 |
| |
| This site requires new users to accept that a small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondslr.uk after requesting a new account. Thank you. |
| Moderated by: chrisbet, | ||
| Author | Post | |||||||||
|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|---|
Graham Whistler
|
Follow this link to see my new training film for our camera club Zoom Meetings: https://youtu.be/OIwnPKj6n2w Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Flying ants ....  |
|||||||||
jk
|
He has lived in Africa and is used to seeing flying ants and termites. The marching ants are usually those that come to bite you or destroy your crops. Always worth a watch. Learnt..... on Windows .... Ctrl ' or on Mac .... Cmd ' Gives you the Grid. I always do..... View/Show/Grid. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Vcc3oJhBk Follow this link to see how Photoshop now using AI to to compose amazing images! |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
You can have water in the desert with help from the new Generative Fill in Adobe Photoshop. This is using the Beta Version but it will be out soon. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
As we discussed this morning Graham, I am somewhat concerned about the motivation future photographers will have to get it right in the camera when they can make anything very special on a computer. In fairness it’s been like that since Photoshop came on the market. Like you I was in at the beginning with digital imaging and Photoshop editing. We learnt skills that would enable us to manually use the then available tools to modify images as the subject …..or client demanded. It’s therefore a little churlish to draw a point of difference between us doing it in 2hr and AI doing it in 2sec. And matching or exceeding our professional proficiency back in the day. Nevertheless, I confess that when computers overtake one’s own manual skills, there is an element of feeling cheated. All those hours of practise, training, trial and error and application are somewhat cheapened. So forgive me if my initial response is somewhat cool. Beyond my personal affront at my skills redundancy lol, I think we need to consider the application for this sort of manipulation. I can see young things creating wonderful images for use in digital applications and graphic design projects but where we are competing / exhibiting with basic standard unadulterated photography in clubs and forums I do wonder how that will ever be considered a level playing field. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I agree 100% Eric. The RPS and many camera clubs have now said NO to AI-Generated images, I just wonder how they will be able to tell with some of the images created by AI? |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I am 100% with you too - there is little skill in pressing a few buttons ( maybe some in knowing which buttons the press) but then I am old fashioned. Just like modern cars with all their electronics - it has deskilled people to their detriment. I submitted an image to the RPS Exhibition 165 - didn't get shortlisted though  As to whether they can tell if an image has been edited then the EXIF gives a bit of an indicator - Software Adobe Photoshop 24.7 (20230628.m.2223 0770f83) (Windows) - maybe they have AI that can tell - or even just look at google earth to see there is no lake there!!! I am intrigued by the new Pixel phone that can "de-blur" images ..... |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:I am 100% with you too - there is little skill in pressing a few buttons ( maybe some in knowing which buttons the press) but then I am old fashioned.I would be satisfied if my phone (network) would de-blur the coverage in our area.  |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Eric wrote:I would be satisfied if my phone (network) would de-blur the coverage in our area.You and me both! Our signal goes up and down like a yoyo. They are supposed to be putting a new mast up about 300 yards from our back garden (out of our sight) but I am not holding my breath! |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Chris yes there is no lake there but that picture could have been created with Photoshop several years ago but it would have taken several hours to create. Pictured below is a more normal example. The Highland Bull was walking towards me as I grabbed the photo and in my haste, I did not leave enough grass below him, this again could have been done with older Photoshop but this example took seconds to do. There are a few giveaways if you look carefully but those could be corrected very quickly with the normal clone stamp. Click here to comment on this image. several hard hours to do! |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Hope you don't mind Graham, just over a 1min in PS beta. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Iain - that one looks more obviously altered - there is an almot straight demarcation of "fuzziness" in the foreground. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Looks good! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I’d move the cow. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Definitely the best solution |
|||||||||
Iain
|
chrisbet wrote:Iain - that one looks more obviously altered - there is an almot straight demarcation of "fuzziness" in the foreground.It was only 1mins work Chris. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Iain wrote:It was only 1mins work Chris.Lol - it would have been milliseconds for Graham to tip the camera down a touch or zoom out a bit. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Lol - it would have been milliseconds for Graham to tip the camera down a touch or zoom out a bit.In hindsight I could have taken a lot of photos better…especially the grabshots. More often than not it’s having the wrong lens on the camera at that moment. You have a choice of taking the photo with what you have to hand …or not. At one time in my business promo literature I used the phrase “inside every photograph is a spectacular image waiting to get out”. It was aimed primarily at customers wanting to use their images in their literature, with me offering digital manipulation and editing to best advantage. It did however equally apply to some of my own images, where some judicious cropping, distraction cloning helped lift the end product. Confession: I did a new kitchen shoot many moons ago for a client and was booked for a half day. I got on very quickly because it was one of those locations that was unidirectional. Unfortunately there was a bleeding great clock on the wall and in plain sight from all the usable angles. When I got back to the studio and reviewed the images from start to finish, I noticed the clock hadn’t changed by the 4 hours that I was supposed to be there. So I did some digital clock winding. I am not adverse to editing and manipulating images with software like Photoshop….it’s just that I like to do it rather than AI. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Well done that one Eric was that Photoshop? Yes could have dipped the camera down but was standing in the road as cars were held up with other cows all over the place so it was very much a grab shot and Wendy shouted to get back in the car you are holding people up on a mountain road! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:Well done that one Eric was that Photoshop? Yes could have dipped the camera down but was standing in the road as cars were held up with other cows all over the place so it was very much a grab shot and Wendy shouted to get back in the car you are holding people up on a mountain road!Affinity Photo, Graham. These ladies can interfere with our creative moments. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Eric thanks again for your fun made me make my brain work with the all-new AI Photoshop 24.7 Beta I think it did a good job too, what do you think? The bit that amazed me is what a good job it did in the hole left by the moved cow, QED? Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:Eric thanks again for your fun made me make my brain work with the all-new AI Photoshop 24.7 Beta I think it did a good job too, what do you think? The bit that amazed me is what a good job it did in the hole left by the moved cow, QED?It’s done a better job than mine, Graham. In fairness I didn’t do the best job I could have. I should have taken the feather off the clone tool to get clean/sharp cloning in the ‘hole’ area. As it only took me about 20mins it’s not surprising it was not perfect. That said Photoshop achieving this in a few seconds is very impressive. Certainly worth using in these sort of situations ….where you are improving your own photographs. