Copy link to clipboard
Copied
The recommended order for applying edits is:
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
@waltoncreative: "There are a lot of times when it generates extra grain that wasn't there in the original. Maybe this is to do with working on the ENR version? It is as if the new patch uses the grain from the original image?"
It's not accessing the undenoised image. But there have been a number of examples here where it doesn't quite match the texture of the background replacement. Try including a much larger amount of background around the object being removed -- that often works for me to get better background matches. If that doesn't help, upload the DNG to Dropbox, Google Drive, or similar, and post the sharing link here.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I have a question...my understanding was that denoise should be one of the first steps in the workflow before diving into other adjustments...is that still ture?...should denoise be used before ai replace, or visa versa now?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
The preferred order as recommended by Adobe is: Denoise - Heal (Including Gen Remove)- Crop/Edit - AI Selective edits.
The recommendation can be found in the last but one post by Rikk Flohr on this page https://community.adobe.com/t5/lightroom-classic-discussions/p-new-ai-powered-generative-remove-earl...
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
want to start with LOVE this addition, this is the first time i am seeing this i'm Trying to remove a lump post and it's doing the job of removing the post but it seems to be leaving dark mark where the brush has been
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
[This post contains formatting and embedded images that don't appear in email. View the post in your Web browser.]
@okphotography: it's doing the job of removing the post but it seems to be leaving dark mark where the brush has been"
I've seen that sometimes too. I've found that if you include much more of the background in the selection, it often does a better job of matching the replacement:
Note to others: The darker shadow is the shape of the selection, not the exact shape of the pole, and it occurs on the screenshot, so this is not being caused by a previously applied Sky mask that needs updating.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
@heidid99034767: "an example where the generated fill from a truck going by is quite believable...except that it removed a recognizable bridge in the background. "
Can you attach a full-resolution JPEG corresponding to the original photo for the attachment AI1.PNG? There's no truck on the bridge in AI2.PNG.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Lightroom develop sliders ae sticky and do not return to the
original
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
[This post contains formatting and embedded images that don't appear in email. View the post in your Web browser.]
@belcamp george: "Lightroom develop sliders ae sticky and do not return to the
original"
If you're referring to the sliders in the Masking panel, click the option Reset Sliders Automatically:
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Well that was weird. it removed a person but replaced her with a totatally random other person
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
@louloubell: "it removed a person but replaced her with a totatally random other person"
See this article for how to more reliably remove objects:
https://www.lightroomqueen.com/generative-remove-replace/
Most complaints about Remove are addressed in the article. But if it doesn't help, please attach the original photo here (not an export) so we and Adobe can see the issue in detail. If the forum won't let you attach it, upload it to Dropbox, Google Drive, or similar and post the sharing link here.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
So far so good. It's pretty good this new feature, I just wish it was instantaneous. Do I need more computing power for this?
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
@Carnegius: "Do I need more computing power for this?"
No, Generative AI Remove is computed on Adobe's servers in the cloud, so it takes about the same amount of time for everyone.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Tried to remove a simple water bottle from a plain background using both the remove and heal tools. Tried multiple different refreshes. Nothing worked. Finally a clone took care of it. Five more minutes of pfaffing around. Haven't been impressed to date.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
@smcyyc: "Tried to remove a simple water bottle from a plain background using both the remove and heal tools. "
See this article for how to more reliably remove objects:
https://www.lightroomqueen.com/generative-remove-replace/
Most complaints about Remove are addressed in the article. But if it doesn't help, please attach the original photo here (not an export) so we and Adobe can see the issue in detail. If the forum won't let you attach it, upload it to Dropbox, Google Drive, or similar and post the sharing link here.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Lightroom Develope Visualize Spots function does not perform in the same way as in ACR (Which I prefer)
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
There is a workflow issue with this tool.
Lets say you use gen fil, and then move to a new image. You chose to use the heal tool, but decide you need to try remove it will automatically start the gen fill process. If you click cancel its take you back to the heal too. What about if I want to try plain old remove? I have to click on the remove tool and try to click the Gen Fill check box before the progress dialog box appears!
holding control whilst selcting remove removes your selection.
Surely a better paradigm is to separate the selection part of the process (including the new object aware option), and then have a three-way choice - heal/remove/gen fill. It is very clunky at the mo.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
This is a great Feature for restoring old photographs that I'm doing for a researcher, and also removeing objects in Photographs I took on a trip... truely amazing. I even removed cars, parking lot, and Motel cabins in a Momumeny Valley Photograph to get a shot of the way it was before it was developed... did a fantastic job... took 10 seconds. Takes a little getting use to of what to select but your guidance I discovered after the fact is right on. Sometimes I have to do it in two stages.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Great that you found the information provided in the thread was useful.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I think it's worth making it easy for people to flag if generative AI has been used to create parts of the photo. Either for their own editing/photo/catalog management, or if they want to be transparent about generative AI use as they use/share/publish the image.
