Originally posted by LazyGuy
Just for info, my comment was partially motivated by you seemingly shooting a hole in my theory about the rolling rock on Mars.
(Link) You called my guesstimate and raised me with a calculation and I
folded. I gave up without a fight but now that I've rekindled an interest in defending my idea I've posted a rebuttal.
I saw that post, I will post an answer as soon as I find
the data I am looking for.
The cards are stacked pretty high against the picture depicting precisely what the photographer has seen through his naked eye. Given the
circumstances focus, exposure, and camera jitter are likely to result in an indistinct blob of light off in the distance.
From what I have
seen, although I used just some four different cameras, any photo taken with a zoom less than 10 or 12x will show things with less detail than when
seen with the naked eye, that's one reason many photos do not show exactly what the witness saw. As for the circumstances, I know that, when pressed
for time, we cannot afford the luxury to, if we have a camera with those possibilities, change all the settings to make the best shot. Even yesterday,
while I was changing the settings on my camera to take some photos of a moth, she flew away.
I agree, it may not help out too much with many images, but discounting the software without actually trying it is a little pessimistic. Adobe
has vast resources to devote to development of new functionality. They're not the industry leader in photographic manipulation because they've got a
catchy slogan or killer TV commercials. They do pixels better than anyone else hands down.
From what I have seen (and from my using of
Photoshop, limited to an experiment I made some years ago at altering photos to see if anyone could see that the photo was altered), Photoshop gained
its market position because it is made for the people that work with images for publishing, so the tools work in an expected and logical way, so
someone, like me, without any experience with the software, could be working very fast after just some two or three hours of use.
That doesn't mean that they make things better or that they do things nobody else does. In the previous version, for example, they were presenting a
new tool to remove unwanted objects from photos, but that tool was only an automated version of the clone tool, with noticeable repetition of the
cloned area if the area to be cleared was bigger than the one Photoshop "thought" was the best to use as source for cloning.
That's one of the reasons I am not expecting any ground-breaking tool, I'm expecting an automated version of their existing tools.
If a software tool can be used to analyze and correct for at least some of the distortion it would make it that much easier to identify what
the object in the photo really is.
Yes, but the problem is that people rely too much on external tools when they should start by using the ones
they have built-in since birth, specially their eyes and their brain, many things that people point out in a photo as the result of some Photoshop
work (usually just some filters that change almost nothing for the better and too much for the worst) were already visible in the original, unchanged
photo, if people looked at it with inquiring eyes and a mind prepared for any possibility.
If we are looking for image-analizing software, Photoshop was not made for it, and we should look instead in the scientific use of images, not on the
publicity use of images.
A human mind is only limited by its own imagination. Albert Einstein's imagination is what allowed him to solve mysteries that are still being
tested and explored. Limiting Adobe's programers by your own expertise isn't a valid argument.
No, I'm not limiting anything, I just
don't expect them to create new ways of doing things, because that's not their market, as I said above, I'm only expecting new ways of making
things faster by automating already existing tools.
But time will tell.