Valentine's Special: Remove Your Ex with Photoshop.next

Artificial intelligence: Good.
Your intelligence: Better.
The two together: Best.
To reduce instances of “Content-Aware Fail,” the Photoshop team has been working on ways to let you guide the Content-Aware Fill algorithm. Check out this two-minute preview:

16 thoughts on “Valentine's Special: Remove Your Ex with Photoshop.next

  1. I hope you won’t take offense if I maintain a very healthy skepticism about these sneak previews. Content Aware fill looked great when demoed with carefully cherry-picked image edits. In reality, its utility is limited to special-case edits and it never made it into my workflow.
    It just occurred to me that the subscription model for software really removes much of the incentive for the developer to enhance the product — at least in this case where Photoshop has no substantial competitor. For a good chunk of the market, Adobe has had to bait the hook with tempting new features to entice those reluctant to upgrade. I wonder what we’d see if upgrade license buyers become a marginal revenue base.

  2. Agreed. Content Aware is like the holy grail of photoshoppers; an easy way to remove stuff magically. This is one holy grail that will have to see to believe. Adobe was pushing this awhile back and as we all know doesn’t work as well as they like to scream to everyone. Try doing the demo WITHOUT a relatively clear background of uniform color. Adobe should stop treating this like its some kind of panacea instead of what it really is: an axillary tool that SOMETIMES works in CERTAIN circumstances. Sorry Adobe we aren’t that stupid and naive to think you guys suddenly have it figured out like cold fusion. I am however curious if they did improve it somewhat or they are just trying to pull a quick one on us 😉

  3. Anyone else find the psuedo-theme aka different color background ui ugly as hell? Yeah i know you can switch back to the default grey but ugh…the black bg (which looks like elements without the colorful icons) off putting. Probably adobes response to some users actually asking for this. Sadly unlike lightroom which actually works with the black bg; I find it kind of ugly and out of place in the new ps, hard to see the icons and interface. The icons are greyish against a black bg and do not contrast well. Thank god adobe kept the option to keep default.
    Does anyone actually prefer it? just curious
    PS. Adobe stop blowing smoke up our asses with a Content Aware 2.0

  4. Yeah new content aware thats not technically aware and will have to adjust “tolerance” to get it to work somewhat. Is this technically content aware 2.5 with option we will have to tweak and shoulkd have been already present? Oh and let’s not forget deblur that doesn’t really work! Adobe king of new technologies that doesn’t quite work as they like to hype up

  5. @ 8bf – the thing with update tweaks like the interface colour or UI rejigs is that they seem a bit odd when you first encounter them. But the test is when you go back to the prior version and usually you realise the old way wasn’t so good after all.
    As for this particular tweak… as you can control the colour to suit your own preferences, how can anyone complain. Just set it light if that’s what you prefer or dark if that floats your boat.
    My preference is dark UIs with white background for images. And that’s how I set up Bridge, LR, Premiere, PS etc. And dark UIs usually look better in real life than they do in video captures.

  6. Yeah i realize its a matter of preference mainly. Still the black bg interface works better in lr,etc vs. ps where the icons don’t really contrast and it just seems ugly/forced like windows has high contrast themes that only the visually impaired would be forced to use.
    Anyways back to the topic at hand. Adobe should really stop hyping up technologies as features that are obviously not anywhere near perfected. Content Aware now better? Deblur doesn’t work as it should. Deblur will now take the adobe throne of flawed features to hype. Have no problem if these are added on a experimental trial in progress. But then adobe releases “magical” videos with people disappearing and blur magically fixed.
    Tried the beta and deblur does not work as advertised.

  7. yeah great.. but adobe is still unable to make an EXPAND function that does not feather the edges.
    i dont knwo how often i have written to adobe about this feature.
    i make a selection and want to expand that selection about 50 pixel to each side.
    it is not possible with TRANSFORM (only percentage possible but not pixel).
    it is not possible with EXPAND (because expand feathers the edges by default and there is no way to disable that).

  8. LOL Thanks for plugging your own site. Jesus yes i can use CA and can also do a web search if not.
    Have no problem with CA and deblur personally. I just hate when adobe puts up promotional videos and claims to pass these tools off as something new and revolutionary. Instead of being honest and saying these tools are far from perfect just to get people to buy the latest ps

  9. So then if you’re using all the right techniques to get the most out of it, why isn’t it working better for you? You seem pretty disparaging of it.
    Sure it’s not perfect and doesn’t always do what you want, but we use CAF here all the time and are frequently amazed at what it *can* do, saving hours per month.

  10. Stop shilling for adobe. Yeesh!
    I am disparaging when adobe tries to sell photoshop based on hype and getting users to upgrade based on so called revolutionary” new features
    Content aware is far from perfect
    Deblur is also not anywhere near what they advertise
    If they downplayed them as tools in progress which they are and stopped trying to wow us with controlled videos. Then again you work with adobe so….Let’s get feedback from someone not in their pocket

  11. That site is an adobe affiliate so this is either sad or funny depending on the mood 😉 Actually I’m prone to venture pathetic as the more fitting adjective.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.