I don't know if that's keywording, like you can specify with Enhance; a separate type of flag; a separate filter/Smart Collection selection option; or what. Just... something. Nothing forced, just an option.
You can already create a Smart Collection/filter that looks for something with any AI-based removal. Maybe just add Generative Remove as a separate option there. While it's billed as another removal tool, it really is different in the ability to create a full-on replacement with something entirely new in a way the others don't.
(It is in the file if you save metadata to file and truly dig for it—run exiftool on the file to find "Retouch Area Fill method : firefly".)
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Adobe are rolling out a technology called 'Content Credentials'. It's currently in many of the products utlising FireFly. Lightroom Desktop and Adobe Camera Raw currently include Content Credentials as a Technology Preview but not yet Lightroom Classic. I expect that it will probably be incorporated into Lightroom Classic at some point in the future. More details on Content Credentials can be found at https://helpx.adobe.com/uk/creative-cloud/help/content-credentials.html#:~:text=Adobe's%20Content%20...
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Ah, sweet. I will dig in on this on that page and in LrD. Thanks.
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
Just my opinion...I feel like the 'band wagon' is to disclose everything that is remotly modified by ai, as though the ai tool is somehow unethical, unreasonable, unprofessional, or just 'un' whatever. Photographers have been using tools for eons to edit their images; dodge, burn, crop, de-spot, colorize, increase/decrease contrast, on and on and on...all of these tools were modifying the image to create what the artist wanted. There are a few hard-core photographers that live by the rule, 'a real photographer uses what was captured in the camera...un altered, and even go so far in the film-days of saying the sprokets and text on the sprokets was technically part of the image. AI is an advanced tool that gives the artist greater ability to create the art they want...we don't tell a painter, 'if you remove an element of a scene you paint you should disclose it'...it's their vision, it's their art.
Virtually every camera uses some form of AI...we have not started calling it AI until recently...but what is an auto exposure mode, or scene mode, or black and white mode, etc?...it's a tool that uses some form of computing power in the camera to change the image in a way the artist wants to capture it...so should we disclose that? In fact, isn't all photo-editing software tools a form of AI?...desnoising, cloning, healing, film looks,....the moment the image hits the editing software it's being artifically enhanced by some form of artificial intelligence. So no, I'm not a huge fan of companies forcing, transparently or secretly, imbedding "AI Enhanced" tags into my files. But, I also 100% accept that other's may not agree with me. 🙂 ~paul
...and just for fun here is my human-written comment from above, but ran through chatgpt 🙂
In my opinion, the current trend to disclose any image modifications made by AI seems to imply that using AI tools is somehow unethical, unreasonable, or unprofessional. For centuries, photographers have utilized a range of editing techniques—dodging, burning, cropping, de-spotting, colorizing, adjusting contrast, and more—to achieve their artistic vision. These tools have always been employed to modify images to match the artist's intent. A small number of purist photographers argue that a "real photographer" uses only what is captured in the camera, without any alterations. Some even claimed that in the days of film, the sprockets and text on the film edges were part of the image. However, AI represents an advanced tool that enhances the artist's ability to create their desired art. We do not require painters to disclose if they remove elements from a scene in their paintings—it is their vision and their art.
Nearly every modern camera incorporates some form of AI, though we have only recently begun to label it as such. Features like auto exposure mode, scene mode, and black and white mode are tools that utilize computational power to adjust the image according to the artist's preferences. Should we be disclosing these adjustments as well? In reality, isn't all photo-editing software essentially a form of AI? Techniques such as denoising, cloning, healing, and applying film looks involve some level of artificial enhancement from the moment the image enters the editing software. Therefore, I am not in favor of companies mandating the inclusion of "AI Enhanced" tags on my files, whether transparently or secretly. Nonetheless, I fully respect that others may hold different opinions on this matter.
~ Paul
Copy link to clipboard
Copied
I agree that it's an interesting space full of questions—and as you say, one that is not new, at all! For me, it's about the borders of what's editing vs. what's creation, I think. My general feeling on a distinction—that we now have in Lightroom—is that all the tools you describe can't do something on the level of, say, creating an entirely new person to replace someone else.
I think whether you're using AI or not, that goes beyond the heavy editing that's currently possible/done. (Though, then that raises the question of simple removal... is that different from creation, depending on how you're doing it/what's being done?)
As I originally envisioned, though, it wouldn't be forced—just a better way of tagging it/filtering/etc if you wanted to. I have to explore the Content Credentials feature that @Ian Lyons described above, but that looks optional at first glance, too.
I think automatically applying a flag no matter what is another, much much larger discussion! For me, right now, it's a question with lots of nuance to still navigate. Questions of what "should" be disclosed/in what circumstances, or maybe even what you might want to disclose as a photographer/artist, and more. Appreciate the thoughtful points you raised, @HardShadows .