Came across this article, thought it was interesting given some of the discussion around here about where to draw the line for photography tools
6 Likes
Of course, @JasonTheBirder is here too 
1 Like
Iāll just say that what I wrote in the article was an example to show that in many cases, ML noise reduction is not as necessary as people think in some cases. And that was only based on the passion that some people exhibit for AI noise reduction, and the way some people use it, such as when they use it for ISO 800 shots that exhibit barely any noise.
It was not meant to imply that noise itself will impede an image from being five stars or awesome. I think an image can even be noisy and still be great.
Anyways, you did say āalmost implyā but I never intended to imply the conclusion you drew.
Also, when I was referring to interpolation, I was referring to DxOās algorithm, which I demonstrated unequivocally to interpolate.
Also, my article was not about the broader societal implications of AF algorithms. It merely was trying to outline the difference between algorithms that have a definitive and easy-to-define outcome that is known ahead of time and possibly achievable manually and ones that potentially are not.
2 Likes
I tend to stand back and be amazed at these far-out comparisons. To me, it is utterly ridiculous to compare what happens in the camera in order to move mechanical linkages with the stuff we do after the image has been created and transferred to a computer.
AI may help us with many things but it also helps us to become more and more uniform and eventually utterly drab and uninspiring. Iām fine with things like demosaicing, noise reduction, mask generation and other general AI-supported editing techniques as long as they are used by the photographer to get to the image he has in his head to begin with - AI as tool in the creative process.
But, just like with many other things around us, once AI āforgets its placeā (or we cause it to do so) and becomes or pretends to become the creator of anything be it painting, book, photo it quickly turns ugly, generally uniform and utterly boring.
4 Likes
I think itās strange too. But I wrote the article because Iāve probably argued with more people about AI than most, and Iāve lost count at the number of times people have said to me something like āAI is just another automation like autofocus, just a little more complexā, so this article was borne from being frustrated at being told that so many timesā¦
4 Likes
To me, the fundamental difference lies in that you can focus manually and obtain the exact same result as autofocus - less reliably if youāre used to all the automagical subject recognition and tracking algos, while you simply cannot reproduce what you get out of AI by purely āmechanicalā means if you like (in the sense of adjusting camera settings or simple operations to the digital negative).
Even while using AI, but asking it the same thing some time after or before, will not yield the same result in most cases.
But Iām opinionated in this regard - I donāt even edit the vast majority of my pictures. I made a few profiles in the camera to suit my style and thatās what I deliver most of the time. Not worth saving what looks like rubbish through the viewfinder, IMO.
Maybe I am dense but I do not understand the premise for this whole discussion.
I mostly photograph family moments and travel (and the intersection of the two 
). The purpose of my photos is not to win any contests (though I got better over the years; even with zero artistic talent, doing something repeatedly helps), but to preserve memories: my photos serve as a reminder of moments I like to recall.
AF and NR helps me be better at this process. Thatās why they are useful.
But how does AI even enter the picture? What would I use it for? To generate āphotosā of events that did not happen? What would be the point?
So, for me, this is like asking how a bicycle is different from a mongoose.
1 Like
Let me be blunt here: I have encountered some cases where image restoration models hallucinate, and one case, presented below, is somewhat offensive.
Here is a cat, photographed at night, with too-long exposure, in hope that it doesnāt move too much (yet it did):
Out-of-camera JPEG:
RAW:
DSC01715.ARW (20.0 MB) (License: CC0)
Not a keeper (because of the motion blur), but at least it is obvious that the cat is reasonably healthy.
Please do not run this command to denoise and deblur the image, as it takes a lot of time and the result is offensive:
rawforgeonnx --onnx RestormerXTrans DSC01715.ARW DSC01715.restormed.dng
At the bottom of the white fur triangle on the catās neck, it invented a small patch of a purplish and furless āskin diseaseā that the cat does not really have. This disgusting āskin diseaseā patch was likely carried over from the training data, as the alternative explanation for the purple spot (overexposure not corrected properly) does not hold. And there is no way to tell AI that it did the wrong thing, other than reject the result and use a different model, or no AI at all.
