DailyDirt: Digital Photography Magic (aka Photoshopping)

from the urls-we-dig-up dept

Altering a few pixels here and there in a digital photo can have remarkable effects. Sometimes the result is unexpected and hilarious, but sometimes it's simply amazing what can be done to photos. Perhaps you've used software (eg. photoshop) to remove "red eye" from your favorite selfies, but there are some even more advanced algorithms that can make your photos look much better... than they otherwise would. After you've finished checking out those links, take a look at our Daily Deals for cool gadgets and other awesome stuff.

Filed Under: algorithms, cameras, cgi, de-blur, filters, photography, photos, photoshop, photoshopping, reflections, selfie


Reader Comments

Subscribe: RSS

View by: Time | Thread


  • identicon
    Lawrence D’Oliveiro, 28 May 2015 @ 6:10pm

    Call It A “Photomanip”

    Given that alternative tools like GIMP and Krita are getting more and more popular, let us help put Adobe out of their trademark-losing misery by using a more generic term for what these tools do.

    They do “photomanipulation”. The product of same is often described as a “photomanip”, plural “photomanips”.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • icon
      John Fenderson (profile), 29 May 2015 @ 7:51am

      Re: Call It A “Photomanip”

      I prefer sticking with using "photoshop" as a generic verb. If enough people do this for long enough (and I think we're pretty close to it right not), then Adobe will lose the trademark on it -- like what happened with "zipper".

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • identicon
    Rekrul, 29 May 2015 @ 2:39am

    Will these algorithms be released to the public so that they can freely incorporated into any image program? Or will they be exclusively used in stand-alone programs and Photoshop?

    I don't consider myself an artist, but I like to occasionally try my hand at image editing, and it's always disappointed me that the only two practical options for most advanced editing are Photoshop (ridiculously expensive and reportedly confusing to use) and GIMP (free, but confusing to use).

    A couple years ago I started a project to produce a digital version of a copy protection map (black printing on dark blue paper) included with an old C64 game. It didn't scan very well and it was recommended that I use GIMP to improve the scans. I tried, but couldn't get anything approaching a usable image out of it. I'm sure it's capable of doing what I needed, but I couldn't figure out how to do it.

    I ended up processing the images in Irfanview, which is much more intuitive (if more limited) and then tracing them in Ultimate Paint, which is the most intuitive drawing program that I've yet found for Windows.

    I don't have Photoshop (nope, not even a pirated copy) and trying to use the drawing tools in GIMP was a pain in the ass.

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

    • identicon
      Anonymous Coward, 29 May 2015 @ 5:50am

      Re:

      Photoshop, like most quality image manipulation packages, is specialist software.

      Unlike many software packages, the difference is that Photoshop has been a kind of industry standard in a space that has a lot of interest - everything from 'simple' filter effects on photos by budding photographers to multi-layered animated matte paintings for use in feature films all get done in the package.

      The price tag in part supports research and development which provides features that push the state of the art which sells more licences. Sure, often what is researched ends up patented, but I find it hard to begrudge them that.

      The great part is, for its ubiquity ("Ah, bet that's a 'shop" - it's so common we don't even say the full product name!), there is a wealth of information available on the concepts involved, and how-tos for learning how to get stuff done. And, with some exceptions, that knowledge remains constant from package to package.

      reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    John Fenderson (profile), 29 May 2015 @ 7:55am

    De-bluring photos

    I have been using Gimp to be-blur photos for years now, following a procedure I found on the web. It works pretty well, depending. The more you know about the motion of the camera that resulted in the blur, the more accurate the blur removal is. I love the idea of using the other camera to track the motion!

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]

  • icon
    bwburke94 (profile), 29 May 2015 @ 9:07am

    Reflection removal

    That could work great for all those vampire films...

    reply to this | link to this | view in chronology ]


Add Your Comment

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Close

Add A Reply

Have a Techdirt Account? Sign in now. Want one? Register here



Subscribe to the Techdirt Daily newsletter




Comment Options:

  • Use markdown. Use plain text.
  • Remember name/email/url (set a cookie)

Follow Techdirt
Techdirt Gear
Shop Now: I Invented Email
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Essential Reading
Techdirt Deals
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Techdirt Insider Chat
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads
Recent Stories
Advertisement
Report this ad  |  Hide Techdirt ads

Close

Email This

This feature is only available to registered users. Register or sign in to use it.