This is obviously based on your experience with the new app. Can you provide the details for our benefit?
Got a tip for us?
Let us know
Become a MacRumors Supporter for $50/year with no ads, ability to filter front page stories, and private forums.
Adobe Lightroom Gains AI-Based Generative Remove Tool for Eliminating Unwanted Objects
- Thread starter MacRumors
- Start date
- Sort by reaction score
Perhaps AI can create some totally new photos of you and your friends
Trips that didn't even happen ... suddenly DID!
(joking, laughing, almost crying ... all at once here)
Trips that didn't even happen ... suddenly DID!
(joking, laughing, almost crying ... all at once here)
You can buy a license for the app ($200), but it only comes with this feature for one year. You need to subscribe in order to get what they call their "generative tools," like this one.
Can it create some wedding and honeymoon photos of me with my celeb crush? I'm sold.
Photos are suppose to capture what is happening when it is taken. If you want to create fake AI art, do it. But this is not a photograph.
If you don’t think degenerative images produce bad results most of the time:
- you haven’t pushed it, or
- you haven’t used it, or
- you’re one of those AI bros with a virtual GF
We used to call it content aware fill. Now they do that with a server full of GPUs guessing what the content should be and a credit based payments system.
For documenting real events such as news or being honest in marketing, yeah. For anything else, I don’t care. If someone wants to remove their ugly dad from the Bday party photos then fire away.
Some are disturbing and some are really goofy
Attachments
Thanks for the info. I bought a lifetime license towards the end of last year and didn't see where they made the generative AI subscription only.
It looks like just another company trying to milk the subscription model
.
Not only that, but why spend $$$ on sending photographers around the world? Just generate your images.
Media companies now don't need to hire writers and photographers. Think of all the money that will be saved!
Think of all the potential customers who run in the opposite direction because your company puts out ghoulish content and hates working people! For every 10 grand saved that’s 10 million dollars lost in lost sales!
Awesome business model!
Technology!
FTW!
That hardly ever really works, because even the smartest AI can't know what's behind the object.
Nice update.
Y’all trying too hard to find things to complain about.
Y’all trying too hard to find things to complain about.
I have an Adobe plan. They need to put their AI stuff in PS Express. Accessing third-party app features in Options when editing pictures in native iOS Edit is great.
Why don't more apps have their features available in Edit -> Options? I currently can have only PS Express, ReTouch, and Pixelmator in Options.
Why don't more apps have their features available in Edit -> Options? I currently can have only PS Express, ReTouch, and Pixelmator in Options.
Damn truth... some photos look so amazing when you see them on the marketing demo or even youtube but when i mess around and try and remove things speechless on how crappy the photos turns out or the "Blur" effect is an eyesore
This tool doesn’t really need to. It just needs to make a visually appealing output.
There’s generative fill in photoshop where you can tell it what’s behind the object if you need that.
The moment you remove/add elements it is no longer "photography" imo, it's art.
Just think if (for example) the JFK assassination and the Zapruder film (actual) and all the conspiracy theories that surround it. One thing that has never been questioned (rightly so) is that the film frames are authentic.
If it was shot today on digital cameras, we would not be able to trust that the digital bits were not manipulated.
Already too many unethical "photographers" have had awards rescinded because they manipulated the digital image.
Now with AI / deep fakes / AI cpus / etc. it will be drastically worse.
Just think if (for example) the JFK assassination and the Zapruder film (actual) and all the conspiracy theories that surround it. One thing that has never been questioned (rightly so) is that the film frames are authentic.
If it was shot today on digital cameras, we would not be able to trust that the digital bits were not manipulated.
Already too many unethical "photographers" have had awards rescinded because they manipulated the digital image.
Now with AI / deep fakes / AI cpus / etc. it will be drastically worse.
The moment you click the shutter button the photo will already be undergoing a multitude of treatments and improvements, saturation increases, noise removal. This is just one more. There is no ‘true’ photography.
Retouching has been done since the invention of photography. Paintings always have been an interpretation of what is real way before that. We might argue that film, developing chemicals treatment, even exposure and fstop, framing, the lens you chose… and even choosing a situation and a specific moment to capture from a specific viewpoint is distorting the objective truth. Every detail about photography is not about representation of reality but a subjective chain of decisions. Look at any Cartier-Bresson, who was a photo reporter and you will see decisions that turn reality into a subjective authorship. Whether black and white or Polaroid, these images always were chemical transcriptions of reality, 2D simulacra.
Same with photography. Even an untouched, unedited, straight from the Camera, no-filters photo is already edited, not truthful anymore. It is important to understand that images represent, re-interpret and see that as what IS photography. It never was about reality.
Personally, as someone who took or edited images daily since the early 90s, this is an important distinction. Images are narrative and the job is to capture or find that narrative and use tools like Photoshop to elevate and fine-tune the image. Over the top colors or edits, black and white, subtle minor repairs… it always depends on what you want the photo to be. But even a «real» photo is a narrative choice and edited to look untouched.
One of the reasons for that is that cameras can capture stuff your brain will filter out. People will see things in photos they have not seen in real life even in their daily surroundings, we once had a client that seemed to notice a door in his shop for the first time in the photos we took of his interior.
So the job is to find a narrative. When you do portrait the job is to find the beauty and essence of the person captured. In architecture you might want to edit out stuff that distracts from the building, cars, people, signs etc. I personally have the tendency to take out distractions, the granular stuff that distracts the eye, to make the image a bit cleaner and lighter. Reflections, creases, fire alarms, buttons, cigarette butts, signage - the detritus, the distractions to the eye. And if the tools get better to do that, as they have done since the invention of photography, if we have more choice how to represent reality, all the better.
Same with photography. Even an untouched, unedited, straight from the Camera, no-filters photo is already edited, not truthful anymore. It is important to understand that images represent, re-interpret and see that as what IS photography. It never was about reality.
Personally, as someone who took or edited images daily since the early 90s, this is an important distinction. Images are narrative and the job is to capture or find that narrative and use tools like Photoshop to elevate and fine-tune the image. Over the top colors or edits, black and white, subtle minor repairs… it always depends on what you want the photo to be. But even a «real» photo is a narrative choice and edited to look untouched.
One of the reasons for that is that cameras can capture stuff your brain will filter out. People will see things in photos they have not seen in real life even in their daily surroundings, we once had a client that seemed to notice a door in his shop for the first time in the photos we took of his interior.
So the job is to find a narrative. When you do portrait the job is to find the beauty and essence of the person captured. In architecture you might want to edit out stuff that distracts from the building, cars, people, signs etc. I personally have the tendency to take out distractions, the granular stuff that distracts the eye, to make the image a bit cleaner and lighter. Reflections, creases, fire alarms, buttons, cigarette butts, signage - the detritus, the distractions to the eye. And if the tools get better to do that, as they have done since the invention of photography, if we have more choice how to represent reality, all the better.