Offensive AI-processed image - you have been warned
This rendering was done in ART by copy-pasting the auto-matched tone curve from the original. EDIT: I forgot to copy the white balance.
@RawRefinery Please take this as a model bug report against RestormerXTrans.
P.S. XFormerXTrans2 does not produce this artifact. That said, I found that this particular photo benefits from adding noise.
Too late, the world is already full of AI users who will argue that the AI actually diagnosed the skin disease for you.
There you hit the nail on the head.
It depends very much on what you purposes in photography.
If you are like you just preserve memories, then AI is not a threat. It is a helpful tool that helps you sometimes even preserve memories better (AI denoise e.q.)
For me, I enjoy the process of my photography. Being in nature, surrounded by the elements. That is my enjoyment. I am not threatened by thatā¦ No amount of AI image processing can take that away. I share with friends what we have seen and where we have ben.
If you are an artist, this can go both ways. OR you start to use AI as creative tool, to create new art. OR it is a huge threat. Because suddenly, what you do, is not unique anymore. And your work has become irrelevantā¦
If you your photography is a way to show off your skill, you just got crushed. You can fight it. And yes the AI denoise is not perfect. But suddenly taking images in very low light situation has become less much of a challenge. And all the skill you painstakingly build upā¦ is a bit less impressive.
I think that that especially the two last groups are fighting AI very hard. Which I do understand. If everyone suddenly can create an impressive bird photo, well your skills are not as impressive anymore. But they often with - in my eyes - irrelevant arguments. AI is all bad, it will destroy the worldā¦ blah, blah, blahā¦ Let me quote from the article linked:
But AI (of all kinds, not just in the photography world) is a force multiplier that increases the efficacy of this dehumanization. It is intended to replace peopleās jobs, sources of enjoyment, free time, and so on to the point where it can no longer be easily countered by human resistance.
If you are in the groups that do photography for leisure, AI will not replace the sources of enjoyment or free time. I canāt see that happen. Unless AI changes the society so incredible that we all become slaves. But these scenarioās areā¦ well so far fetched that I ignore those arguemtsā¦
Even though I do photography for work, I consider it mainly a leisure activity. Just for fun. So Ai doesnāt impact going out, sharing with friends, etc. But I personally derive enjoymenet from having an environment in which to share my photography with a wider audience and an environment in which I can enjoy the photogarphy of others, too. And after AI I experience less enjoyment of that now because itās hard to tell whoās using AI and who isnāt.
Sorry to say but thatās a valid method fo enjoyment too and I think AI threatens that. Who are you to say that it isnāt? Lots of people have told me as well that theyāre disheatened because there are fewer people sharing images that arenāt extensively AI-edited.
You know, I think thereās a tendency these days to be ultra-individualistic and not valuing community. But I used to like communities sharing photos before AI. Now Iām not interested nearly as much any more.
But why is that? What makes the difference here? Why is the fact that others may be using AI or not take away your enjoyment? Why is something that made with AI less enjoyable?
Because there were more people and communites sharing their photos that didnāt use AI, and I liked that. Simple as that. Iām not interested in viewing photos that have been extensively edited with AI.
1 Like
For reference, I am not critiquing you, I am just very curious and interested what is behind the your thinking (and people like you)
Now you are going in circlesā¦ I donāt like it, because, You donāt like it. What does AI for you destroy in photoās? Is that it not real anymore? Was it easier to make that you donāt like it?
I personally believe that a lot of AI use reduces the personality that people can transmit through their photos. (Would take me a lot of space to explain, and I donāt have the energy to argue much any more these days.) But itās like when people use AI for translating or refining their prose. It often (not always) loses some quality and itās hard to judge just how much was lost. Maybe itās nothing (like how some people carefully use ML NR) or maybe itās a lot (generative removal), but if itās a lot it doesnāt really represent the personās experience as much and I find it valueless because I think a photograph is more than just a visual stimulus but should be an honest expression.