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Thanks again for that Eric made me try having a go 1st time with the new AI Photoshop Beta version 24.7 as is seen it does a good job and did not take even me too long to learn. This was the first try with the moving cow to improve the photo, all done very fast!! As stated could be done years ago with PS but it would take a lot more skill and time. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:Thanks again for that Eric made me try having a go 1st time with the new AI Photoshop Beta version 24.7 as is seen it does a good job and did not take even me too long to learn. This was the first try with the moving cow to improve the photo, all done very fast!! As stated could be done years ago with PS but it would take a lot more skill and time.I notice we are not alone in our concern over the takeover by AI. https://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-66200334 While there is a world of difference between total replacement of film actors and refining our own photos, it has the potential for a slippy slope. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Every wedge has a thin end! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Every wedge has a thin end!I used to call a bloke who worked alongside me years ago…”the wedge”. When asked why I called him that, I pointed out the wedge was one of the “simplest tools known to man”.  Someone had to explain that to him. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Swiss Mountain Railway is there any A1 here? See if you can spot it!!! Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Hmm - yes, I don't think the trees in the foreground are consistent with the terrain, I am guessing that the ground is too poor to support that height of tree! |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Well done Chris but there are some on top of the mountain that were not planted by me. I also made the stream below the bridge over the railway wider and added water. It all took a few quick moments, their new A1 features are very good and will save a lot of time, but some are worried about it is no longer photography. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I don’t like the grassy area to the left of the chalet. The contour lines seem to end abruptly unlike the lines on the other bank.  |
|||||||||
Iain
|
The AI makes things easy as long as people don't abuse it ability. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I should have put this up and is the Nikon Photo as shot before adding new extra material on the bottom. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Photography is a form of visual art - making images, does it matter whether the artist is using a brush or AI to create the piece? |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Eric wrote:I don’t like the grassy area to the left of the chalet. The contour lines seem to end abruptly unlike the lines on the other bank.The sheep only wander that far |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Chris you have it, the photo may only be used in my local camera club in Gosport for a monthly comp and my added bits were only perhaps added to improve the composition. After all, artists do it all time, are we not in a way photo artists creating an interesting picture? |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I think we make images for 2 main reasons - 1. As an accurate record of something, and 2. As a pleasing image. They are not mutually exclusive reasons but I would say that in case 1 it is less appropriate to use AI (unless you want to deceive!), in case 2 I think it is no holds barred! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:The sheep only wander that farSorry but having now seen the ‘before’ image I don’t think the AI did a good job of that specific area I mentioned. My eye was immediately drawn to the sharp demarcation between the grass and contoured surface…not seen else where in the image. If I had been doing that manually I would have done something more to minimise the contrast between the two areas. And…being a complete anorak, there is a repeat pattern in that added area….  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Hehehe - you missed 2 more ..... Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Yes you are right it would need some clone tooling to clean it up. Now I have had several more goes with other photos it is a good tool but far from perfect and more work is needed if you are going to use the photo in a club comp. Also, this is the Bata copy let's see when they publish the final published version. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
I am a Documentary photog. and altho` oftentimes I have been grumbling about " that branch" being in the way, and tempted to remove it hardhandedly,instead using PC Nikkors ( I`ve got them All ) yet ,I am, looking favourably upon the new tech., however, were I still on the job, I would at all times have a camera loaded with color-slide, as I am worried that one day,the courts would demand to see evidence that the submitted photographic evidence is accurate,and as we all know, colorslide can not be fiddled with. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Hehehe - you missed 2 more .....Another anorak |
|||||||||
Eric
|
novicius wrote:I am a Documentary photog. and altho` oftentimes I have been grumbling about " that branch" being in the way, and tempted to remove it hardhandedly,instead using PC Nikkors ( I`ve got them All ) yet ,I am, looking favourably upon the new tech., however, were I still on the job, I would at all times have a camera loaded with color-slide, as I am worried that one day,the courts would demand to see evidence that the submitted photographic evidence is accurate,and as we all know, colorslide can not be fiddled with.That’s a fair point. A number of photographic occupations are equally constrained to ‘leave the captured images unaltered’. As a commercial photographer I was often required to make the customers product look as good as possible….quite the opposite scenario …and a not insignificant challenge in some cases. Lol One customer, who made stainless steel packaging machinery, required me to create brochures of their 10metre packing lines which were sitting on a factory floor (often still being worked on by employees) and to exclude the workshop benches, girlie calendars, racking, people, tools and electric cabling…not to mention ‘reglazing’ the Perspex guards/screens which were ‘see through’ … so as to retain their transparency! The vast majority of the work to realise their needs was the digital editing of the original photos. Many hours work. I would argue that such specific detailed alterations would be beyond AI in its current form. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
I think your right Eric, changes like that would still need a lot of human imput. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
I think your right Eric, changes like that would still need a lot of human imput. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Eric wrote:That’s a fair point. A number of photographic occupations are equally constrained to ‘leave the captured images unaltered’.Byway of an example I trawled through my old files. in the early years I took the photos but as the young sons of the owner came into the business they wanted to take their own photographs (to save money). This is the sort of photo they sent… (Taken on a Canon ) Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Eric wrote:Byway of an example I trawled through my old files.This was the sort of image they wanted (part edited version - spot the unedited bits) ….  Click here to comment on this image. AI would not be intelligent enough to know which bits were part of the machine and to include them….and which were background detritus and to exclude them |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Here is an example of a machine with macrolon guards added back after reflections and see through detail removed. The image is on a layer in Photoshop so any background can be added ….and the image will show correctly through the guards…. Click here to comment on this image. Again…AI would struggle with the level of masking needed to achieve this detail. