They'll just add a disclaimer somewhere.
Adobe Lightroom's AI Remove feature added a Bitcoin to bird in flight photo
91–100 of 112 posts
Re: Adobe Lightroom's AI Remove feature added a Bitcoin to bird in flight photo
#92Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may be confused on at least two counts: — If you think there is “clipping” and the somehow different “nominal clipping”. Clipping is binary. Either you camera’s pixel clipped (i.e., accumulated enough photons to get fully saturated, and therefore offers no useful information for debayering), or it did not. If it clipped, then you lost colour data in that part of the image. If you lost colour data, and you want a…
They specifically clarified that they were talking about the JPEG/picture on screen, which has less dynamic range than the sensor and can clip without losing pixel information.
We are specifically discussing scene-referred image data—the raw pixel values obtained from a digital camera sensor. That is where unrecoverable information loss occurs at capture time. Parsing that data is when LR et al. engage various highlight reconstruction algorithms that fill in the missing information. My point is that a lot of that loss is often avoidable at capture time.
Re: Adobe Lightroom's AI Remove feature added a Bitcoin to bird in flight photo
#93It’s almost like integrating a poorly understood black box with your software is a bad idea.
Re: Adobe Lightroom's AI Remove feature added a Bitcoin to bird in flight photo
#94Earlier quoted context omitted.
nah-- even in the supplied jpg the histogram shows they're not clipping the highlights, and if you crank down the brightness, you can see the detail.
You may be confusing display-referred and scene-referred image data. 1. Clipping occurs in the scene-referred raw camera sensor pixel data at capture time. 2. Raw processing software fills in the highlight by supplying the missing colour information. Often this happens by default. 3. When you obtain a display-referred JPEG, the missing information for clipped highlights was already supplied. Tone curves and other adj…
Without the raw image, we won't really know whether there was clipping. However, it is clear that the poster here wanted to remove the highlights and was okay with introducing some information that wasn't in the photo to do it, hence the use of an AI filter. That means that there is no issue with using the clone stamp or the paintbrush tool.
Re: Adobe Lightroom's AI Remove feature added a Bitcoin to bird in flight photo
#95Earlier quoted context omitted.
Seems like they used some AI tool to remove speckles from an image. The tool has to generate a likely replacement. And one of the speckles looked a bit like a coin.
That's the bit that puzzles me the most though: you want that bit gone , so why would it fill in what that shimmer looks like? If there's an airplane in the sky that you want gone from a medieval movie frame, so you select the airplane and select "remove", surely it doesn't fill in an airplane because that's the closest match for what's being selected? I must be missing something obvious but I don't see it mentioned…
What does gone mean though? You aren’t just drawing a black or transparent spot underneath what you want removed. You’re filling it in with the most likely background. Which is not a trivial operation. It’s an AI generative fill which is obviously unpredictable. You’d expect it to generate ocean but it drew a bitcoin.
That’s just how AI generative fill works. You keep running it until it looks how you want.
Re: Adobe Lightroom's AI Remove feature added a Bitcoin to bird in flight photo
#96Earlier quoted context omitted.
You may be confusing display-referred and scene-referred image data. 1. Clipping occurs in the scene-referred raw camera sensor pixel data at capture time. 2. Raw processing software fills in the highlight by supplying the missing colour information. Often this happens by default. 3. When you obtain a display-referred JPEG, the missing information for clipped highlights was already supplied. Tone curves and other adj…
Without the raw image, we won't really know whether there was clipping. However, it is clear that the poster here wanted to remove the highlights and was okay with introducing some information that wasn't in the photo to do it, hence the use of an AI filter. That means that there is no issue with using the clone stamp or the paintbrush tool.
This sounds about right. However, regarding your first sentence, I’d be a bit less cautious: sun reflections from water on a clear day guarantee clipping unless a polarizing filter is used or the scene is dramatically underexposed, and based on the general look of the photo (even knowing it’s after processing) my intuition suggests me that neither took place.
Hence my original advice: don’t leave it up to ML when a little forethought can do wonders in terms of preserving information.
Re: Adobe Lightroom's AI Remove feature added a Bitcoin to bird in flight photo
#97Question to people knowing adobe lightroom, could this feature be compromised? Is this just doing API calls to some remote thing?
I'm not sure what you mean by compromised but I'm pretty sure Adobe Firefly AI features are server-based. These features are too good to be done locally.
By compromised I mean something like someone having access to adobe's servers where this is running and uploading troll models or toying with the model's responses
Re: Adobe Lightroom's AI Remove feature added a Bitcoin to bird in flight photo
#98Question to people knowing adobe lightroom, could this feature be compromised? Is this just doing API calls to some remote thing?
Lightroom has a local Heal/Remove feature, and at least with LR Classic you have to tick a box for the AI remove, which processes it on Adobe servers. As for whether it can be compromised... Probably? It sends all or some of your photo to a remove server, so that can certainly be taken.
I mean, having the model behave this way looks too easy and I guess that adobe does qc on the features it releases, so I'm not sure to see an alternative explanation - or adobe's qc is poor/inexistent.
Re: Adobe Lightroom's AI Remove feature added a Bitcoin to bird in flight photo
#99Heaven forbid your picture has a woman in it somewhere though, Adobe's AI will refuse to fill half the time.. I've taken to censoring out blocks of image with black squares of it has any body parts showing (still clothed), fill, copy, then undo the censoring. It's pretty ridiculous for a paid subscription.
For a paid product even if the content explicitly contained nudity or depicted sexual activity it should had still been allowed as they are valid cases that Lightroom and Photoshop could be used. The censorship in AI is stupid, babysitting users should not be part of the tool's responsibility. Its like banning kitchen knives to keep people from using them for violence.
Re: Adobe Lightroom's AI Remove feature added a Bitcoin to bird in flight photo
#100Earlier quoted context omitted.
nah-- even in the supplied jpg the histogram shows they're not clipping the highlights, and if you crank down the brightness, you can see the detail.
You may be confusing display-referred and scene-referred image data. 1. Clipping occurs in the scene-referred raw camera sensor pixel data at capture time. 2. Raw processing software fills in the highlight by supplying the missing colour information. Often this happens by default. 3. When you obtain a display-referred JPEG, the missing information for clipped highlights was already supplied. Tone curves and other adj…
What are you talking about? I see clipped histograms come out of cameras all the time. I’ve been working with digital images and digital photo manipulation for thirty years.
Regardless, it’s not generative AI making up details. The differentiated pixels are there in the camera jpeg even if traditional image processing techniques have to be used to make them visible onscreen. The complete structure of the feathers that isn’t visible in the camera jpeg, for example, is plainly visible just modifying the contrast.