pochito
Active member
Agree absolutely
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).
PhotoLover
Well-known member
Hmm, well there is calling someone "dishonest" or calling their works "invalid" and there is preferring (which is where I do sit) that such editing be mentioned in many (but not all) contexts. I also note when the picture was taken in a zoo versus out in the field. However I'm not going to chastise someone from not disclosing; it ain't my picture ....
If I was selling a picture, I wouldn't feel the need to explain any of the creative decisions (from choice of subject, to noise reduction used, cropping choices, etc) unless asked or if the image was supposed to be photojournalism.
But when I post on this forum, I personally like to note the use of the bigger post-processing weapons like the generative fill or generative erase. That's just me. And frankly it is partly selfish; if others do that I learn from them what came from the computer and what came from the camera and fieldcraft -- I always look at the metadata on shots I like, for example. Since I learn when other photographers disclose, obviously I should too, in case someone is interested in the path I took. Knowing more about the picture and its context helps me learn about both taking pictures and post-processing them.
And yeah, I still don't see painting the same as some genres of photography, but I concede that is personal bias.
I have used it and am very impressed. I used to only go in to PS occasionally before because it was a bit of a hassle but I’m really finding this very useful
MarkB
Member
Here are the guidelines from the Photographic Society of America, they are pretty restrictive and would generally prohibit generative erase in nature photographs. https://cdn.ymaws.com/psa-photo.org/resource/resmgr/pdf/divisions/nd/nd-judging-guide.pdf
Has anyone noticed a slowdown in editing since downloading the new version of Lightroom? My pc is certainly working more slowly
I’ve not noticed a difference. I use an M1 MacBook Pro 64Gb.
Thanks. Yes I also have a MacBook Pro M1
Those rules would not allow even old fashioned cloning:
No modification that changes the truth of a Nature image is allowed. Images may be
cropped but no other technique that removes, adds or moves any part of the image is
allowed.
FWIW, I find these captioning guidelines useful. They don't tell you what to do or not to do but do ask you to be clear about images that have much alteration, or images of captive animals, etc: https://nanpa.org/wp-content/upload...th-in-Captioning-Statement-Revised-3-2018.pdf
I don't follow that to the letter, for instance if I shoot images of wild birds near feeders I don't always label them as 'baited' but some folks might.
Like all discussions that touch on ethics there will be a range of opinions, some strongly held but I do agree with the basic premise that the viewing public assumes nature and wildlife images were close to what's shown. When I do things like image composites (e.g. tracked star shots combined with static foreground images) or when I've shot captive animals at rehab centers I do try to declare what's been done or what the situation is when it's anything other than wild subjects presented much as they were seen in the field with the normal photography adjustments to: color, exposure, contrast, dodging and burning, cropping and the like but if major subjects have been added to the scene or something like a background has been swapped in I personally think the photo should be captioned to reflect that. YMMV...
Also FWIW, I personally don't balk at digitally removing a blade of grass or stick and unless it completely changes the image I wouldn't necessarily point that out unless discussing processing techniques with other photographers but again folks will feel differently about that kind of stuff.
I don't follow that to the letter, for instance if I shoot images of wild birds near feeders I don't always label them as 'baited' but some folks might.
Like all discussions that touch on ethics there will be a range of opinions, some strongly held but I do agree with the basic premise that the viewing public assumes nature and wildlife images were close to what's shown. When I do things like image composites (e.g. tracked star shots combined with static foreground images) or when I've shot captive animals at rehab centers I do try to declare what's been done or what the situation is when it's anything other than wild subjects presented much as they were seen in the field with the normal photography adjustments to: color, exposure, contrast, dodging and burning, cropping and the like but if major subjects have been added to the scene or something like a background has been swapped in I personally think the photo should be captioned to reflect that. YMMV...
Also FWIW, I personally don't balk at digitally removing a blade of grass or stick and unless it completely changes the image I wouldn't necessarily point that out unless discussing processing techniques with other photographers but again folks will feel differently about that kind of stuff.
pochito
Active member
IMHO there are many good points in this paper but in the case of editing this is valid only for participants and judges in their CONTESTS.
Competition is only a by-product of Photography.
The PSA defines what they understand that Nature is (for their purposes).
It is their right but if you do not participate in their events, why care? That's just a name.
Just my two cents.
MarkB
Member
Agreed that the rules are somewhat on the extreme side for purposes of their contests, to keep a level playing field and promote honestly and ethics with respect to nature photography. I believe also that nature photography and photojournalism are not that different in what they attempt to accomplish, the showing of world truths. If I'm entering such contests I attempt to abide by their rules, but if I'm creating an image for myself or social media I typically apply more processing, but only in attempts to enhance the scene, not change the scene. For example, I might remove an ear tag on a bear or a sign in front of a Yellowstone geyser.
macwalter
Active member
I have tried it and found it to be a significant improvement over previous tools in LR but nowhere as good as PS. I find it struggles with objects that go to the edge of the frame and overall it’s much slower. I love PS and use it most of the time with this tool,generative fill and the regular tools that have been around for years. I also prefer ACR to LR for many edits esp things like the blur tool. In LR it doesn’t work as well a noticeable difference. Looking at the photo with the branches, you could do much of it easily enough but things like feet and toes,claws etc. all these tool struggle with. I tend to avoid having to remove objects from these areas. Also eyes. Generative fill will often do a better job matching things like feather detail than the remove tool. If that was the only photo I had of those birds I wouldn’t hesitate to give it a go.