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I think AI is not actually in any way "intelligent" - it seems to me that it takes percentagee guesses based on what it already knows and applies them in a way that makes sense to the programmer that wrote the software. So the end result is only as good as the combination of those things, it will only get better if the end user gives feedback. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:I think AI is not actually in any way "intelligent" - it seems to me that it takes percentagee guesses based on what it already knows and applies them in a way that makes sense to the programmer that wrote the software. So the end result is only as good as the combination of those things, it will only get better if the end user gives feedback.I was having a chat with Graham the other day about photo insertion. I am sure Graham will post examples of his volcano. He was trying to add an eruption to his photograph of an extinct/dormant volcano. The offerings were quite pathetic apparently ….more like a firework coming out of the top. Haha It however raised an issue…where does Photoshop get its images? Off the internet of course. So when you ask it to create a particular scene…..it goes and finds one. If you don’t like it you tell it to find a better one….and it does it. You then ask it to add a new feature (eg a highland cow) ….and it finds one…ad nauseum. The point is…these aren’t your photos. You may be creating YOUR artwork but using OTHERS photos by proxy.  |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
This was slightly better 2nd time around but Mt Doom N Zealand was just plain dormant when photographed (Nikon D300) Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
AI did a bit better: this was a street in India and dry so I asked the new AI to make it look like there had been some rain and the road should be wet with suitable reflections. Took only 2 mins and no extra work has been done on this. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Oh dear - not convinced by either of those |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Lol - 5 mins using nothing but copy & paste in GIMP -  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Yes Chris but it has been interesting to try to see what it can do. It took 5 goes to get the Mt Doom and I agree even this is not that realistic. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
These are two images I have created in new Photoshop AI and generated them on my computer on a white empty canvas. Each image was generated from nothing in less than 10 mins! They are NOT photographs! Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
This may shock some of you I promise that this is NOT my photo. Zero blank canvas in Photoshop Beta A1 and asked it to generate a Goldfinch in wood. This came up in 15 seconds as a high-res file!!! Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham I think you are being too kind to AI ( or A’up as we say in Yorkshire) I consider that goldfinch to be way inferior to the images you, Jeff, Iain and dare I say, myself produce from a camera, long lens/close location and good lighting. There is no feather detail. It like someone over worked noise reduction creating a smudged effect. The branch is good though! Let’s be serious for a moment. Where is that image coming from? A stock of royalty free? images at Adobe or in AI’s back pocket or is it seriously accessing google to find out what a goldfinch is and then creating it’s own image to approximate what it believes is a ‘goldfinch in a wood’? I asked Siri to find me some “photographs of goldfinches” it produced these eight. When asked for more it gave another different 8….I didn’t spend more than the time to ask Siri but I bet there will be thousands of options .  Click here to comment on this image. So I am guessing AI is just having a quick word with his/her/they mate Siri……for something to chuck up on the screen. Very clever and useful if you haven’t got a camera or any interest in taking photos yourself. But is it photography? As I said to you when we spoke this morning, were I still in the graphic design business creating brochures, catalogues, adverts and flyers, then I dare say being able to quickly & cheaply conjure up an exotic image for a client that would take hours manually, would be an advantage. I can see modern graphic designers and digital imagers jumping at this feature. But it’s not for me. Were I to delegate responsibility for image selection/creation to a third person (let alone a robot) I would very soon lose interest in taking photos and sell my equipment! When we spoke about your sea shore image I said that the figure and the strange shaped dog? were at odds with the contrast of the rest of the image. I am also bemused why AI has chosen a couple walking INTO the sea. So it’s quick and it might fool a lot of people out there but to me as a photographer it’s not quite realistic. Sorry …..nice try AI, but no cigar. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
I think what Eric says is right, they are good but not yet great. I had a red kite on a post and asked AI to put it in the woods, it took 8 images before I got one that I thought was ok but not good enough. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Daguerreotypes weren't much cop either ....... |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:I think what Eric says is right, they are good but not yet great.Iain….after looking more closely at the goldfinch image with Mike (my bird watching buddy) he raised an observation that I missed. He said the tail is too long for a Goldfinch (European or American). He also thought the eye ring was wrong. His comment was “it’s almost a composite of several birds”. This revelation makes me now wonder whether AI is not just grabbing a web picture but actually looking at all sorts of information (paintings, drawings old and new) and creating its interpretation of a Goldfinch. I had wondered if the smudging effect was AI taking a very low res image, then using processing to control ‘scale up artefacts’ on the file to get the large file size Graham got. Thoughts? |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Yes he’s right Eric, at first glance I didn’t notice it but looking at it again it seems to have added some extras for a new species of gold finch. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Sent this photo with AI version to Clive, he is photographer friend FRPS and very good with Photoshop has taught it for years, his comments: Thanks for the comparison. Your image is far superior! There’s hope for homo sapiens yet!  Click here to comment on this image. No doubt we’ll be in touch again soon.Best wishes,Clive. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham I think that goldfinch image comparison should be included in your presentation to the camera club. It shows clearly how far AI has to improve before it can replace a photographer! |
|||||||||
Iain
|
I was thinking the very same thing. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
We are in a villa near Gaillac in South France near the river Tarn for 2 weeks holiday. We travelled down by car and stayed in Pierre Buffiere but had to very quickly remove some cars in new Photoshop AI so that we could park in front of our over-night hotel. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Des voitures qui disparaissent, c'est bien ! Passe de bonnes vacances. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
