Looks pretty cool:
I haven't updated yet, but thought people might be interested
I haven't updated yet, but thought people might be interested
New Generative Erase in Lightroom
- Thread starter Woodyg3
- Start date
If you would like to post, you'll need to register. Note that if you have a BCG store account, you'll need a new, separate account here (we keep the two sites separate for security purposes).
Two shots taken in sequence using the new Ai correction to remove the blades of grass on the adult fox. Screen shot. Did a pretty good job of it. I did not correct it in any way after the Ai correction although I would if I were going to use it.
Just tried it. Works amazingly well.
Very interesting. Fact-I have but have never used Lightroom, I have not even opened it to take a look, yet.
You use ACR, if I recall. Same thing mostly as the LR develop module.
Last edited:
ACR and LrC use the exact same processing engine and tools. After that, though, there are many differences and many advantages to using LrC as a primary processing and management program. LrC is like having seven software programs all in one, you can process (Develop Module), manage (Library Module), print (Print Module), create books (Book Module), slideshows (Slideshow Module), create websites (Web Module) and map out where you took images (Map Module). I use all but the Map and Web modules often, I've created many slideshows for presentations and over 20+ coffeetable-size books. So, you can do a lot more with LrC than with some other programs.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
Yes, I like this feature already. This is a shot where I liked the composition, but there was a branch (which I didn't see at that time, not that I had good options to get around it) running vertically in front of the Snowy Egret's eye. The generative erase did a fine job getting rid of that branch. I'll probably play more with this image, but the branch removal was easy and quick.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
I've already played with it. Very impressive. I remember the days of having to painstakingly do a selection in PS and it would often do a mediocre job of content filling.
If we erase a distraction, we enhance a real image. All good. But the insertion of something not there is a different ball game and should be disclosed and restricted to venues that cater to such. Just my two cents.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
I think you are correct, viewing it as a better (maybe a lot better) content aware fill makes sense. I was impressed by how easy it was to fix the branch in my picture.
No pixels are harmed in the creation of the filled images. No need for restrictions in any case except for the ethics of those that seek to decieve, though I think labeling ai would be good. Even for this, lightroom has to invent the missing content. It's not there in the image underneath the removed branches.
Last edited:
PhotoLover
Well-known member
I agree; here is the original (slight differences in masking and sharpening):
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
So clearly I'm not really .. changing the image ... just removing an annoyance. But it still feels somewhat wrong to me
Though I had no realistic way of avoiding that branch at the time (in fact, I didn't notice it) because I couldn't really move much and the bird wouldn't move its head while all fluffed up.
I have started trying when I post an image here to note stuff like this; for example, suppose I have a BIF that was too forward in the frame; if the background allows, I'll let PS extend it for me and recrop for a better composition. I feel less bad about this, if for no other reason than if I had the same lens on a FF versus crop sensor body, I'd probably have had room to crop like I wanted without using fill in PS. Same with some of the lens blur technology ... if I just had an F/4 lens ...
I don't know what contest rules generally state about these type of changes, regardless I'd feel very conflicted about submitting something with such edits.
100% supporting your approach. I do the same in almost all finished work. The tool is more effective at removing model's skin blemishes than any technique I've ever mastered in PS.I agree; here is the original (slight differences in masking and sharpening):
View attachment 89748
So clearly I'm not really .. changing the image ... just removing an annoyance. But it still feels somewhat wrong to me
Though I had no realistic way of avoiding that branch at the time (in fact, I didn't notice it) because I couldn't really move much and the bird wouldn't move its head while all fluffed up.
I have started trying when I post an image here to note stuff like this; for example, suppose I have a BIF that was too forward in the frame; if the background allows, I'll let PS extend it for me and recrop for a better composition. I feel less bad about this, if for no other reason than if I had the same lens on a FF versus crop sensor body, I'd probably have had room to crop like I wanted without using fill in PS. Same with some of the lens blur technology ... if I just had an F/4 lens ...
I don't know what contest rules generally state about these type of changes, regardless I'd feel very conflicted about submitting something with such edits.
But from a technical point of view, LR isn't removing anything, it is adding a layer containing a new image possibly using digested photos of others that it deems to mask the branch.
Splitting hairs, but from AI "ethical" and legal perspective, an unresolved can of warms.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
I am all for this. Note that erasing a distraction is still replacing it with something that wasn't there before. And that last example in the video even extended the branch, a part of a tree that was not in the original image. But neither example is any kind of deception. Wildlife and landscape fine-art photography is not photojournalism and IMO, is not bound by the same criteria of telling a truth, retaining an entire reality. The target audience will not know, nor care.
A watercolor painter would not have a problem including an entire bird wing without the branch obscuring it, or extend a stone wall to reach the edge of the canvas. The painter would also not include a porta-potty or orange traffic cones in the background; but to some folk, adjusting any of those things are somehow dishonest in photography. I don't get that, but I don't have to.
