with design, illustrations, marketing and advertising. The problem might arise in those if it crosses documentary photography. It challenges the truth and the documentary value of a photograph. 

    Lets take an example that was pulled right out of Adobes YouTube-video about Scene Stitch.    
      

    Before (screenshot from Adobes YouTube-video)
    Before (screenshot from Adobes YouTube-video)
    On of the After photos that Scene Stitch suggested (screenshot from Adobes YouTube-video)
    On of the After photos that Scene Stitch suggested (screenshot from Adobes YouTube-video)

    Scene Stitch gives several suggestions. The user then can pick the one that works best. The tennis court is taken from a Adobe Stock photograph. The question that I think is that what kinda of a document is the after shot? The pond is replaced with tennis courts. There was no mentions in the presentation if someone gets paid when parts of the images will be used. I would assume that there will be money involved when stock image is used. At least I hope so.

    Of course these new features may or may not be part of future versions of Adobe Apps. Adobe is experimenting with different new things.

    Links to the videos in YouTube that I mentioned in the post:

    Scene Stitch

    Project Deep Fill
     

    The blogger is an Olympus European Visionary who´s native language is Finnish.
       

  • Live Composite, have you tried it yet?

    Live Composite is a very exciting feature in Olympus OM-D cameras. I wrote an article about it in Olympus Passion online magazine. It helps you to get started. 

    Live Composite.

  • Is analog back?

    Kodak relaunch 35mm Ektachrome film. The reason is that the film sales have gone up in the recent years. Analog is coming back, well at least a little bit.

    Kodak.png

    I have been a photographer since 1989. I have no intensions to shoot film. I did that in all forms for many years. Besides that I am not a dark room fan. To me Lightroom is a lot more fun. Editing can be done anywhere and it does not smell that bad. For me who was not very good in the dark room the possibilities with digital are far more bigger. 

    I don´t think that 35mm slide film gives any advantages. Quality in digital is superior compared to 35mm film. Most people want their photos digitally anyway, so why shoot film and scan?

    I am not saying that there is no room for film. Of course the old methods, wet plate and such has its place. Also B&W if the whole process is done in a dark room. Large format is also a valid reason to shoot film. It gives the extra quality that DSLRs cannot give.

    For some the feeling of nostalgy is a thing. I think this is the real reason for the rise of analog and there is nothing wrong with that

    Then there is the discussion of the costs. I shot around 16.000 images last year. I calculated the costs if I had shot all in film. I most likely would have shot most of the images on Fuji Velvia. The film I used before going 100% digital in 2002 (I think it was 2002).

    16.000 images is about 445 36 frame rolls. The cost of the film would have been about 7.565€ euros. Of course those films had to be processed. the lowest price I could find was 5,50€ a roll. That would sum up to be around 2.447€. The total cost would have been just about 10.000€. Naturally that cost would have been on the bill as material costs. 

    What about the cost of digital? Lets say that you bought 10.000€ worth of gear. Of course also that cost should be in the invoice some how. Maybe its not marked as a material cost, but some way it has to be baked in the the final cost of your shoot.

    What this means is that if you plan to pay the gear back in a year, you can invest 10.000€ every year on gear. If the pay back time is two years, you earn 5.000€ more per year or clients gets your services cheaper and they save 5.000€ a year.

    One might argue that the cost of computers must be aded. Yes, and they are right. I didi have a computer almost ten years before turning to digital photography. The cost was there already. The only thing is that I need a more powerful computer and they are more expensive. The difference in the price of a laptop that can handle office needs vs. computer for editing pictures is the cost that must be taken in to considerations.

     This was a simplyfied calculation but gives an idea about the cost of film vs. digital.

    Disclamer: I am a photographer that shoots 100% digital and my native language is Finnish. 

    Picture: By Thistle33 (Own work) [CC BY-SA 4.0 (http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by-sa/4.0)], via Wikimedia Commons