We decided to give France a miss this autumn and take the caravan to God’s Own County for a few days. I also thought it wise to avoid attracting the attention of the Tyke Thrift Police by showing extravagant camera purchases when out of their jurisdiction. So I left my long lenses at home. Well let’s face it, the weather forecast was five days of wind and rain with most activities indoors (getting my moneys worth out of NT and EH subscriptions) so why would I need long lenses? I even wondered if I should just take the iPhone. Pitched the caravan facing a rough pasture. And was greeted by the sight of a lovely barn owl quartering the said pasture. A guy in the next caravan spotted it and was trying to capture images with his Nikon D3200 and 500mm lens. He confessed his inexperience, so I waded in with some help. Myself? I was limited to 100mm. So short of actually bumping into the owl I had no chance of any images of worth. After 2 evening with this owl grabbing half the voles in Yorkshire neither of us had secured anything decent. That’s when I noticed him correcting the focus on the lens barrel after the auto focus acquired beep. Asked why, he said he didn’t think the image was sharp enough. I discovered he hadn’t adjusted the eye piece diopter to his eyes!! By the 3rd night he was getting good static shots when the bird stopped swooping about but was having problems holding the flying bird in view. That’s when the penny dropped…DX 1.4x on 500mm = 700mm and little chance of keeping flying bird in frame. By the 5th night (it rained on the 4th) we had got his hunting pattern sussed so went down the field to a secluded corner and waited. Getting savaged by Yorkshire gnats was a small price to pay for a good shot of a hunting owl. The little feathery b***ard had different ideas and decided to grab the vole 3-4metres in front my caravan!! The wife got a ‘cracking view’ while preparing dinner. This is all I got (massive crop) with 100mm across the other side of the field….  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. Lots of lessons here….expect the unexpected, take all your lenses, sit and wait for the subject to come closer to you, don’t stand in hedgerow at dusk without mossie protection….leave it to the experts. This is the full frame shot ( at 12,800 iso) to get an idea of the crop quality loss ….  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Des voitures qui disparaissent, c'est bien ! Passe de bonnes vacances.I was going to write my post in Tyke but that would be too weird. My favourite Tike phrase….. “Tintintin” ( which interprets as “It is not in the metal receptacle ” ) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:We are in a villa near Gaillac in South France near the river Tarn for 2 weeks holiday. We travelled down by car and stayed in Pierre Buffiere but had to very quickly remove some cars in new Photoshop AI so that we could park in front of our over-night hotel.Was Wendy trying to hail a cab…. before you AIed all them too? |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Eric sad about the owl but you did well with just your standard lens, shame about the weather. We had rain on way down but sun out today and with a heated pool and cows up the road we are all set! Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
This is field close to Salvagnac our little local town 2k from our rented villa. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Eric wrote:We decided to give France a miss this autumn and take the caravan to God’s Own County for a few days.I never go anywhere with out a longish lens. I've got a Tampon 18-300 as a walk around lens and at a push I can put the A1 into crop mode giving me 21mp and FOV of 450mm |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
An 18 to 300mm tampon????? |
|||||||||
Iain
|
chrisbet wrote:An 18 to 300mm tampon?????Predictive sex I mean text sticks again. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Rabastens on the River Tarn (some cars removed in Photoshop AI) Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
View from our rented villa in Salvagnac S France this morning as shot above and below with added sky from a previous morning added in Photoshop AI Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:Predictive sex I mean text sticks again.A builder friend of mine (sadly passed away far too early) once made a real howler. Talking to a lady customer about the finishing/decoration that she was planning in the new extension he had just built was heard to say…… ” would you like a dildo?” The woman’s eyes went out on stalks, but John continued “ a lot of people go in for a dildos now “. The woman was silent but red faced by now. “ you can have it rubbed down and stained or painted to match the skirting “. The woman somewhat relieved said “ you mean a dado Mr P”. Poor old John ….he couldn’t blame predictive text! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:Rabastens on the River Tarn (some cars removed in Photoshop AI)Nice shots Graham Could you not get AI to add a group of pétanque players in the Avenue sidewalk? |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Eric wrote:A builder friend of mine (sadly passed away far too early) once made a real howler. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
We had evening meal in 11th Cent Castel-de-Montmiral last night. These pixs taken at dusk on my iPhone. Very interesting old town with narow & steep streets. 16 km from our rented villa in Salvanac. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
In the supermarket today! Sony A1 with 24-105mm lens available light. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I love French (and Italian) supermarkets - so much more interesting than British ones! |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Misty morning today, on the farm track outside our rented villa. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
The villa garden at dawn. Tomorrow we head North 400 mile drive to hotel the last 100miles to ferry and back in Portsmouth Sat 9.00pm. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Gordes also in S France this is a Nikon image from the past D800 Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Our very local river Meon last night with floods like many other areas, i Phoe photo. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Shame that AI can't dry it up in reality! |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
But AI can cut out a studio Nikon photo of Tudor Lady and paste her into another image of an old building taken also with Nikon DSL in S France. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Chris…would it be worthwhile incorporating the use of AI into the heading for this thread? Or moving the AI related posts to a new thread? This current ‘viral’ subject and Grahams hard work are perhaps being missed by visitors when in this general ‘Correcting photos in PS’ title. In fact only the first post was about correcting distortion so a change in title might be easier |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Eric wrote:Chris…would it be worthwhile incorporating the use of AI into the heading for this thread? Or moving the AI related posts to a new thread?I agree - quite often the topic wanders off in a different if related direction - I have retitled the topic. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
This is NOT a photograph. Another pure AI created from a clear white canvas with a few written "generate" a wild seascape with rocks etc about 5 min work to create this. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Now you have lost me - why? There is no skill involved in creating it and where did it "steal" the bits of the image from? The EXIF gives it away - no camera, lens or exposure information. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Chris, it just generates what you ask it to do. I do not know where the info comes from. Again This is NOT a photograph but is now generated in the latest Photoshop version 25.1 so the Beta Photoshop features have now almost fully been added. This was again written in a simple few words on a blank selected canvas: " Seascape with rough water and rocks" On the same new bar at the bottom of the picture click the right-hand box to generate. (If this new box gets in your way it is easy to move it.) Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Hmmm - ask it to generate "BMC B series conrod and piston with broken top ring" |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Chris that took 30 sec what fun!!!! Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Or autumn trees on a hillside? Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
