Beginner Should I trust AI-packed photo editors?

Catherine Bowlene

Catherine Bowlene

Messages
51
Name
Catherine
Edit My Images
No
So this may be a stupid question which I'm sorry for :rolleyes: But I'm really curious: what do you think about photo editing programs with so-called AI technologies? "Does all the hard work for you" and so on? I understand that the it could be only a seller's trick but do you trust it? Like in this case- https://www.ephotozine.com/article/photoworks--photo-editor-for-pc-packed-with-ai-technologies-34145 or here- https://skylum.com/blog/artificial-intelligence-photo-editors Do you think it is a good thing to promote in the first place?
 
Try either Lightroom or Photoshop 2020 for image manipulation, in my opinion these are the best :)

Les

PS Other editing suites are available
 
They are fine if you don't want to put your own "stamp" on a photo and are happy for it to look like what the creators want. True, there will be some room for manipulation. But IMO they often take a perfectly good photo and ruin it.

PS there's no such thing as a stupid question - just perhaps a stupid answer.
 
Lez325 said:
Try either Lightroom or Photoshop 2020 for image manipulation, in my opinion these are the best :)

Les

PS Other editing suites are available
Click to expand...
Yeah, I know they are hands down the best but I was just curious about the usability of the whole AI thing. Does it make any sense?
 
Last edited:
Stephen L said:
They are fine if you don't want to put your own "stamp" on a photo and are happy for it to look like what the creators want. True, there will be some room for manipulation. But IMO they often take a perfectly good photo and ruin it.

PS there's no such thing as a stupid question - just perhaps a stupid answer.
Click to expand...
Ah, I see, thanks!
 
AI has its uses but in this context I would say how does it know what you want from the photo?
 
This descriptions are misleading. The AI Guru for the UK stated that true Artificial Intelligence has not yet been produced. AI is now added to the name of a lot of software where it is better then the previous versions. Essentially, you would expect the AI versions to analyze an image before deciding what treatment to apply but this is still determined by logic not intelligence. I use LR/PS in combination with Topaz Plug-in's. The AI versions of Topaz Plug-ins are a big improvement. I can now routinely use ISO 3200 knowing Topaz DeNoise AI can deal with this. Also Topaz Sharpen AI is excellent for sharpening. Of course by letting Topaz decide there is less chance of problems such as over sharpening. I assume that we are not far from one button to apply all the editing in-one. This would be very dull for those of us who like to gradually improve our images in stages (including stepping back a stage sometimes).

Dave
 
Luminar is actually very good and the “ai“ works very well most of the time.
I still use Lightroom as my main editor, but occasionally export to luminar for some tweaks that LR can’t do.

Luminar is very good at making global changes to an image, except certain parts, like skin for example. You can add contrast to the whole image except faces, or brighten just faces and nothing else.
To do the same in LR would take ages masking and using adjustment brushes, whilst luminar “just does it”.
Whilst it’s very easy to go over the top with luminar and make a ghastly looking edit, it can be used sparingly and create very pleasing results.
 
Dave Canon said:
This descriptions are misleading. The AI Guru for the UK stated that true Artificial Intelligence has not yet been produced. AI is now added to the name of a lot of software where it is better then the previous versions. Essentially, you would expect the AI versions to analyze an image before deciding what treatment to apply but this is still determined by logic not intelligence. I use LR/PS in combination with Topaz Plug-in's. The AI versions of Topaz Plug-ins are a big improvement. I can now routinely use ISO 3200 knowing Topaz DeNoise AI can deal with this. Also Topaz Sharpen AI is excellent for sharpening. Of course by letting Topaz decide there is less chance of problems such as over sharpening. I assume that we are not far from one button to apply all the editing in-one. This would be very dull for those of us who like to gradually improve our images in stages (including stepping back a stage sometimes).

Dave
Click to expand...
Wow, I didn't know that! Interesting
 
Having read the article, it's clearly a feature I wouldn't use. In general, it seems like abdicating creative choices in favour of a standardised result, and removing the user from having input to (or even needing to know about) the very tools that allow the photographer maximum creativity.

Since you are new Catherine, you won't know (yet!) that I'm extremely conservative and old fashioned - to the extent of preferring a large format film camera loaded with black and white film. Although I scan and print digitally, this does still mean that there are things like white balance that I don't need to worry about. Hence, my requirements will be somewhat niche. And welcome to the forum :)
 
Some AI technologies are great. Some are terrible.

Sharpening for example, that picks out the edges and sharpens that, but doesn't touch the non edges. AI tools that correct lens distortion. Tools that blend exposures, or stitch panoramas. All very useful tools.

Then there are the "tone mapping" tools that claim to be "high dynamic range" but actually pull down highlights and lift shadows to create "no dynamic range". Skin smoothing tools that make people look like plastic dolls.

Then there are the tools that can be used or misused. Background replacers that are great for surrealist photographers who like to comp their images, and not so great for photographers who want to pretend that the lake district actually has sunshine... :runaway:

So like most things, the tools are there, and when you need them for a specific job, they're fab. But when they become toys that photographers use to try and make bad photos look good, that's when the problems begin.

Ideally, you want to know what you want your image to look like/illustrate/storytell when you press the shutter. Pre-visualise. Then use the tools to help you get closer to that vision.

And that's all my opinion :) Welcome to TP!
 
Catherine Bowlene said:
But I'm really curious: what do you think about photo editing programs with so-called AI technologies?
Click to expand...

