Your darkroom is now a Google data center

[plugsnpixels]

The tentacles tighten...

"We think everyone should be able to make beautiful photos, so today we’re launching a set of initiatives aimed at improving your photos automatically — basically your camera, plus Google’s cloud."

[Wayland]

Over my dead body...

[Donald]

Perhaps not for us who inhabit a place such as this, but that sounds like an absolute business winner. There are many, many things that are launched and you wonder 'Why?', 'What?'. This makes amazing business sense. You can see how it's going to appeal to the millions of holiday snap-shooters who want to feel they can make (yes they will be feel that they are making it) a 'high quality', 'professional-looking' (the language of the launch pitch has been written by a very clever marketing person) digital album of their holiday/vacation, party, day out etc etc to send to all family, friends and work colleagues.

Google have, I think, got themselves a winner here. Just so long as they don't in any way tamper (unless to further improve) with the Nik bundle. 'Cause then I'd get very, very angry!

[pnodrog]

Over my dead body...

Depending on your Philosophy you may well be in a cloud at that stage. But I won't harp on about it.

There may well be some picture takers that will welcome such a service to make their photographs look better. Personally I will not be trying to avoid any bodies in an effort to use the service.

[Mike Buckley]

For decades, millions upon millions of film snapshots were improved by the automated adjustments that were made during the printing process. Google's Auto Enhance capability is no different in that regard. Thanks for the thread, as it reminds me that I forgot to tell a friend about this announcement, which I think she will find very appealing.

[rpcrowe]

If the many photos of our American Maltese Association rescue dogs shot by volunteers all over the USA are examples of the quality of photography produced by many (if not most) non-photo oriented people; then any help possible would be a positive note...

It "just may" make my life a little easier; since I am responsible for "improving" these images to the point in which we can post them on our website.

A sad personal note: When the only American Maltese Association Rescue photos posted online were my pictures; people used to say that they knew which dogs were our dogs by the quality of the images. This is no longer true since the images we post are from all over the USA.

Many people just use the images as they come out of the camera. If they are laying over on their side, so be it. If the white balance is skewed to one color or another, so be that also.

I seriously doubt that this Google service will elevate these images to "high quality - professional looking" standards. But, it may improve a lot of photos...

Speaking about doing the least possible post processing, I have a friend who was bemoaning that he lost his camera; with all the images he ever shot. He had never even downloaded several years worth of small JPEG (he was using the smallest file size so he could cram more into the camera) images to his computer. I asked him why he didn't download his images with any regularity. His answer was, "I don't know how!"

[terrib]

For those of us who do our own processing, we can go into settings and remove the default processing that Google does. I figured that out after a few of my pics were way oversaturated upon upload.

[plugsnpixels]

It's not the processing that's the problem, it's your photos becoming part of this "thing". For those not worried about privacy or rights, of course it's all good fun.

[revi]

It's not the processing that's the problem, it's your photos becoming part of this "thing". For those not worried about privacy or rights, of course it's all good fun.

And what exactly forces you to upload your images to their data center?

[jprzybyla]

I guess that is why I keep all my images stored on my own hardrives at home. I have read the licensing agreements for posting on most online sites. I do not like what I would agree to, it's not for me. By posting images you are agreeing to their terms.

[plugsnpixels]

Nobody forces you of course. If you CHOOSE to participate, you get what you deserve.

[terrib]

It's not the processing that's the problem, it's your photos becoming part of this "thing". For those not worried about privacy or rights, of course it's all good fun.

I'm sorry, the quote you put in your initial post alluded to the auto processing, not privacy rights. I don't think anything has really changed with the privacy. You still have all the same options you did before for allowing or not allowing resharing of your stuff and you can turn off many of these new features (I haven't checked every one of them) You can still upload small images to discourage unwanted usage. Or you can choose not to participate at all. Yeah, there's always been some risk (as we've hashed out several times before) but I don't see how this announcement has changed that risk.

[Mike Buckley]

Nobody forces you of course. If you CHOOSE to participate, you get what you deserve.

I infer from your comment that those who choose to participate deserve to suffer the consequences; that's my understanding of how the phrase, "you get what you deserve," when used in the context of this thread is generally used. I would feel a lot more comfortable with the thought that those who choose to participate will hopefully find the service to be a good fit with their needs.

[plugsnpixels]

Terri, true, it's always up to the uploader to be aware of their rights in regards to the TOS. And while not mentioned specifically in the article, that's an obvious part of this cloud service.

Mike, I agree, the target audience will love this. That type of person (the amateur photog) doesn't think deeply about these matters like pros do. Why else can I (for instance) go onto Facebook and see endless photos posted by people I don't even know? I do genealogical research for myself and have tracked down many distant cousins this way. But they have no idea I've done it or that I know a lot about them already (their names, where they work and went to school, who they're dating, what they and their kids and relatives look like, etc. etc.), never having made contact. That leak is simply rectified, but how many do it?

PS: While I enjoy Google searches (not logged in) and Street View (great for said genealogical research), I would not go near Google's online office apps.