ROFL - not so intelligent - absolutely nothing like the real thing!!! Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Ok…because I know Graham will be doing a talk/workshop on Photoshop AI, I’m going to be a bit nit picking to help in his pros and cons. Firstly the crashing sea and the ‘cartoon’ man on the rocks. There are 3 or 4 things that disturb me with this images. The Beluga whale like wave crashing into the mid distant rocks with no spray. The strange choice of figure on the rocks …it doesn’t look real let alone realistic. The white (sharpening?) halo around high contrast edges….is it selecting low res files and trying to make them bigger and better? I am uncomfortable with the sea transitions. The tide in the middle foreground seems to be a different energy to the water by the rocks on the right. The mid distant sea just looks to yet another energy level to the rest of the water. It looks like a merged version of several images??? In the sunset image… Here again there is a halo around high contrast edges??? It may be a single image but I am again disturbed by what seems like disjoined energy in the water. It’s almost as though it’s two images at different shutter speeds and merged. And what’s going on with those 3 black rocks above mid rocks? They don’t look real? Autumn trees on a hillside…. I thought that was quite good apart from yet again ….halos, the 3 strange periscopes and the black ‘Sanskrit like’ marks to the left of the main rock?/ Apart from image ownership, what is the difference in asking PS to provide such an image, as opposed to asking google to do the same same? Are Adobe just gathering royalty free images and merging where necessary?  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Eric is quite right and the Goldfinch proved this on day one. The images I have just posted are no better even if you spent hours retouching them, the res is still low and I gave them a good-sized canvas to work with. It still stands the quality of the REAL photo image is still way in front. Let's hope there will be a need for a human-skilled photographer for years to come. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Hmmm - ask it to generate "BMC B series conrod and piston with broken top ring"I was going to be naughty and get Graham to ask it to produce a young couple ‘being intimate’ on a beach….just to see if Adobe sources stop at pornography. We don’t have to see the results on this family friendly forum. Graham just has to avoid Wendy seeing what he’s been doing. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Forgot to say….the photo of the Tudor lady was very good. And it should be ….as it was taken by a proper photographer. And yes, the medievalesque background adds to the image. But does it need AI for you to mask your lady and drop in a new background? We’ve been doing this for some time (ever since Layers were invented). Ok, AI might do it in seconds but how long would it take to use PS smart mask…a few minutes? I guess it’s how much you need instant results. Being retired I am happy to let tasks drift on at their own pace. Lol |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Where AI could REALLY help is getting you and your camera in the right place at the right time with the right light to be able to use your skills...... |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Where AI could REALLY help is getting you and your camera in the right place at the right time with the right light to be able to use your skills......I suspect that will come just before the AI takes the camera off you, smacks you round the head with it for being useless and orders you to get on cleaning the dishes which you are more suited to doing. …….Oh no sorry l already have got that, it’s the wife.  |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Lol - I have that sorted - she does the dishes - I make the mess! |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Background replaced in PS beta using AI. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Looks good it does that very well. The latest version of Photoshop 25.1 now has been fully updated and has most of new AI bits as well |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Photoshop’s prowess in smart masking was available before AI came along, enabling fine foreground detail retention when replacing a background. How much do you think AI has improved on that feature? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Where AI could REALLY help is getting you and your camera in the right place at the right time with the right light to be able to use your skills......Had a hysterical episode yesterday while being shown how a GoPro could be set to voice commands. My GoPro expert spent 10mins failing to get it to run ‘GoPro Start”, ‘GoPro Start Filming”, and a dozen permutations of speculative and increasingly louder commands, some of which included profanity….no surprise they didn’t work. After another 10min of him shouting at his device he managed to get it to start/stop filming and power off to commands. He couldn’t however get the camera to power on by voice (in hindsight that’s obvious because it has no power ON to do anything yet) But he handed it to me and every time I said power on …it came on. What he didn’t realise…I was manually switching it on as I was commanding it! All present except him were in hysterics. He just got madder and madder….especially when I told him it was probably AI only recognising a ‘worthy photographer’ to use it. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
You should have said it is sulking - would you turn on only to be sworn and shouted at?? |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote:Photoshop’s prowess in smart masking was available before AI came along, enabling fine foreground detail retention when replacing a background.It makes the process easy especially if you dont want to use a Wacon tablet. I have to say that I never work on iPad for editing images except for the simplest exposure change. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Honey is with us for 5 weeks while her owner is in Kenya. Available light with Sony A1 and 100-400mm lens. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Some summer colour from our garden Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I should have said this was the Sony A1 with 90mm Sony Macro lens. Photoshop AI cut out the flower and I added sky from my sky files. Image created all my own work in 5 mins. This is using the power of A1 correctly to give good clean images quickly, and yes with much less skill required. I did a Zoom session for one of our camera club members yesterday showing him the power of the new Photoshop features. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Graham, How do you find the 100-400 image quality wise compared to the 200-600? |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Just as good Ian I think all the lenses are first class. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Thanks Graham. I've been debating about getting one as there are times the 200-600mm is a bit too heavy to lug around. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
The only problem I have had is a small one the retaining catch on the 100-400mm lens broke so I have to retain the lens hood in place with a bit of tape. I was going to get a new hood but at £70 I will try and get the old one repaired!!!! |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Graham Whistler wrote:The only problem I have had is a small one the retaining catch on the 100-400mm lens broke so I have to retain the lens hood in place with a bit of tape. I was going to get a new hood but at £70 I will try and get the old one repaired!!!!It’s the same hood as the 70-200 2.8 and mine broke on that too. It’s now held on with good old gaffer tape. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Ok …thought I would dabble with this AI Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. If freeing captive animals was only this simple. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Not often you see a Yaffle taking a bath! Click here to comment on this image. A bit of grass between its legs and by the tail…but not bad automatic masking.  Click here to comment on this image. Footnote: I did actually tone down the bird to better match the contrast of the background image afterwards ( maybe a tad too much) One of the things AI gets wrong sometimes imho is matching the contrast of the replacement background to the subject cutout. In this instance the brighter punchier original image didn’t quite look right to my eye against the dull pond image produced. Interesting howler……On another image of the woodpecker sitting in a tree I asked AI to replace the tangled branches with the bird perched on a single branch with a lake behind. The resulting chimera had an extended beak of a kingfisher but the colours of the woodpecker. AI clearly only had shots of kingfishers sitting on branches over water. So you do have to be careful what you wishe for. Lol |
|||||||||
Iain
|
