Use of AI

[dreampolice]

Following on from the monthly theme thread. 

Should we be concerned about the use and improvement to the use of AI in photography editing. I am not really thinking of totally AI produced images using keywords alone with no input from the creator other than words, (although they can be fun) but more with the new generative fill element in PhotoShop (beta) where objects can be easily removed and others added using keywords.

On the other thread I posted this photo.

Sunrise Blanes by Nigel G, on Flickr

When I took the photo back in 2020 I timed it so that the runner was in line with the crossing and the sun. The cars were an annoyance, but it was as it was. I tried to remove them at the time of editing using normal PS tools. It looked a mess so I gave up.

Today I had another go but using generative fill to remove the things I didn't like (no keywords required) and got this in around 5 mins of work.

Sunrise Blanes edit by Nigel G, on Flickr

which following on from a comment from Kath, turned into this.

Balnes sunrise re-edit by Nigel G, on Flickr

Kate then commented that should we now be congratulating AI for an image rather than the photographer (or words to that effect)?

Is using AI in this instance any more cheating than me using clone/spot healing etc?

Is it acceptable to use AI rather than relying on my own (or lack of) skill?

I know these type of conversations have gone on for years about the acceptability of removing bits from photo's. Is using AI worse as it using the skill of the computer rather than that of the photographer's? 

if I were to add something to it (such as new sky, a ship or plane or whatever) I could do it as we have always done it but using AI it'll probably look more realistic and will be a lot quicker and easier. Is that a bad thing?

If the piece of work is for art purposes and not documentary does it really matter what methods are used to get there if the image is pleasing at the end of the day and fits the brief that the creator set?

Are we just scared of AI? 


And I know I could also make the crossing stripes straighter!

[andy]

See how much better the world looks without parked cars everywhere .

Perhaps we should all try it and make the images freely available.

[kate]

Perhaps you are right and AI is becoming a scary prospect in my mind. What to trust and what not to trust visually.

My other reservation is from seemingly innocuous things online like auto-complete phrases and spell-checks and the like. I find I am becoming lazy and force myself to do crosswords to try to keep my brain active.
As you've probably noticed, I am fed up with being led by the nose by Government initiatives, Health warnings and suggestions and generally being led up paths I don't want to know.
I think it becomes obvious how some people have lost the ability to think for themselves and reason and make decisions based on their own knowledge and thoughts. I am not a number!! Ha!

By the way, it wasn't a criticism of your image. It was my personal thoughts on something which I think is a step too far in the image world.

[El Sid]

For AI in photography maybe it's a matter of whether one views photography as art or record-keeping...

With Nigel's original image the cars are indeed a blasted nuisance but as is it's a record of a moment in time - one might even say a snapshot... With the cars removed it then becomes a 'record' of what Nige wanted us to see regardless of how it was achieved. In a way the use of AI is no different to a painter's use of his brush to paint over an existing part of his picture that he has subsequently decided doesn't work... I remember seeing a documentary on Constable where use of IR and UV techniques revealed that the compositions of various pictures had evolved as he had painted them and bits had indeed been painted over - sometimes more than once.

Another point is that had Nige been there with an easel, canvas, paint and brushes he could have easily painted the scene without the cars, put the fence where he liked, painted the zebra crossing less skewed and could even have placed the runner and the sun exactly where he wished and no-one would bat an eyelid. Arguably perhaps AI just allows us to do exactly what painters have been able to do for years. Whether it should be dead easy is perhaps more debatable...

The more difficult aspect with AI in photo editing is the whole deep fake scenario and the possibility of producing images which are not only indistinguishable from reality but may well be deliberately or accidentally misleading let alone malevolent. The creation of such images then becomes a question of individual and social morality where, I fear, both society and the law will lag far behind as it has in so many aspects of our technological society.

Incidentally I think the fence in the last version is a step to far; for me it seriously constricts the runner by leaving no space her(?) to move into and the whole result feel uncomfortable and forced...

[dreampolice]

I never took it is a criticism Kate, don’t worry.

[andy]

Jul 19, 2023 11:46:55 GMT El Sid said:

For AI in photography maybe it's a matter of whether one views photography as art or record-keeping...

With Nigel's original image the cars are indeed a blasted nuisance but as is it's a record of a moment in time - one might even say a snapshot... With the cars removed it then becomes a 'record' of what Nige wanted us to see regardless of how it was achieved. In a way the use of AI is no different to a painter's use of his brush to paint over an existing part of his picture that he has subsequently decided doesn't work... I remember seeing a documentary on Constable where use of IR and UV techniques revealed that the compositions of various pictures had evolved as he had painted them and bits had indeed been painted over - sometimes more than once.

