Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

GenAI Image Editing Showdown

genai-showdown.specr.net

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

31–40 of 55 posts

Re: GenAI Image Editing Showdown

#31

Post by ljlolel »

foofoo12 wrote: post #21
snailmailman wrote: post #16

There isn’t a date in the article, but I know I had read this months ago. And sure enough, wayback has the text-to-image page from April. But the image editing page linked at the top is more recent, and was added sometime in September. (And was presumably the intended link) I hadn’t read that page yet. Odd there is no dates, at first glance one might think the pages were made at the same time.

> There isn’t a date in the article SEO guys convinced everyone that articles without dates do better on search engines. I hope both sides of their pillow is hot.

I discovered this independently myself a decade ago since it’s true

Re: GenAI Image Editing Showdown

#32

Post by indigodaddy »

EDIT, looks like I didn’t click on the “image editing” tab when I went to the site, so I guess take the rest of my below comments criticizing the terminology with a grain of salt…

“Image editing” is a curious term, as it appears the site/topic is actually all about generating new images. The term in my mind should be for actual editing of existing, real, images, Eg “remove the coffee table” from this living room photo after uploading the image. I’ve found the actual “image generation” models to be bad at this because they introduce too many artifacts that weren’t in the original, which makes sense because they are really geared for creating images out of thin air.

Multimodal models like qwen3-vl-30b-a3b, however, seem to do quite well with editing existing images without trying to constantly add in new things or trying to change the image in ways that you don’t want, as if it’s trying to do the “lets just generate a new image” thing. imagegpt.com is also good for editing existing images, but not sure what model they are using on the backend.

Re: GenAI Image Editing Showdown

#34

Post by master-lincoln »

foofoo12 wrote: post #21
snailmailman wrote: post #16

There isn’t a date in the article, but I know I had read this months ago. And sure enough, wayback has the text-to-image page from April. But the image editing page linked at the top is more recent, and was added sometime in September. (And was presumably the intended link) I hadn’t read that page yet. Odd there is no dates, at first glance one might think the pages were made at the same time.

> There isn’t a date in the article SEO guys convinced everyone that articles without dates do better on search engines. I hope both sides of their pillow is hot.

fucking marketing people screw us over on so many levels...

Re: GenAI Image Editing Showdown

#35

Post by biinjo »

indigodaddy wrote: post #32

EDIT, looks like I didn’t click on the “image editing” tab when I went to the site, so I guess take the rest of my below comments criticizing the terminology with a grain of salt… “Image editing” is a curious term, as it appears the site/topic is actually all about generating new images. The term in my mind should be for actual editing of existing, real, images, Eg “remove the coffee table” from this living room phot…

I don’t know if you and I are looking at the same site because all I see is existing images being edited with GenAI.

Input: bald man Prompt: give bald man hair Output: edited original, now with hair

That looks like editing to me.

Or are we strictly adhering to the ‘generating new images’ definition because these models technically recreate the entire image? It would be like editing a photo in Photoshop. If you hit “Save” you edited the photo. But if you hit “Save As” and create a new file, the photo wasn’t edited but created as a new image?

Re: GenAI Image Editing Showdown

#36

Post by vunderba »

indigodaddy wrote: post #32

EDIT, looks like I didn’t click on the “image editing” tab when I went to the site, so I guess take the rest of my below comments criticizing the terminology with a grain of salt… “Image editing” is a curious term, as it appears the site/topic is actually all about generating new images. The term in my mind should be for actual editing of existing, real, images, Eg “remove the coffee table” from this living room phot…

I've actually gotten this comment a couple of times - perhaps I should make the nav bar at the top more prominently displayed.

WRT to Qwen3, is it possible that the API/site you were using was passing your "image edit requests" to something like Qwen-Edit [1] under the covers?

To my knowledge, Qwen3-VL (Vision Language) isn't capable of generating/modifying images - it's purely for doing reasoning about images.

[1] https://huggingface.co/Qwen/Qwen-Image-Edit

Re: GenAI Image Editing Showdown

#37

Post by vunderba »

isoprophlex wrote: post #2

The "editing" showdown is very good. Introduced me to the Seedream model which i didn't know about until now. I don't fully understand the iterative methodology tho - they allow multiple attempts, which are judged by another multimodal llm? Won't they have limited accuracy in itself?

I tried to make the judgement criteria more clear in the FAQ section - I'll post it here:

What is the metric on which these models are being judged?

  It's hard to define a discrete rubric for grading at an inherently qualitative level. To keep things simple, this test is purely PASS/FAIL - unsuccessful means that the model NEVER managed to generate an image adhering to the prompt. For example, Midjourney 7 did not manage to generate the correct vertical stack of translucent cubes ordered by color in 64 generation attempts. In many cases, we often attempt a generous intepretation of the prompt - if it gets close enough, we might consider it a pass.

  Put another way: if I were to show the final image to a random stranger on the street, would they be able to guess what the original prompt was? (aka the Pictionary test).

  To paraphrase former Supreme Court Justice Potter Stewart, "I may not be able to define a passing image, but I know it when I see it."
To answer your question, the pass/fail is manually determined according to a set of well-defined criteria which is usually specified alongside the image.

Re: GenAI Image Editing Showdown

#39

Post by thinkingtoilet »

greatgib wrote: post #23

Gpt4o shows the huge annoyance of the company/model being a moral judge of your requests and refusing quite often for anything negative. It's like 1964 but corporate enforced. Now there are tasks that you are not allowed to do despite being legal. In the same way, using gpt5 is now very unbearable to me as it almost always starts all responses of a conversation by things like: "Great question", "good observation wort…

Name me one piece of enterprise software that lets you do NSFW things. The way people jump to 1984 with no thought is double plus bad. ChatGPT is a piece of enterprise software. They are trying to sell it to large companies at large prices. This is not a rhetorical question, do you think if you could generate nude images of celebrities or picture of extreme violence, corporations would buy it? Having been a director at a Fortune 500 company that bought software, I can tell you with 100% certainty the answer is "no".

Re: GenAI Image Editing Showdown

#40

Post by mrec »

adriand wrote: post #28
sans_souse wrote: post #3

I had to upvote immediately once I got to Alexander the Great on a Hippity Hop

I had completely forgotten about the hippity hop and coming across it here brought back all kinds of childhood memories. Those things were fun!

They were always called "space hoppers" here in the UK, and always looked like this:

https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Space_hopper#/media/File:Space...

Post reply on HN