Chris
A watercolor painter would not have a problem including an entire bird wing without the branch obscuring it, or extend a stone wall to reach the edge of the canvas. The painter would also not include a porta-potty or orange traffic cones in the background; but to some folk, adjusting any of those things are somehow dishonest in photography. I don't get that, but I don't have to.
Chris
Last edited:
pochito
Active member
I agree. I don't understand why making a picture better should be "wrong" or "dishonest".
Here's a photo where I'd be tempted to try it. The image has other challenges (midday light, etc) but I was sorry the stick was in the way. Actually lots of sticks. They presented focus challenges as well.
I'm still a NX Studio user until I get a new computer. But once I make the switch, I'll try it on an image like this for fun to see what it can do.
I'm still a NX Studio user until I get a new computer. But once I make the switch, I'll try it on an image like this for fun to see what it can do.
You can only see EXIF info for this image if you are logged in.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
It's certainly not dishonest if you state what you did. Neither is it wrong in that situation -- you explained what happened, someone can grouse -- or not -- at your choices.
On the other hand, take the picture I posted; it's nothing special but suppose it actually was a really good image without the branch. I fixed the branch. But the guy or girl that spent six hours (or six days) at a site and got a similar really good image without resorting to digital magic might feel like I was sorta cheating and took a short cut; they used time, I used LR.
On the third hand
, as I mentioned above, sometimes I've made changes that more or less match what would happened if I had better equipment. The noise reduction techniques (which are less controversial to most people) fall into that category; I don't have one of the $15k f/4 or faster big primes. Nor do I have a FF body right now.I've also got a small number of shots where something like Topaz sharpen AI turned a focus miss (e.g. macro type stuff on a live insect ... I don't feel shame in missing focus on some of those shots) into a pretty decent image. Again, if you disclose, that's fine by my book.
Last but not least, many of the little nuances -- like sharpening and such only on the subject -- clearly enhance the image and are less debated.
Much of this is a grey area I think. I personally like to take the pulse of other photographers and see what they believe.
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
Why must the photographer state what they excluded, while the painter doesn't have to make any such disclosures of what they did not include in the final work?
Chris
The great debate in photography, ongoing since the inception of it and based on how photography was viewed initially. AA did not have any problem removing something that needed to be removed, such as the high school letters on a hill for one of his very well-known and often-sold photographs. Photographers have always manipulated images in one way or another, this is not new to digital photography. If you are shooting for art images, anything goes. If you are shooting for a contest, shoot for that contest's specific guidelines. If you are a journalist or documentarian don't take out a pole or trashcan since your goal is to take the shot as it is. So, it depends on how you view the photographs you take. Also, this is probably a discussion for a different thread.
Too funny, we were posting almost the same thing at the same time...
In been playing with it for the past three days. Seems to work well most of the time, but I’ve found a few times when it didn’t. Also, I get an error message when attempting to use it on raw images from a Zfc. Could be pilot error, though.
PhotoLover
Well-known member
We might be going into the weeds, but interestingly, I view painting and photography quite differently on this point. I've always considered a painting as being "whatever the artist wanted to put in the image," while I've always viewed photography as working around/with the real world to get a desired image. I don't think I'm the only person with a bias to think that way, however incorrect it might be.
Though I grant you, the notion of a picture as reality recedes more and more into the mists of time as digital post-processing gets better and better.
(Yes I know darkroom magic in the film world has been around forever, but current and forthcoming digital manipulation capabilities are at an entirely different level of capability and ease of use).
Not A Speck Of Cereal
Well-known member
That's a fine personal credo to have, and of course anybody with those beliefs should be able to give that opinion in respect to their personal work. Where I draw the like is in openly judging others, telling them they're doing something dishonest, calling their photographic works invalid, etc.
As with most things, there's a spectrum. In the area of wildlife photography, it would be ridiculous to accept an image with a completely or mostly manufactured creature (either drawn digitally or generated by AI), because part of the process of this art medium is 'capture'. In the other corner is the purist, who would hardly even dodge/burn in a darkroom., insists that it is only capture, nothing else, not even removing a distraction in the background. Then there's the rest of us in the middle.
Obviously, painting is hand created imagery in it's entirely. But it would very easy to impose similar rules there, require they accurately paint only what the eyes see (no adding or subtracting). Because that's exactly what the purists are doing in photography. And painting is not restricted to a single process: many fine works are mixed media, or in the case of printmaking, multiple-plates pressed into a single print (see Salvador Dali for those that need an example)—this compares well to composites in photographic post-processing.
Photography and painting are both canvas art, regardless of the canvas material.
And both have areas of representation of truth, such as photojournalism and courtroom sketch artist professional.
Chris
Another example of using the tool in LrC, in the past I've had to go to PS to do this. Screen shot from LrC.
