Content Fill on Photoshop CS5
Written by duckrabbitI’m a bit mystified by the discussion around the new content fill tool that will come with CS5. Here’s an example of what I’m talking about on the Photoshelter website:
The addition of the “Content-Aware Feature” to the upcoming Photoshop CS5 is a potential ethical nightmare for photojournalists, photo editors, and photo buyers alike. The demo video done by Adobe Photoshop Project Manager John Nack indicates that photographers will be able to easily change content of a photo and break what the NPPA considers the lynchpin of our profession–ethics.
Dr. Bob Carey is President of the National Press Photographers Association (NPPA) and chair of the Department of Communication Studies at Gardner-Webb University.
Does this make sense? Photographers have always been able to ‘easily change the contents of a photograph’, right?
To crop something out of an image that changes the story is much more dishonest then getting rid of a bit of rubbish with a photoshop tool that doesn’t distort the story. That’s not to say I think you should photoshop things out of images, just that the weight of the sin as pronounced by many photojounalists bears no relation to the weight of the distortion as experienced by the viewer.
Ethics is not so much about how you change an image, but how you manipulate the way in which someone responds to that image.
At the end of the day ethics are down to individuals, not technology. Some people you can trust, some people you can’t. No change there then.
James Estrin nailed it,
It will be a boon for photographers who work in those areas of our profession that rely on retouching. It will also make it easier for those photojournalists who choose to cheat. But the problem isn’t the efficacy of the Content-Aware Fill feature. The problem is those photojournalists.
$10 says he’s not losing any sleep over this storm in a teacup.
Author — duckrabbit
duckrabbit is a production company formed by radio producer/journalist Benjamin Chesterton and photographer David White. We specialize in digital storytelling.
Discussion (8 Comments)
It’s no big deal really. Just a quicker way of doing something. This has been in cards for a while now. Kinda cool if you work as a graphic designer or as a commercial photographer.
Couldn’t agree more …
Nothing that couldn’t be done before- but there’s something intrinsically evil in the magical ease of its execution. Endless sin without toil…
If it can be done easier now then surely more people will do it? There was a time when people would say you can’t add pixels to an image, this new tool takes a step over that phrase.
Absolutely right Jonathan, and in many instances it won’t be a problem.
The whole argument around removing stuff is intellectually flawed and focus’ on the wrong thing. I can remove a piece of litter with my hand, before taking a shot. I can remove it afterwards with a tool. To the viewer what is the difference?
There’s lots of things that we can do but don’t for journalistic reasons. More possibility won’t change that, unless what is acceptable shifts (as you pointed out). I don’t think removing this will ever be acceptable in a journalistic sense, but then a lot of photos we see are staged.
Its an interesting discussion. THANKS for your input as ever.
I’m guilty (if that is the word, am I?) of removing rubbish from a scene, I wouldn’t do it in post because I want to stay aware of my environment that I’m shooting in, but that’s my philosophy. Many others wouldn’t and do then go do it digitally, I suppose I’m rallying against the laziness of some future photographers. I’m not really arguing against whether i photo is staged or not, every photo practically is.
The video rightly so showed simple examples, i’m worried by this tech being able to lower the barrier to manipulate impossible scenes, but its still amazing what you can do and would provoke me further to question an image, was it staged before PP or after? 😉 Love the Fred Ritchin quote.
…ref. staging and manipulation. I made the following comment last year in a discussion on ethics and manipulation and I’ll paste in here as it seems relevant:
“I’m currently reading Fred Ritchin’s “After Photography”, which by the way makes a brilliant and refreshing read. Ritchin is surprised at how up in arms we (and many publications) are regarding digital manipulation and at the same how we are prepared to accept that (often the very same) publications regularly publish photographs made at events which themselves have been entirely staged and manipulated…”
Spot on.