Another point is that had Nige been there with an easel, canvas, paint and brushes he could have easily painted the scene without the cars, put the fence where he liked, painted the zebra crossing less skewed and could even have placed the runner and the sun exactly where he wished and no-one would bat an eyelid. Arguably perhaps AI just allows us to do exactly what painters have been able to do for years. Whether it should be dead easy is perhaps more debatable...

The more difficult aspect with AI in photo editing is the whole deep fake scenario and the possibility of producing images which are not only indistinguishable from reality but may well be deliberately or accidentally misleading let alone malevolent. The creation of such images then becomes a question of individual and social morality where, I fear, both society and the law will lag far behind as it has in so many aspects of our technological society.

Incidentally I think the fence in the last version is a step to far; for me it seriously constricts the runner by leaving no space her(?) to move into and the whole result feel uncomfortable and forced...

Have you seen the advert a fake AI Greta made for a fictional logging company? Didn't look real enough....yet!

[dreampolice]

Jul 19, 2023 11:46:55 GMT El Sid said:

For AI in photography maybe it's a matter of whether one views photography as art or record-keeping...

With Nigel's original image the cars are indeed a blasted nuisance but as is it's a record of a moment in time - one might even say a snapshot... With the cars removed it then becomes a 'record' of what Nige wanted us to see regardless of how it was achieved. In a way the use of AI is no different to a painter's use of his brush to paint over an existing part of his picture that he has subsequently decided doesn't work... I remember seeing a documentary on Constable where use of IR and UV techniques revealed that the compositions of various pictures had evolved as he had painted them and bits had indeed been painted over - sometimes more than once.

Another point is that had Nige been there with an easel, canvas, paint and brushes he could have easily painted the scene without the cars, put the fence where he liked, painted the zebra crossing less skewed and could even have placed the runner and the sun exactly where he wished and no-one would bat an eyelid. Arguably perhaps AI just allows us to do exactly what painters have been able to do for years. Whether it should be dead easy is perhaps more debatable...

The more difficult aspect with AI in photo editing is the whole deep fake scenario and the possibility of producing images which are not only indistinguishable from reality but may well be deliberately or accidentally misleading let alone malevolent. The creation of such images then becomes a question of individual and social morality where, I fear, both society and the law will lag far behind as it has in so many aspects of our technological society.

Incidentally I think the fence in the last version is a step to far; for me it seriously constricts the runner by leaving no space her(?) to move into and the whole result feel uncomfortable and forced...

I suppose what Kate was saying in the themes thread was, who do we congratulate or praise for the finished image. If I was a painter, it would be my skill in painting the image as I wanted to, or as in your examples, using my skill as an artist to change aspects. Other than my vision I have had no input (other than a bit of tech know how) of removing the unwanted objects. That was entirely down to PS. I personally have no qualms about using it though to achieve the end I want as in the main I like photography as art, even those that need to be factually correct I view them as works of art in so much as composition, lighting, overall effect etc.

I also think you're right about the fence. Until I change my mind again.

[zx9]

As per the other thread, I think that it Ai is just another tool to get the results you want or like. I would object if the camera decided to remove the cars, extend the railings and replace the runner with a giant kitten.

[dreampolice]

Jul 19, 2023 15:03:08 GMT zx9 said:

.......... replace the runner with a giant kitten.

Or a zebra crossing a crossing..


Zebra crossing by Nigel G, on Flickr

[peterob]

My earlier reply got lost (internet went down).  It is pretty amazing what can be done.  Although I'm not a purest, I do remove things like litter from pictures when one could argue that it "was there" and therefore should be left in, but huge alterations that arrive at essentially a different scene should be admitted.  Fine for "own use" but really it is too much manipulation to say "this was the picture".  The same applies for manipulations "by hand" using traditional photoshop tools.  A magnificent example of the power of this AI addition.  I'll have to start saving up for a computer that can run it. Even Photoshop 2021 refuses to load because it needs more than 512 MB GPU memory.

[Deleted]

I don’t have a problem with removing the cars and agree it is little more than clone/spot healing, just easier.

Difficult to decide when it amounts to over manipulation. I expect we all draw the line at a different place.

Although this is not appraisal, I find the boat and the buoys distracting.

[JohnY]

AI has failed at guessing the spacing of the railings. It needs your help.
I don't use much AI because my editing software does not provide much.
If a photograph is meant to be a record then AI should not be used.
If a photograph is destined for a competition then the rules of the competition should be followed.
If the photograph just has to be aesthetically pleasing or fun (Your zebra variation is both) then anything goes.

An associated question is how much assistance should the camera give. Consider photographing a flying bird with a manual focus lens v. AF lens with 3D tracking, subject recognition and 20 fps.

[dreampolice]

Jul 21, 2023 10:06:32 GMT JohnY said:

AI has failed at guessing the spacing of the railings. It needs your help.

Nah, they have been installed by Spanish workers.