I did link "content-aware image resizing" the other day (in the post "Around the Web Today," paragraph 7, that begins "Antonio D. is right..."), but it was too subtle, and escaped the notice of some readers, because I awoke this morning to find no fewer than nine emails tipping me off about it, adding to the three or four per day I've gotten over the past few days. Although naturally I thank all those people for their kindness in sending me tips, I don't want to continue wasting their time. So I guess I should say that yes, I've seen it.
Ctein chimed in about it in the comments:
I love it!
It comes from nearly forty years of seeing my pictorial photos flopped, cropped and overwritten with effin' type fergodsakes, with no respect whatsoever given to the content or aesthetics. And this by the editors of photography magazines who are ostensibly giving service to photographs as entities of inherent worth. My photos, though? Nothing but 'design' elements, to be disrespectfully massacred as suits the whim of layout.
At least this tool will let them do it with some semblance of visual and compositional quality.
I'm sure he excepts me from the list of editors who did that to his photos. My policy when I was editing Photo Techniques was to try to run pictorial photos straight, although it's true that we overwrote blurbs on cover photographs, including Ctein's. (That bet was off when it came to pure technical illustrations.) I'm not sure I'd want some researcher poring over my old magazines to see if I truly did what I'm claiming I did, but I tried.
But anyway, I don't love this "content-aware image resizing" crap. I'll spare you the belaboring, since we just recently flogged a similar subject to within the proverbial inch of its life, but to me this is a form of auto-fakery that will further erode whatever integrity photographs still possess. I'm not saying it's wrong, just that it's wrong for me given my philosophy of what photography's all about, and I won't say it's bad, just that it's bad in terms of the principles I try to abide by when I picture the world as a photographer. Upshot: it's humbug, in my opinion. Bah.
Okay, now, thanks for all the emails about this technology, but that's all I have to say about it for now.
P.S Longtime readers will recall that I used to refer to myself as a C.I.T., or "curmudgeon in training." I'd say I've graduated to being a bona fide curmudgeon now, wouldn't you?