They work well. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Good images Eric, and a very Happy Christmas to all our friends!!! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I suppose I should have asked AI to remove the water buffalo’s earrings as well. But you have to leave something for the photographer to do.  |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I have just discovered how clever this AI can be. Doing through some old IR photos I came across one image of Iron Bridge which I hadn’t processed because it had 4 people and some workmen’s screening on the bridge either masking the railings or behind them. It sort of spoilt the image. So I set the generative infill on Photoshop with the challenge of doing more than one fill at the same time. Using simple path/ selection to surround each person and including some of the railing and background it took 30secs to mask and save each section in turn, then recall them en mass. I’ve focussed in on the 3 that were centre frame….  Click here to comment on this image. I then hot the generative fill button and ….  Click here to comment on this image. And within another 30sec the process was complete….  Click here to comment on this image. It’s done an excellent job with the two members of the public and an ‘acceptable’ attempt at the worker who was in front of the rails compared to the other two people and he also had foliage behind as well as a more acute angle reducing the railing gaps. Aside from the fact it struggled to get the railing spacing right (with the worker obscuring the railings for better reference), what I found fascinating and very clever, was its ability to tackle more than one distinctly different area of the image at the same time. It’s not perfect but getting something 90% ok/ usable in under 5 minutes compared to manual cloning which would have probably taken me an hour to do them all. Footnote: I missed the fact the middle guy had a dog on a lead, which should have been included in the mask.  |
|||||||||
Iain
|
It has worked out well Eric and if you wanted to spend a little time the rail spacing could be fixed as well. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:It has worked out well Eric and if you wanted to spend a little time the rail spacing could be fixed as well.This is a small crop of the bridge image so it’s not recogniseable on the full photo. Losing the people and some other safety equipment makes a difference but without blowing up the section with the railings at an angle you don’t notice it. it always was the big issue cloning something symmetrical on the angle…the gaps, thickness and lengths all change with perspective. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Who said AI would be boaring? Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I blame Graham, for starting this thread. I am trying to thin out my photo archives and every time I come across a reject I think "I wonder if AI can make this more presentable'. I then get distracted from my task !! I am currently reviewing some old images taken a long time ago on a trip to the Forest of Dean where semi wild boar roam in controlled areas...their area has boundary wires near human habitation. I already did a piglet (or its it a boarlet?) above but thought the old grunter could be tidied up by AI as well. Take one boaring picture......  Click here to comment on this image. And get AI to Elaboarate it......removed the wires in 15secs.  Click here to comment on this image. Enough. I must get on thinning. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
It's too easy. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:It's too easy.It’s funny you should say that. We had visitor’s yesterday and they were telling me their son in law who runs a London PR/Advertising agency is getting worried. One of his clients Citibank are restructuring and reducing headcount and spending less on advertising. He believes they need to get upto speed with all the latest AI techniques to keep them in business! So all the acquired skills his designers have will count for nothing…or at least not warrant their high salaries! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Anyone want an AI challenge? Uncage the Lion...  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
It's a photo taken by Jan at a zoo on a D70 in the early years of digital. She asked me to remove bars.  Several hours 'labour of love' in the old fashioned way...........  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Ive just returned from a trip to Mongolia. I wanted to photograph the reclusive 'grumpy' Pallas Cat in their natural surroundings. They live in gaps or small caves in rocky outcrops in the barren Mongolian plains, feasting on rodents and small birds that happen to use the same rocky outcrops for food and sanctuary. ( not many live to tell the tale.) Anyway they are very reclusive and often people fail to capture sightings despite waiting for days. One such person known to me flew from the UK, at great expense, and never saw one sighting! I suppose it's all about luck....  Click here to comment on this image. .....and AI. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
After leaving Mongolia, I flew down to India. Had a close encounter with a tiger walking along a jungle path..... Click here to comment on this image. Not sure what is most frightening. A brush with a wild tiger or AI |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Those are good Eric. I haven’t played with it that much yet, did a couple of the dogs and that’s about it. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:Those are good Eric. I haven’t played with it that much yet, did a couple of the dogs and that’s about it.IMHO ..the key to getting it realistic is the wording you use in the command….just like using search engines. On the Pallas cat I typed “a rocky pile with a very small cave like entrance” For the tiger “ a straight narrow jungle path going away from me”. Ive only been playing with this because I have been exposing myself to a lot of historical images during my clearout. I don’t really expect to be doing this much more, unless future images are wanting in terms of the background or surroundings. It’s really just exploring what you have to say, to get the result you want, as it can go horribly wrong. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Photoshop AI Generative Fill in Seconds just removed the out-of-focus branch. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Yes the generative fill is excellent...provided you get the masking right. ie enough surrounding area outside the mask for it to intelligently copy. I would like to know how AI knew how to terminate the Robins tail correctly??? I reckon my pussy cat would like your robin as a snack.  Click here to comment on this image. Just to demonstrate how clever AI is......I flipped the selection and AI followed the lighting of the subject and reproduced the background lit from the right direction. But notice the strange artefacts in the cave entrance. Easy enough to use the generative fill to remove though. Corrected!  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
I think in the first picture your little cat is licking his lips in anticipation of the robin. Mine with the dogs, they were laying on the patio table and I selected them and just put is grass and it came up with this one. I did nothing else to it. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Very good Eric like the big cat! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:I think in the first picture your little cat is licking his lips in anticipation of the robin.That's all I did but I just put in a grassy mountain ledge. It took seconds! But its all down to what you decide to write in the description In fact exactly what I did with your dogs....forgot the grass bit though  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
The dogs that travel the world. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