They're just a tool to evaluate and use as needed. On1 Photoraw has some AI features that I can choose to ignore, and they won't have any effect on my images. But if they could be useful sometimes then I'm happy for them to be included - it's not like they'll set up a mini Skynet and terminate me. ;)
 
Post-processing of digital photos is, arguable, as important a part of the creative process as taking the photo. If you're happy for this stage to be carried out by AI then go ahead. But if, as a beginner, you'd like to develop, creatively into a photographer then I'd recommend learning how to edit using traditional programmes like PS/LR, Affinity etc. It takes a lot of time to develop the ability to see what needs to be done to an image but it's an important step.

Some people have no desire to learn post-processing. This is fine too. If you're this person and prefer to focus on the 'taking' stage of photography then Luminar etc. is a very good piece of software.
 
As Toni says its another tool in the tool box. I don't do a lot of extensive PP but there have been times when I wanted, for example, to remove a subject from the background, imagine if AI could do that accurately and reliably at the click of a button
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
Post-processing of digital photos is, arguable, as important a part of the creative process as taking the photo. If you're happy for this stage to be carried out by AI then go ahead. But if, as a beginner, you'd like to develop, creatively into a photographer then I'd recommend learning how to edit using traditional programmes like PS/LR, Affinity etc. It takes a lot of time to develop the ability to see what needs to be done to an image but it's an important step.

Some people have no desire to learn post-processing. This is fine too. If you're this person and prefer to focus on the 'taking' stage of photography then Luminar etc. is a very good piece of software.
Click to expand...

Good points. DXO Optics Pro (now Photolab) used to be very automated, with the software deciding how to develop your images and often needing reigning back quite a lot. Useful if it worked in a style that suited you and throughput was more important than specific tayloring of each image, but not necessarily helpful for someone learning how to process images. It was just automated processing then of course, rather than AI. :runaway:
 
ancient_mariner said:
Good points. DXO Optics Pro (now Photolab) used to be very automated, with the software deciding how to develop your images and often needing reigning back quite a lot. Useful if it worked in a style that suited you and throughput was more important than specific tayloring of each image, but not necessarily helpful for someone learning how to process images. It was just automated processing then of course, rather than AI. :runaway:
Click to expand...
Not entirely relevant to your comment but your mention of needing to reign back on the software's automatic edits reminded me of a very useful feature in Luminar: at the bottom of all the editing panels there's a single slider that affects the opacity of all your previous edits. Considering almost all beginner editing issues arise from over-editing, this slider ('filters amount' I think it's called) would be invaluable to the beginner.
 
Tom Pinchenzo said:
Not entirely relevant to your comment but your mention of needing to reign back on the software's automatic edits reminded me of a very useful feature in Luminar: at the bottom of all the editing panels there's a single slider that affects the opacity of all your previous edits. Considering almost all beginner editing issues arise from over-editing, this slider ('filters amount' I think it's called) would be invaluable to the beginner.
Click to expand...

Likewise On1 have an opacity slider for the total editing done.
 
The software may or may not fulfil its claims, I don't know. . .
But, be aware that what you linked to isn't an article at all, it's an advertorial. Personally I never trust paid for content that masquerades as an article.
 
StephenM said:
Having read the article, it's clearly a feature I wouldn't use. In general, it seems like abdicating creative choices in favour of a standardised result, and removing the user from having input to (or even needing to know about) the very tools that allow the photographer maximum creativity.

Since you are new Catherine, you won't know (yet!) that I'm extremely conservative and old fashioned - to the extent of preferring a large format film camera loaded with black and white film. Although I scan and print digitally, this does still mean that there are things like white balance that I don't need to worry about. Hence, my requirements will be somewhat niche. And welcome to the forum :)
Click to expand...
Thank you! Well, black and white film cameras do create the images that look fully authentic and have the certain atmosphere, so I see why people love shooting with them!
 
Catherine, as you maybe aware, the abilities of photo editing software is very subjective, and even more so when 'AI' is involved. Rubbish, acceptable or excellent, it depends what the photographer wants to achieve and with what effort. Much of my current photography has to be sharp, have no digital noise, halos etc when full resolution or near are viewed at 100%, so I need total control and avoid 'AI'.
 
Last edited:
Catherine Bowlene said:
Yeah, I know they are hands down the best but I was just curious about the usability of the whole AI thing. Does it make any sense?
Click to expand...
When I see advertisements for ‘portrait pro’ which is the de facto standard for portraits (my area of interest) they look truly awful.

I appreciate that they can be ‘dialled back’, but I always think ‘if they think that looks ‘good’ I don’t want them anywhere near my work’.

As for sky swapping - I’ve had ‘discussions’ with 2 people who wanted to show how brilliant a job it does. They go like this...
them; look at this sky swap, in just a couple of clicks it went from this to this.
Me; well that’s all wrong though, the light in the sky is in the wrong place for the shadows in your foreground.
them; yes but it’s obviously not a finished image I just wanted to show what’s possible.
me; but if it’s supposed to be ‘intelligent’ it wouldn’t let you add a sky with the sun in the wrong place or the wrong kind of cloud for your shadows’.
them; yes but like I said, it’s just a demonstration of how easy it is to do.

It’s stupid, not intelligent. It might be great at creating an ‘auto mask’ but the software has no idea how the physical world actually looks (and doesn’t care - because it sells to people who don’t understand the basics of what’s wrong).
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top