Generative expand goes crazy on the beach

[Zott!!!]

Hi to all!
My name is antonio and i'm a journalist adn photographer working in the fashion and beauty area.

In this part of the year and a bit before i work a lot on the beach to realize advert campaign for beachwaer brands and editorial to be published on magazines.

My problem is that when i try to use generative expand every, every, every time there is a model wearing a swimsuite in the frame i can only get the orange dialog the read: pleae check guidelines for the use of this service (something about this, ok)

This is a nightmare, i cannot use to work this feature of PS that could help me a  lot; for example when i'm shooting from inside the sea walking in to the water i cannot change lens to my camera to avoid to drown it (tipicaly a pair camera plus lens worth abot 8000-9000 euros )  but when i try to expand the picture... the stop message get up.

Please how can avoid this ? 

[Stephen Marsh]

YMMV. I just downloaded various bikini girl beach scenes and had no issues whatsover, while many others like yourself have guidelines issues/false positives. The reason why I wanted to test but couldn't trigger a guideline warning, was that it has been reported that simply adding a coloured rectangle to cover the "offending" model on a new layer is enough to circumvent the guideline balking.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Beat me by that much! (2 seconds) 

[Stephen Marsh]

Beat me by that much! (2 seconds) 

By @c.pfaffenbichler

I obviously didn't spend as much time downloading those swimsuit shots as I should have! 😂

[Zott!!!]

Just added a video about a sample.
The main thing is that i don't want to find a way to goes around  guidelines when i respect them. 

I simply would like to work without problems postproducing a lot of images. that's all 🙂
Thjansk for your interest!

P.S. sorry for my poor english

[Stephen Marsh]

The main thing is that i don't want to find a way to goes around  guidelines when i respect them.

By @Zott!!!

You either agree that you are in violation or you disagree and work around the false positive.

Yes, it would be good if you didn't have to. Adobe are aware of the issue and you can also flag and provide feedback. There are numerous topics on the forum with unhappy users who are affected by similar issues..

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Please post at least one sample image, because talking about images one cannot see or test is obviously problematic. 

Have you tried adding a Layer and blacking out the person on that Layer before expanding? (And removing the Layer afterwards.) 

[Zott!!!]

Here you can see a screen capture of a sample using not a bikini but a more wide full body swimsuite

http://wtrmagazine.it/expandsample.mp4

Thanks!

[c.pfaffenbichler]

As expected … 

Edit: It would be easier if the person in the mage didn’t cross the canvas edge, then a rectangle might suffice. 

In this case assuring that the legs and the top of the head are properly taken into account might make it necessary to use a more elaborate mask. 

[Zott!!!]

Yes @c.pfaffenbichler i know this, but as i wrote before this way culd be useful for an amateur photographer that postproduce few images. Postproducing the full set of a catalogue or of an advert means that a day or more of work in needed and it is crazy to spend some days in the year working to avoid the point of view of the Adobe ai...
Tanks!

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Yes @c.pfaffenbichler i know this, 

I was not able to discern this from your original post. 

Edit: Your question »Please how can avoid this ?« seemed to indicate that you might be looking for a work-around.  

[Zott!!!]

Thansk for the advice.

To be more clear (i hope) my request is about a way to avoid problems that is not a workaround because as i told i work with images and i can't spend the time to use a workaround when i need to postproduce 200-300 images at one time...

[c.pfaffenbichler]

Thansk for the advice.

To be more clear (i hope) my request is about a way to avoid problems that is not a workaround because as i told i work with images and i can't spend the time to use a workaround when i need to postproduce 200-300 images at one time...

By @Zott!!!

Are you fully automating the extension for a batch of images (with Actions, Batch, Image Processor, …), are you always extending by the same amount? 

Thanks for the example image and the result. 

Please check the extended area out at 200% view – the quality-difference seems noticable to me, maybe even more so in the background. 

[c.pfaffenbichler]

I am curious: 

What is the scenario in which you have to expand 200-300 images – catalog work? (For ads and editorial that seems like a huge number to me.) 

At that point are the layouts already done (at least roughly) or do you have to expand the images preemptively? 

[Stephen Marsh]

To be more clear (i hope) my request is about a way to avoid problems

The problem is the generative algorithm incorrectly identifying your content as breaching the service terms. So it would therefore seem that the answer is to provide "different content" (more below) and or for Adobe to refine the algorithm so that false positives are not flagged. 

that is not a workaround because as i told i work with images and i can't spend the time to use a workaround when i need to postproduce 200-300 images at one time...