PSA is an excellent organization, but their position is an outlier that is only applicable to contests and PSA activities - not photography in general. NANPA looked at the PSA guidelines and rejected the guidelines for NANPA competitions while maintaining a similar approach to editing images for competitions. There are plenty of other groups that expect the photographer to make the best artistic image they can with whatever tools are available. The area in between is complicated with a wide range of rules or interpretations.
PPA has taken both sides of this discussion. 10 years ago PPA expected that a professional photographer would deliver to their client professional quality work which is the best image possible. If that meant compositing, cloning, editing, replacing, or other editing - it was expected and required. For example, with team photos you frequently have to add one or more people who were missing from the group shot. More recently they have pulled back and don't allow AI based manipulation or additions across the board. There are some areas where AI tools are important - such as photo retouching.
The fine art photographer should define their own rules and do whatever they want to make an interesting or artistic image. Documentary photographers have different standards where no manipulation is allowed. And the rest of photographers will fall somewhere in the middle with everyone choosing their own path or standards.
I expect that the industry efforts to make it easier to embed required disclosures will take time to mature, but will provide a way to describe in general terms the editing and manipulation that was made.
Back to the original topic - this is a great new tool in Lightroom Classic, and a good example of what Adobe can do with AI. I often have small leaves or sticks blocking the subject in a photo, and it would be nice to have a good way to clean them up without taking excessive amounts of time. Sometimes an image is good, but not worth the effort it would take without AI tools to clone and clean up distractions. With these new tools, it's a lot easier to produce high quality images for sharing on social media or other uses.
So.... Meta (Facebook and Instagram) is rolling out a "Made with AI" labeling for all images using Adobe Generative Fill. In the ad world, that label has a stigma, and I got emails from my agencies to stop using that tool. No word yet on Generative Erase, which is essentially the same tool, so I'm back to old-fashioned cloning. 
Interesting - thanks for the update.So.... Meta (Facebook and Instagram) is rolling out a "Made with AI" labeling for all images using Adobe Generative Fill. In the ad world, that label has a stigma, and I got emails from my agencies to stop using that tool. No word yet on Generative Erase, which is essentially the same tool, so I'm back to old-fashioned cloning.
I've got a client that is a political candidate. I have not used any AI tools yet, but it sounds like I should make sure to avoid any of those kinds of edits in the future. The last thing a politician wants is the negative connotation that goes with a "Made with AI" label.
I had to laugh today. I finally got around to updating LRC and tried to new Generative AI. I painted over a duck, expecting it to fill in with something resembling the background, and one of the three choices replaced the duck with a gull! Not what you are looking for when you want to REMOVE! Pretty funny, though.
Remove works wonders.
For the fun of it. We took a picture in studio of siblings standing next to each other very closely. Then used the AI erase to removed one kid at a time… ridiculous lol…
For the fun of it. We took a picture in studio of siblings standing next to each other very closely. Then used the AI erase to removed one kid at a time… ridiculous lol…
PSA and FIAP has very similar rules for their Salons. Both Societies also have similar restrictions with object removal/relocation/insertion in images entered for Photojournalism and Photo Travel, which like nature are the reality genres.
Images, in general, are not to be enhanced beyond what was captured in the original exposure and should should only be subject to Post Processing suficient to restore the as captured image and remove dust, flare and other camera induced faults and should not be embellished beyond this. The rules are clearly laid out and are consistent and easy to comply with.
Other "open" topics do not have the removal/relocation/insertion clauses but have restrictions on Ai, and how computer programmes (apps) can be used within with images, which must have been taken by the author. The rules provide a standard that all have to work to providing a level playing field as a basis for entrants and for judges to assess the submitted entries.
John Navitsky
Well-known member
unfortunately they are not (yet?) preserving Content Credentials which is available today and provides a way to track the provenance of an image or video and would be a superset of functionality vs just indicating if ai was used.So.... Meta (Facebook and Instagram) is rolling out a "Made with AI" labeling for all images using Adobe Generative Fill. In the ad world, that label has a stigma, and I got emails from my agencies to stop using that tool. No word yet on Generative Erase, which is essentially the same tool, so I'm back to old-fashioned cloning.
On the "trust" level, personally, Meta is as low as it gets. I don't think it's a coincidence that a few days later they alerted Insta users that they are now using posted images and video to train their models and it's near impossible to opt out.
MarkB
Member
Its certainly debatable and their is a great range of opinions. For me the primary question is when is a photo manipulated so much that it ceases to be a photo? Some would say never, but for me if it does not reflect what the photographer saw then it ceases to be a photo.