Watch the whole thing to see some really cool possibilities.
-
Categories
-
More Feeds
-
External Links
-
Archives
- December 2008
- November 2008
- October 2008
- September 2008
- August 2008
- July 2008
- June 2008
- May 2008
- April 2008
- March 2008
- February 2008
- January 2008
- December 2007
- November 2007
- October 2007
- September 2007
- August 2007
- July 2007
- June 2007
- May 2007
- April 2007
- March 2007
- February 2007
- January 2007
- December 2006
- November 2006
- October 2006
- September 2006
- August 2006
- July 2006
- June 2006
- May 2006
- April 2006
- March 2006
- February 2006
- January 2006
- December 2005
- November 2005
- October 2005
- September 2005
- August 2005
- July 2005
- June 2005
- May 2005
- April 2005
- March 2005
- February 2005
- January 2005
- December 2004
- November 2004
- October 2004
- September 2004
- August 2004
8 Comments
the removing people angle at the end is kinda cool/creepy, but their initial examples of altering nature are definitely just as bad to me as squashing someone’s face up. i don’t really see a difference there, between mushing nature’s perspective vs. mushing someone’s face…especially having been to some of the locations they show.
I thought vector graphics was in place to solve the flexibility restraints of on non-image tiled designs; probably hasn’t caught steam since IE doesn’t completely supported SVG.
I agree with Nathan, I saw this a week or two ago on TechCrunch when he was asking for this functionality in Photoshop. I didn’t get the benefit of smashing pictures then and I still don’t, even if Adobe hired the guy.
It would be cool for that average user who doesn’t care about integrity in their photos and/or doesn’t know how to just use the tools already provided in PS or iPhoto or whatever.
I think the difference there is that there are lots of situations where you (the designer) might be OK with the nature shots being altered, whereas it’s almost never OK to do that with faces because they just won’t look right.
Of course, if the intent of the photos is to give a completely accurate picture of the scenery, you wouldn’t want it to be altered, but there are probably a lot of times where that isn’t the case.
why would you have a photo if you didn’t want to accurately represent what the photo is of? that’s the whole point of a photo!
Depends on the intent of the artist / designer. Sometimes someone may just want a generic picture of *a* beach (as opposed to a specific one), in which case it doesn’t matter if it isn’t accurate as long as it still looks realistic, which is the point of this technique.
Even for representing a specific place, some people may be OK with eliminating the least important parts while preserving most of what makes the image unique, for the purpose of altering the proportions of the image to better fit the layout.
I take it you wouldn’t be interested in using this technique for photos, but I imagine lots of other people will, and that doesn’t necessarily make them “wrong”, does it?
Why am I always being moderated?
Re: the moderation - I’m not sure, but one difference I did see between your comment that didn’t get moderated and the one that did is you used a bogus e-mail address in the first one. Looks like the same thing we talked about before.
Vector graphics are a whole different situation; this technology is meant for pixel based images like photos, which you’re not going to use vector to display.
For the other points, see my follow-up comments above addressing the utility of this technique for photos being used in all sorts of contexts. Sure, it’s not something you’d want on every image, but it could come in handy in some cases.
Fancy effects have long been a part of artistic photography, but doing this with journalistic photographs is crack. Yes, very evil!