This is the common reply, which makes no sense.

Before generative fill, such work would have taken minutes or hours with content aware filll, some other "in-painting" algorithm and/or manual retouching.

The suggested workaround takes seconds.

You may not be able to provide "different content" as in a different picture, but the workaround is just to quickly alter the current content in order for it to not be flagged as inappropriate, then to remove the alteration afterwards. The workaround is faster than the generative fill! There is no disagreement that it's not ideal to have to use a workaround, however, people are complaining about extra seconds, conveniently overlooking that the alternative could take minutes or hours.

[c.pfaffenbichler]

You may not be able to provide "different content" as in a different picture, but the workaround is just to quickly alter the current content in order for it to not be flagged as inappropriate, then to remove the alteration afterwards. The workaround is faster than the generative fill! There is no disagreement that it's not ideal to have to use a workaround, however, people are complaining about extra seconds, conveniently overlooking that the alternative could take minutes or hours.

By @Stephen Marsh

If the »offending« human does not cross the canvas borders it might even be possible to automate the work-around by using Select > Subject and adding a Solid Color Layer. 

In any case it will be interesting to see if/when Adobe will be able to finagle the filtering to better meet the needs of the users who have posted complaints on this Forum. 

[Zott!!!]

Addendum...
Photoshop ai does'nt love me 
https://wtrmagazine.it/sample2.mp4 

[Trevor.Dennis]

You have to copy the layer and turn off the original.

Remove just the model from the frame.  That's not with a layer mask, the model needs to be gone.  You can probably even fill the area taken by the model with a solid colour, but Content Aware Fill would be safer.

Then make the selection and use Generative Fill and copy the model back in.

So:

Original

Object Selection Tool > People > Entire Person > Apply

Expand selection, and Content Aware Fill. I'm sure you knew all this

Select and add prompt.  I wonder what we'll get

Turn the copy of the model back on and move to top of stack, and you've beaten the Adobe censor.

I'm sure you knew all that and were letting Adone know how annoying the censorship is for a working photographer, but they are not going to relax their position while Ai continues to get continuous bad press.   It took just a few seconds to do the workaround, and the model was returned to the scene entirely seamlessly.  

[Trevor.Dennis]

BTW  I was kind of taking the mick out of the Gen Fill algorithm by including the term 'handsome man' in my Gen Fill prompt.  Is that reverse sexism?  Should we be writing letters of complaint at the irony of it?  

[Zott!!!]

Thanks @Trevor.Dennis but this procedure is not a good solution for some reason:
1) it need time and when i'm working with a set of 200 or 300 images spending simply 3 minutes each images means 15 hours more of work, a lot of time and time is money.

2) in images like the one in my sample i need he model to be visible because i would like to expand a little bit also the legs i cannot remove them

3) It is not so diffucult to view that the model is dresswed

[c.pfaffenbichler]

I wonder, though, whether Generative Expand can even be useful for your hires images. 

The Firefly limitations seem to apply, so aren’t the expanded areas of a terrible resolution (albeit upsampled)? 

[Trevor.Dennis]

That's a good point Christophe.  If the OP needed to break that down into < 1024 pixel chunks, then that is going to take at least 15 seconds a time.  That's got to add up to a serious delay with full res images.  I am not sure where @Zott!!! got the three minute estimate from.  The human input would be 30 seconds tops IME, so with a decent connection...   There is no OS tag for the original post, but if @Zott!!! is using a Mac, I wonder if you could work on two Photoshop versions simultaniously, and swap between them while the other is waiting for the Adobe server to to its thing?  I have never tried that, but it would an interesting experiment.

[Zott!!!]

Dear  @Trevor.Dennis , yes, i'm working on a mac and my connection speed id 10GB in download and 2GB in upload

my 3 minutes estimated time is about masking the subject finding the most adapt mask above all when some part of the body need to be generated using trial and error way based on my experience using this method

[Zott!!!]

I'm back, sorry for my late answer.
In my experience the expanded images are at very gopod level of quality. Here two link to a crop of a 45MP image from as eos R5 camera: the original one and the expanded one. as you can see looking at the pattern of the fabric the resolution and final result are very good...

and the expanded one