Use (or not?) of AI Remove tool

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).

P

pkj

New member
Member's gallery
Steve/All,

Interested to hear perspectives on the merits of removing twigs/leaves etc in effort to improve photos. I think I have noticed Steve is not a fan!? Do people think this crosses the line where the photo is no longer a representation of 'something seen' but merely an AI generated, perfect representation of an animal. As you can tell I am ambivalent on this - as I am towards the use of "artificially beautiful perches" near feeding stations.

Recognise there will be different views on all this. What do you think?
 
Member's gallery
It doesn't bother me. If I have a beautifully composed and well lit photo of a bird I've been meaning to get a photo of but it happens to have a small twig in the background growing out of its head, I will remove it. Chances are I didn't notice the stick in the moment, and to leave it in the frame would ruin an otherwise good photo for me. With all that said, yes it's a photo of something seen. 99.9% of the frame is as shot except for that tiny tiny fraction that happens to be the most distracting. If I have a jumble of sticks behind/in front of the bird I won't bother because that was a bad photo to begin with. We all have our limits as to what we find acceptable.
 
Member's gallery
I routinely remove this type of thing. If I plan to enter an image in a competition I'll check their rules to see if removing a twig is a problem and make a determination based on their rules, otherwise it's my art, my way. My goal is to present the most beautiful image that I can.
 
Member's gallery
I will use it to make a bird photo cleaner with fewer distractions from the bird itself. If I were to enter a contest (I don't) I would have to disclose this, fine.
Is there a "slippery slope" aspect to this? Of course. But I don't think I venture very far down the slope.
 
Member's gallery
jeffnles1 said:
I don't have a problem if it is just removing a stick, a piece of trash or a person picking his nose in the background :)

If the photo is being used to enter a contest, check the rules.
Click to expand...
Ugh, and yes, I did have a shot of some deer in a field and a person in the background was picking their nose. Pretty funny. I posted the image on my FB account for a laugh. Fortunately, the image was kind of soft and not a great image. Once the fun factor was gone, I deleted the image. However, if it was a great image of some deer, I would gladly remove the "distraction".
 
You have to decide for yourself. It's your art and your own ethics. I think its fine personally unless the change is somehow deceiving. I don't think the Photoshop ai remove is always the best option though. Patch in content aware mode is my go to, sometimes supplemented by the healing tool in replace mode or the clone tool.
 
Member's gallery
It’s no more of a problem to me to remove a small distraction than to remove a blemish on a person’s skin on a portrait. The goal is to make a pleasing photo after all. After all, we have already distorted reality with our choice of perspective, lens, aperture, shutter speed etc. what’s a minor clone job (ai or otherwise)?
 
Member's gallery
TurtleCat said:
It’s no more of a problem to me to remove a small distraction than to remove a blemish on a person’s skin on a portrait. The goal is to make a pleasing photo after all. After all, we have already distorted reality with our choice of perspective, lens, aperture, shutter speed etc. what’s a minor clone job (ai or otherwise)?
Click to expand...
Love the way you think! :sneaky: (y)
 
There is a certain ethics to it, depending on what the viewer is expecting and the context. If it's misleading the viewer in a situation where they are expecting a straight rendering then it could be unethical. Even something like enhancing saturation or texture could be misleading. For example a birds plumage. If the viewer is expecting a more realistic image, for example for an ID shot, or something on Ebird or whatever. If it's for wall art then each person decides their own boundaries as to what is misleading. For art I enjoy making composites, moving objects around, removing things, even painting on the image. But I disclose that anything is possible, not trying to fool anyone.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top