P: Generative Remove Feedback (Lr Classic & Lr Eco)

[Rikk Flohr: Photography]

This post applies to Lightroom Classic and the Lightroom Ecosystem products.

Camera Raw feedback can be found here.

Generative Remove makes it easier to remove unwanted objects and distractions with a simple gesture, even on complex backgrounds. For more accurate results, be sure to include the object's shadow in your selection and/or expand its size. 

Detect Objects uses AI to find the objects underneath a brushed area. The masked areas will now appear larger than the Early Access version of this feature. You can also circle objects for quicker selection now. 

We have also updated the spot selection experience to make it easier to manage variations, switch the fill type, refine the selection area, or re-generate as needed. 

Batch updating is also now supported for Generative Remove spots. 

Try out the latest updates and share your feedback with us here. Please also include the following details in your post: 

• App version
• System details
• Example image(s) if you wish to share

Our team continually monitors this thread to track issues for future improvement. Thanks!

Lisa Ngo: Lightroom Product Manager

Posted by:

[dw24154351]

I've attempted to use the feature to remove people from group shots where people are the primary subject.

The process seems to generate weird looking people. Have tried the Remove and Healing tools.

The process doesn't seem to prioritise substituting the selection area for a part of the background, rather it opts for adding somebody that is potentially part of the group. Definitely not my intention - I don't need to add people.

[dw24154351]

LRC 14.0.1 on Sonoma 14.7.1

[John R Ellis]

@dw24154351: "I've attempted to use the feature to remove people from group shots where people are the primary subject. The process seems to generate weird looking people."

Airbrushing out a person from a group photo requires a little extra care. See this short help article for details:

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/generative-remove-replace/

See this post for a detailed example:

https://www.lightroomqueen.com/community/threads/removing-disconnected-objects-select-everything-the...

If this doesn't help, please attach a full-resolution JPEG exported from the unmodified original photo (not a screenshot), so we and Adobe can see the issue in detail. With nearly every one of the several dozen problem photos posted here, we've been able to show how to quickly remove the desired objects.

[Burnone2]

Worked well removing graffiti from cliff face in landscape image.

[DVDIO]

Tool overlay and icon gets on the way when visualizing the different variations of the remove tool. Needs a toggle to hide it so you can better see the final results.

[C.Cella]

Tool overlay and icon gets on the way when visualizing the different variations of the remove tool. Needs a toggle to hide it so you can better see the final results.

By @DVDIO

It's already doable.
See screenshot



Use "H" to hide or show the overaly...same KBSC also des it for masking.

.

[jillymc926]

I can't get anything to remove.  I'm obviously doing something wrong, but nothing seems to happen regardless of what I do.  Perhaps you could make things more obvious and/or intuitive.

[John R Ellis]

1. Uncheck Detect Objects (on by default in LR 14) -- it doesn't always work well, especially with skinny objects and along the edges of photos.

2. After clicking Remove, check that the Opacity slider is 100 -- LR infrequently changes it to something else.

3. See this short article for how to remove objects more reliably:
https://www.lightroomqueen.com/generative-remove-replace/

Most complaints about Remove are addressed in the article. But if it doesn't help, please attach a full-resolution JPEG exported from the unmodified original photo (not a screenshot), so we and Adobe can see the issue in detail. With nearly every one of the several dozen problem photos posted here, we've been able to show how to quickly remove the desired objects.

[jillymc926]

Thank you. The opacity thing solved my issue!
Jill


--
'Work like you don't need the money.
Love like you've never been hurt.
Dance like nobody's watching.'

[John R Ellis]

@jillymc926: "The opacity thing solved my issue!"

Good. There have been many reports of the opacity slider getting set to something other than 100 -- either LR is buggily changing it or the UI design is fooling too many people into changing it by accident.

[C.Cella]

Per Desing any new remove uses the last set Opacity in the preferences.

e.g

Set the Opacity for an existing Remove to 0
Crete new one

The new one will have Opacity at 0

The team has decided to remove the Opacity slider upon creation from the UI (the slider was there in LrC 13) so we can't immediately crete a Remove at 100% opacity.

I have been thinking about a plug-in taht notifies users at the Opacity is not at 100% BUT it would suffice to instead return that slider to the Ui as before,

Many users had problems due to this ill fated UI redesign.

The issue has been reported by me "in primis" nearly 6 months ago internally, but also publicly by other users: https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-discussions/p-remove-opacity-slider-has-changed-loc...

.

[John R Ellis]

@C.Cella: "Per Design any new remove uses the last set Opacity in the preferences."

That likely accounts for much of the confusion -- some users may have previously set Opacity and then don't notice the previous value is used. But I don't think it accounts for many or most of the reports here. How many people deliberately set Opacity to 0? Given the dozens of reports, I think there's a bug, perhaps in the upgrade process, that is setting Opacity to 0 in the preferences.

[C.Cella]

Given the dozens of reports, I think there's a bug, perhaps in the upgrade process, that is setting Opacity to 0 in the preferences.

By @John R Ellis

Very possible:

The preference is this one:

<key>AgDevelop_dustSpotOpacity</key>
  <real>1</real>

The minimum allowed value is 0.01
I suggested to always set it to 1 for any new Remove but even this suggestion never was considered.

.