Again, I donāt really want to argue because if I had the energy it would take me some space to elucidate it but TBH Iām not really interested in writing theses any more as people just want to play with their shiny toys and I donāt really care at this point.
As I said, I am just interested in how you think. I am not - in any way - out to critique or so, just to better understand.
This is something I can completely understand, and it makes a lot of sense to me! I would say, that this is a very valid point, if you talking photography.
On the other hand, in more general in the āvisual artsā, I think generative AI can have its place, as a means to convey also an expression or other form of messaging.
I am sorry to hear that you are battling with energy these times. Hope you find energy again!
I am not sure about this. I donāt think that people are very interested in AI-created āartā. Photography as art already has very, very thin margins; very few people make a living from that. For those who are so good that they do, the current state of AI is not a threat; people buying art specifically want to buy art, not an AI-generated image. Just like people buying a painting from a contemporary painter want to buy that, and not a poster of a famous painting.
There is a third category besides enthusiasts and artists: photographers who are asked to document something real in a nice and artistic manner. Think portrait photographers, event photographers, wedding photographers, etc. This, again, is not a high-margin occupation, but requires skill and experience to do well. I do not think couples are interested in AI-generated versions of their dream wedding (ālook, here is Uncle George with 6 fingersā)ā¦ though it is, of course, tempting to think about this for people who donāt like weddings.
For me, this discussion is yet another variation of a theme that I encounter a lot recently. It relies on the implicit assumption that current generative AI is so good that it is capable of doing just about anything, so it will make a lot of human endeavors meaningless. AI companies are doing a lot to feed this perception. But my experience is different, I see AI as a useful tool that can automate tedious tasks and complement human skill, but it requires very good, iterative prompting for high-quality output.
I agree with the point that AI canāt do just about anything, but what I fear is that the presence of AI will also change what people perceive to be good at the same time, or at least change the value that people assign to things and that theyāll slowly forget what quality even is.
2 Likes
I have faith in humans, and I expect the opposite: that flooding people with bland, repetitive stuff will just make them appreciate authenticity even more.
I think that revived interest in cameras (as shown by market data) is a sign of this. Why buy a camera, when AI can āenhanceā your phone photos to whatever you like, or even create one out of thin air? But apparently that stuff is not interesting after a while.
I am inclined to think in that direction as wel.
Maybe you have seen the movie āBlackberryā, two quotes from that:
āWe make your cell phone so fucking useful that you never have to come to the office again.ā
āDoes email, text messaging, however you want to communicate; total individualism all in one deviceāthat fits in your fist. Youāre not selling togetherness anymore. Youāre selling self-reliance.ā
When Covid hit, I heard many predication, that this working at home was there to stay. The future would be so much more efficient, traffic jams would be gone. And look at todayā¦ This didnāt happen. Yes, it changed how we work. But face-to-face contact is being valued much more than before in this world full of tech.
Another example. A couple years ago I sold all my point-and-shoot digital cameraās. I had still a couple lying around. They took pictures of 8 maybe 10 megapixels. Most I actually sold for more than I bought them for. Why? Well people are fed up with their auto-correcting-everything smartphone.
Another example. @JasonTheBirder I donāt know how much you travel in Asia. But what saw over the years: and incredible rise of interest in coffeeā¦ just some facts:
- Chinaās cafĆ© market jumped 58% in 2023 to 50,000+ stores, overtaking the US as the worldās largest branded coffee shop market**
- Asiaās coffee demand has grown 14.5% since 2018 (data from 2023)
- Indonesiaās domestic consumption has tripled since pre-pandemic years, and Indiaās coffee industry is set to double by 2030
And you know what I now notice among my peers. We start the drink less coffee, but coffee of much beter quality.
(Most) people have a natural desire for beauty and uniquely express them. (I saw this desire even with people that are extremely poor). So, yes all the AI companies (Adobe included) want to sell you their AI as the pinnacle of whatever. It will flood the market. And people will find other ways to express themselves, wil be moving away from it and will look for, the imperfect, the unique and the unexpected.
So, I donāt have the fear as @JasonTheBirder, we will just adapt and keep on loving true art.
1 Like