There are two classes of photos, original photographs and "digital art". Once you go beyond color and brightness adjustments, you have created a piece of digital art.
I am old school (a real back in the day kind of guy). I started with film in a darkroom in the 1980's. I can control darkness, brightness, contrast, burn, doge and crop - I use Photoshop and Lightroom in the same manner. Anything else is Digital Art. I can not understand how on an overcast muted day, some of my colleagues produce photos with colors that were not possible with the light we shot under. Great video. I really like that you used more than your own professional opinion with the quotes and cases of photo manipulation.
This video has clarified what type of photographer I am. The sort who approaches nearly all subject in a documentary style. I've never been tempted to add or take away objects or subjects (Maybe the only exception to that is the odd tiny blurry insect in background of a wildlife photo)
Great video! I think it's a case by case scenario. If I was shooting in a news/reporting fashion, then nope I wouldn't use the Generative Fill. In other circumstances, I had to use the GF tool and that was a different work events where we had to remove some people in the background. I've also had friends who used it for some of their clients photos where there have been instances where their clients lost or changed sponsorship and had to have a sticker on their vehicle removed. Same thing for a couple of events where the main tire sponsor changed and another friend had to go in and remove all of the old sponsor logo/flags that were on the course. So in certain circumstances, it's a great time saver.
Very interesting to hear that you've already been able to use this tool for certain events but not others. Always great to hear about others use it in practice... even if only a beta version! Thanks for commenting!
Good question, I had this discussion with colleagues as well. The general thinking was that there's nothing wrong with denoise, but to be careful with it. A light touch might be acceptable, but if you dialed the settings up too high you can really destroy the detail in your photos.
Must admit that I agree with you on this Jerry. I have played with it and its quite fun for personal work I think it's ok but that maybe the slippery slope !
Hey Jack! Welcome back! I have seen that you are still cranking videos out! Yes, I took a rather lengthy break... still have a lot of great topic ideas I want to explore, but the challenge is of course having a regular job that gets in the way ;-) I'll make new videos as schedule (and motivation) allows. Thanks for watching!
Would removing acne or makeup blemishes and unsightly stands of hair from a model be considered digital art? How about additions such as adding catch lights to eyes or changing eye color altogether? I guess my main question is does adding or subtracting to any original image automatically make it digital art? If so, then my secondary question is where does contrast, sharpening, noise removal, intentional vinetting, selection brightening or image blur fit into all of this?
There are two classes of photos, original photographs and "digital art". Once you go beyond color and brightness adjustments, you have created a piece of digital art.
Well stated.
I am old school (a real back in the day kind of guy). I started with film in a darkroom in the 1980's. I can control darkness, brightness, contrast, burn, doge and crop - I use Photoshop and Lightroom in the same manner. Anything else is Digital Art. I can not understand how on an overcast muted day, some of my colleagues produce photos with colors that were not possible with the light we shot under.
Great video. I really like that you used more than your own professional opinion with the quotes and cases of photo manipulation.
"Digital art" is a great way to put it. It's not for me, but I do understand that there is a place for it. Thanks for watching!
Glad to see you posting again!!
This video has clarified what type of photographer I am. The sort who approaches nearly all subject in a documentary style. I've never been tempted to add or take away objects or subjects (Maybe the only exception to that is the odd tiny blurry insect in background of a wildlife photo)
I am the same.
Great video! I think it's a case by case scenario. If I was shooting in a news/reporting fashion, then nope I wouldn't use the Generative Fill. In other circumstances, I had to use the GF tool and that was a different work events where we had to remove some people in the background. I've also had friends who used it for some of their clients photos where there have been instances where their clients lost or changed sponsorship and had to have a sticker on their vehicle removed. Same thing for a couple of events where the main tire sponsor changed and another friend had to go in and remove all of the old sponsor logo/flags that were on the course. So in certain circumstances, it's a great time saver.
Very interesting to hear that you've already been able to use this tool for certain events but not others. Always great to hear about others use it in practice... even if only a beta version! Thanks for commenting!
Great video Jerry. Always love your content.
Always excellent points raised
Great insights Jerry, its refreshing to know that a professional such as you can take a stand on this issue and stick to it.
Thanks! Well, like I said I pretty much have to stick with it. But with the understanding that not everyone has to!
Slightly unrelated question, do you think LrC's "AI-powered" "denoise" function is allowed in photojournalism?
Good question, I had this discussion with colleagues as well. The general thinking was that there's nothing wrong with denoise, but to be careful with it. A light touch might be acceptable, but if you dialed the settings up too high you can really destroy the detail in your photos.
@@JerryTLai Appreciate the explanation!
Must admit that I agree with you on this Jerry. I have played with it and its quite fun for personal work I think it's ok but that maybe the slippery slope !
Indeed it was quite fun playing around with the features and going down the rabbit hole a bit!
Hey Jerry, glad to see you back at it. I had unsubscribed because I thought you had stopped TH-cam. Resubscibed.
Hey Jack! Welcome back! I have seen that you are still cranking videos out!
Yes, I took a rather lengthy break... still have a lot of great topic ideas I want to explore, but the challenge is of course having a regular job that gets in the way ;-)
I'll make new videos as schedule (and motivation) allows. Thanks for watching!
@@JerryTLaiYes, I get you. Unfortunately, I don't post as much as I used to. Other work and family take up a lot of my time.
Great video Jerry.
Agreed! Great video!
Yea I do t think it should be used at all in sports. I love your channel, I have learned a lot
Are you going to get the new Canon cameras?
Would removing acne or makeup blemishes and unsightly stands of hair from a model be considered digital art? How about additions such as adding catch lights to eyes or changing eye color altogether? I guess my main question is does adding or subtracting to any original image automatically make it digital art? If so, then my secondary question is where does contrast, sharpening, noise removal, intentional vinetting, selection brightening or image blur fit into all of this?
That’s fair! Cool video
Wondering what the recent events at Sports Illustrated means for sports photographers?
Nicely presented video.
Many thanks!
It will be great for "fixing" family pics and removing distracting "things" in the picture.
Just don't call them "Photos" Call them images
Photoshop hasn't gone too far, the user of the product is the one who decides how far to go.
Don't like it, don't use it.
Very true. But with it being so easy to use now I can see a lot more people being tempted to take advantage of these features.