The dog on the right is passing blue wind? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:The dog on the right is passing blue wind?I think I would sitting there!!! Yes he/she has probably eaten too much grass. (didnt bother to do any manual tweaks, just a bit of fun) |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Changing the subject slightly…. I was watching a Sky nature programme called Wild India last night. It showed a clouded leopard hunting prey in the Jungle. Gibbons and Macaques in the trees were not safe from the brilliantly agile clouded leopard as it was shown climbing the branches. The footage was interchanging prey flying about and hunter climbing thin branches. We never saw them in the same frame together. Not surprising really as the clouded leopard was in a jungle (very convincing) compound! How can I be sure? As the leopard ‘stalked’ a long a branch there was the clear shot of a man’s smiling face just behind the tree the leopard was walking on. OOPS. The other point is they are nocturnal hunters so they wouldn’t be seen stalking prey up branches in the sunlight of this fil sequence. The keepers at the reserve I visited told me they will happily go in the compound (two keepers together!) when the suns out but as dusk approaches or on cloudy days…forget it. So when is AI that different to manipulation of supposed wild filming using captive subjects sequences?  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Eric wrote:I think I would sitting there!!!If only she did we would then have some warning to hold our noses. She can create some pong for a little dog. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Eric wrote:Changing the subject slightly….This is the thing that will kill competitions if people aren’t honest. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:This is the thing that will kill competitions if people aren’t honest.Not just competition, Iain. Some years ago, I was doing the graphics for some packaging for a footware company. They wanted a rough road scene to fit in with their slogan around the shoe boxes. Quite an interesting project in design and layout but I needed 3-4 days to find a rough country road they liked. It would have saved them a small fortune using AI….well I wasn’t cheap |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Does the use of AI show up in the EXIF data? |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Chris I am looking into that I have seen a BIPP member posting info about AI in EXIF files but my 83 yr old brain did not quite take it all in! Perhaps Eric knows he is good at EXIF info? |
|||||||||
Iain
|
chrisbet wrote:Does the use of AI show up in the EXIF data?Never looked for that Chris, I'll have to have a look. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I’ve not noticed it but will check again. Periodically I found some of my images were stripped of exif data. Not sure if it’s the software used to edit…what or why. If it is possible to remove the exif entirely from the file then it would hide any AI footprint anyway. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Here’s an example…. Iain’s dog photo grabbed from screen shows exif data….  Click here to comment on this image. But when I open that screen grab and replace the background, the resulting image has no exif???  Click here to comment on this image. Yet if I take a screengrab of my own tiger image modify it slightly and resave…..it keeps its exif???  Click here to comment on this image. What’s going on? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:Chris I am looking into that I have seen a BIPP member posting info about AI in EXIF files but my 83 yr old brain did not quite take it all in! Perhaps Eric knows he is good at EXIF info?I think what and how much you see depends on the software you use to examine the exif data. I just don’t understand how some images can lose their exif data during processing? Or whether it’s still there but hidden, requiring more sophisticated software programs to reveal it? |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Much the same as I have seen, but info about the latest new AI states that you can find more info about the source of any material you use. I will look for more. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
If you click on the "Comment" link under the image, you go to a comment page - click on the image there and you get a larger image with an EXIF button - that gives this for the screengrab FILE FileName img_5873.jpeg FileDateTime 1705234269 FileSize 2637455 FileType 2 MimeType image/jpeg SectionsFound ANY_TAG, IFD0, EXIF COMPUTED html width="1940" height="1516" Height 1516 Width 1940 IsColor 1 ByteOrderMotorola 1 IFD0 Orientation 1 XResolution 144/1 YResolution 144/1 ResolutionUnit 2 Exif_IFD_Pointer 90 EXIF ColorSpace 1 ExifImageWidth 1940 ExifImageLength 1516 |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
The tiger image - FILE FileName img_5876.jpeg FileDateTime 1705234569 FileSize 1916092 FileType 2 MimeType image/jpeg SectionsFound ANY_TAG, IFD0, EXIF COMPUTED html width="1711" height="1668" Height 1668 Width 1711 IsColor 1 ByteOrderMotorola 1 IFD0 Orientation 1 XResolution 144/1 YResolution 144/1 ResolutionUnit 2 Exif_IFD_Pointer 90 EXIF ColorSpace 1 ExifImageWidth 1711 ExifImageLength 1668 |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
An ordinary image has more data - FILE FileName _dsc1899.jpg FileDateTime 1705159697 FileSize 704828 FileType 2 MimeType image/jpeg SectionsFound ANY_TAG, IFD0, THUMBNAIL, EXIF COMPUTED html width="2733" height="2044" Height 2044 Width 2733 IsColor 1 ByteOrderMotorola 0 ApertureFNumber f/3.5 Thumbnail.FileType 2 Thumbnail.MimeType image/jpeg IFD0 ImageWidth 2733 ImageLength 2044 BitsPerSample 8 8 8 PhotometricInterpretation 2 Make NIKON CORPORATION Model NIKON D3 Orientation 1 SamplesPerPixel 3 XResolution 1500000/10000 YResolution 1500000/10000 ResolutionUnit 2 Software Adobe Photoshop CC (Windows) DateTime 2017:09:23 10:48:46 Exif_IFD_Pointer 280 THUMBNAIL Compression 6 XResolution 72/1 YResolution 72/1 ResolutionUnit 2 JPEGInterchangeFormat 926 JPEGInterchangeFormatLength 5507 EXIF ExposureTime 1/640 FNumber 35/10 ExposureProgram 3 ISOSpeedRatings 1000 ExifVersion 0221 DateTimeOriginal 2011:09:02 13:30:20 DateTimeDigitized 2011:09:02 13:30:20 ShutterSpeedValue 9321928/1000000 ApertureValue 361471/100000 ExposureBiasValue 0/6 MaxApertureValue 30/10 MeteringMode 3 LightSource 0 Flash 0 FocalLength 700/10 SubSecTime 70 SubSecTimeOriginal 70 SubSecTimeDigitized 70 ColorSpace 65535 ExifImageWidth 2733 ExifImageLength 2044 SensingMethod 2 FileSource SceneType CFAPattern CustomRendered 0 ExposureMode 0 WhiteBalance 0 DigitalZoomRatio 1/1 FocalLengthIn35mmFilm 70 SceneCaptureType 0 GainControl 2 Contrast 0 Saturation 0 Sharpness 0 SubjectDistanceRange 0 |
|||||||||
Eric
|
The File info in Photoshop gives even more lines of code which mentions the processing software. This is the basic starting image metadata......opened but not adjusted through camera raw and untouched in Phshp. <x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 9.1-c001 79.1462899777, 2023/06/25-23:57:14 "> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/" xmlns:aux="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/aux/" xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/" xmlns:xmpMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/" xmlns:stEvt="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceEvent#" xmlns:stRef="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceRef#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:crs="http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/" xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/" xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/"> <xmp:CreatorTool>Ver.2.01</xmp:CreatorTool> <xmp:ModifyDate>2024-01-14T15:18:59Z</xmp:ModifyDate> <xmp:CreateDate>2011-09-02T10:59:59</xmp:CreateDate> <xmp:MetadataDate>2024-01-14T15:18:59Z</xmp:MetadataDate> <aux:SerialNumber>2010103</aux:SerialNumber> <aux:LensInfo>800/10 2000/10 28/10 28/10</aux:LensInfo> <aux:Lens>80.0-200.0 mm f/2.8</aux:Lens> <aux:LensID>94</aux:LensID> <aux:ImageNumber>21809</aux:ImageNumber> <aux:ApproximateFocusDistance>447/100</aux:ApproximateFocusDistance> <photoshop:DateCreated>2011-09-02T10:59:59.011</photoshop:DateCreated> <photoshop:ColorMode>3</photoshop:ColorMode> <photoshop:ICCProfile>Display P3</photoshop:ICCProfile> <xmpMM:DocumentID>xmp.did:28bc008a-8276-4c5a-bd3e-86c43ed1a625</xmpMM:DocumentID> <xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID>4E7AE49CB09E573634B4A68BFA25DB71</xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID> <xmpMM:InstanceID>xmp.iid:28bc008a-8276-4c5a-bd3e-86c43ed1a625</xmpMM:InstanceID> <xmpMM:History> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>saved</stEvt:action> <stEvt:instanceID>xmp.iid:d7317673-8eb3-4dd9-b341-f22fa08de4e7</stEvt:instanceID> <stEvt:when>2024-01-08T15:44:17Z</stEvt:when> <stEvt:softwareAgent>Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 16.1 (Macintosh)</stEvt:softwareAgent> <stEvt:changed>/metadata</stEvt:changed> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>derived</stEvt:action> <stEvt:parameters>converted from image/x-nikon-nef to image/tiff</stEvt:parameters> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>saved</stEvt:action> <stEvt:instanceID>xmp.iid:28bc008a-8276-4c5a-bd3e-86c43ed1a625</stEvt:instanceID> <stEvt:when>2024-01-14T15:18:59Z</stEvt:when> <stEvt:softwareAgent>Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 16.1 (Macintosh)</stEvt:softwareAgent> <stEvt:changed>/</stEvt:changed> </rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </xmpMM:History> <xmpMM:DerivedFrom rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stRef:instanceID>xmp.iid:d7317673-8eb3-4dd9-b341-f22fa08de4e7</stRef:instanceID> <stRef:documentID>4E7AE49CB09E573634B4A68BFA25DB71</stRef:documentID> <stRef:originalDocumentID>4E7AE49CB09E573634B4A68BFA25DB71</stRef:originalDocumentID> </xmpMM:DerivedFrom> <dc:format>image/tiff</dc:format> <crs:Version>16.1</crs:Version> <crs:ProcessVersion>15.4</crs:ProcessVersion> <crs:WhiteBalance>As Shot</crs:WhiteBalance> <crs:Temperature>4650</crs:Temperature> <crs:Tint>+2</crs:Tint> <crs:Exposure2012>0.00</crs:Exposure2012> <crs:Contrast2012>+29</crs:Contrast2012> <crs:Highlights2012>0</crs:Highlights2012> <crs:Shadows2012>0</crs:Shadows2012> <crs:Whites2012>0</crs:Whites2012> <crs:Blacks2012>0</crs:Blacks2012> <crs:Texture>0</crs:Texture> <crs:Clarity2012>0</crs:Clarity2012> <crs:Dehaze>0</crs:Dehaze> <crs:Vibrance>0</crs:Vibrance> <crs:Saturation>0</crs:Saturation> <crs:ParametricShadows>0</crs:ParametricShadows> <crs:ParametricDarks>0</crs:ParametricDarks> <crs:ParametricLights>0</crs:ParametricLights> <crs:ParametricHighlights>0</crs:ParametricHighlights> <crs:ParametricShadowSplit>25</crs:ParametricShadowSplit> <crs:ParametricMidtoneSplit>50</crs:ParametricMidtoneSplit> <crs:ParametricHighlightSplit>75</crs:ParametricHighlightSplit> <crs:Sharpness>40</crs:Sharpness> <crs:SharpenRadius>+1.0</crs:SharpenRadius> <crs:SharpenDetail>25</crs:SharpenDetail> <crs:SharpenEdgeMasking>0</crs:SharpenEdgeMasking> <crs:LuminanceSmoothing>0</crs:LuminanceSmoothing> <crs:ColorNoiseReduction>25</crs:ColorNoiseReduction> <crs:ColorNoiseReductionDetail>50</crs:ColorNoiseReductionDetail> <crs:ColorNoiseReductionSmoothness>50</crs:ColorNoiseReductionSmoothness> <crs:HueAdjustmentRed>0</crs:HueAdjustmentRed> <crs:HueAdjustmentOrange>0</crs:HueAdjustmentOrange> <crs:HueAdjustmentYellow>0</crs:HueAdjustmentYellow> <crs:HueAdjustmentGreen>0</crs:HueAdjustmentGreen> <crs:HueAdjustmentAqua>0</crs:HueAdjustmentAqua> <crs:HueAdjustmentBlue>0</crs:HueAdjustmentBlue> <crs:HueAdjustmentPurple>0</crs:HueAdjustmentPurple> <crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta>0</crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta> <crs:SplitToningShadowHue>0</crs:SplitToningShadowHue> <crs:SplitToningShadowSaturation>0</crs:SplitToningShadowSaturation> <crs:SplitToningHighlightHue>0</crs:SplitToningHighlightHue> <crs:SplitToningHighlightSaturation>0</crs:SplitToningHighlightSaturation> <crs:SplitToningBalance>0</crs:SplitToningBalance> <crs:ColorGradeMidtoneHue>0</crs:ColorGradeMidtoneHue> <crs:ColorGradeMidtoneSat>0</crs:ColorGradeMidtoneSat> <crs:ColorGradeShadowLum>0</crs:ColorGradeShadowLum> <crs:ColorGradeMidtoneLum>0</crs:ColorGradeMidtoneLum> <crs:ColorGradeHighlightLum>0</crs:ColorGradeHighlightLum> <crs:ColorGradeBlending>50</crs:ColorGradeBlending> <crs:ColorGradeGlobalHue>0</crs:ColorGradeGlobalHue> <crs:ColorGradeGlobalSat>0</crs:ColorGradeGlobalSat> <crs:ColorGradeGlobalLum>0</crs:ColorGradeGlobalLum> <crs:AutoLateralCA>0</crs:AutoLateralCA> <crs:LensProfileEnable>0</crs:LensProfileEnable> <crs:LensManualDistortionAmount>0</crs:LensManualDistortionAmount> <crs:VignetteAmount>0</crs:VignetteAmount> <crs:DefringePurpleAmount>0</crs:DefringePurpleAmount> <crs:DefringePurpleHueLo>30</crs:DefringePurpleHueLo> <crs:DefringePurpleHueHi>70</crs:DefringePurpleHueHi> <crs:DefringeGreenAmount>0</crs:DefringeGreenAmount> <crs:DefringeGreenHueLo>40</crs:DefringeGreenHueLo> <crs:DefringeGreenHueHi>60</crs:DefringeGreenHueHi> <crs:PerspectiveUpright>0</crs:PerspectiveUpright> <crs:PerspectiveVertical>0</crs:PerspectiveVertical> <crs:PerspectiveHorizontal>0</crs:PerspectiveHorizontal> <crs:PerspectiveRotate>0.0</crs:PerspectiveRotate> <crs:PerspectiveAspect>0</crs:PerspectiveAspect> <crs:PerspectiveScale>100</crs:PerspectiveScale> <crs:PerspectiveX>0.00</crs:PerspectiveX> <crs:PerspectiveY>0.00</crs:PerspectiveY> <crs:GrainAmount>0</crs:GrainAmount> <crs:PostCropVignetteAmount>0</crs:PostCropVignetteAmount> <crs:ShadowTint>0</crs:ShadowTint> <crs:RedHue>0</crs:RedHue> <crs:RedSaturation>0</crs:RedSaturation> <crs:GreenHue>0</crs:GreenHue> <crs:GreenSaturation>0</crs:GreenSaturation> <crs:BlueHue>0</crs:BlueHue> <crs:BlueSaturation>0</crs:BlueSaturation> <crs:HDREditMode>0</crs:HDREditMode> <crs:OverrideLookVignette>False</crs:OverrideLookVignette> <crs:ToneCurveName2012>Linear</crs:ToneCurveName2012> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue> <crs:PointColors> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>-1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:PointColors> <crs:CameraProfile>Adobe Standard</crs:CameraProfile> <crs:CameraProfileDigest>AC58BA900C3A001F052B43DA5615508D</crs:CameraProfileDigest> <crs:Look rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <crs:Name>Adobe Color</crs:Name> <crs:Amount>1</crs:Amount> <crs:Group> <rdf:Alt> <rdf:li xml:lang="x-default">Profiles</rdf:li> </rdf:Alt> </crs:Group> <crs:UUID>B952C231111CD8E0ECCF14B86BAA7077</crs:UUID> <crs:SupportsAmount>false</crs:SupportsAmount> <crs:SupportsMonochrome>false</crs:SupportsMonochrome> <crs:SupportsOutputReferred>false</crs:SupportsOutputReferred> <crs:Copyright>© 2018 Adobe Systems, Inc.</crs:Copyright> <crs:Parameters rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <crs:Version>16.1</crs:Version> <crs:ProcessVersion>15.4</crs:ProcessVersion> <crs:ConvertToGrayscale>False</crs:ConvertToGrayscale> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>22, 16</rdf:li> <rdf:li>40, 35</rdf:li> <rdf:li>127, 127</rdf:li> <rdf:li>224, 230</rdf:li> <rdf:li>240, 246</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue> <crs:CameraProfile>Adobe Standard</crs:CameraProfile> <crs:LookTable>E1095149FDB39D7A057BAB208837E2E1</crs:LookTable> </crs:Parameters> </crs:Look> <crs:HasSettings>True</crs:HasSettings> <crs:HasCrop>False</crs:HasCrop> <crs:AlreadyApplied>True</crs:AlreadyApplied> <tiff:XResolution>300/1</tiff:XResolution> <tiff:YResolution>300/1</tiff:YResolution> <tiff:ResolutionUnit>2</tiff:ResolutionUnit> <tiff:Make>NIKON CORPORATION</tiff:Make> <tiff:Model>NIKON D3</tiff:Model> <exif:ExifVersion>0231</exif:ExifVersion> <exif:PixelXDimension>2832</exif:PixelXDimension> <exif:PixelYDimension>4256</exif:PixelYDimension> <exif:DateTimeOriginal>2011-09-02T10:59:59</exif:DateTimeOriginal> <exif:ExposureTime>1/500</exif:ExposureTime> <exif:FNumber>5/1</exif:FNumber> <exif:ExposureProgram>3</exif:ExposureProgram> <exif:ISOSpeedRatings> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>400</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </exif:ISOSpeedRatings> <exif:ShutterSpeedValue>8965784/1000000</exif:ShutterSpeedValue> <exif:ApertureValue>4643856/1000000</exif:ApertureValue> <exif:ExposureBiasValue>0/6</exif:ExposureBiasValue> <exif:MaxApertureValue>30/10</exif:MaxApertureValue> <exif:MeteringMode>3</exif:MeteringMode> <exif:LightSource>0</exif:LightSource> <exif:Flash rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <exif:Fired>False</exif:Fired> <exif:Return>0</exif:Return> <exif:Mode>0</exif:Mode> <exif:Function>False</exif:Function> <exif:RedEyeMode>False</exif:RedEyeMode> </exif:Flash> <exif:FocalLength>1120/10</exif:FocalLength> <exif:SensingMethod>2</exif:SensingMethod> <exif:FileSource>3</exif:FileSource> <exif:SceneType>1</exif:SceneType> <exif:CustomRendered>0</exif:CustomRendered> <exif:ExposureMode>0</exif:ExposureMode> <exif:WhiteBalance>0</exif:WhiteBalance> <exif:DigitalZoomRatio>1/1</exif:DigitalZoomRatio> <exif:FocalLengthIn35mmFilm>112</exif:FocalLengthIn35mmFilm> <exif:SceneCaptureType>0</exif:SceneCaptureType> <exif:GainControl>1</exif:GainControl> <exif:Contrast>0</exif:Contrast> <exif:Saturation>0</exif:Saturation> <exif:Sharpness>0</exif:Sharpness> <exif:SubjectDistanceRange>0</exif:SubjectDistanceRange> <exif:SubSecTime>11</exif:SubSecTime> <exif:SubSecTimeOriginal>11</exif:SubSecTimeOriginal> <exif:SubSecTimeDigitized>11</exif:SubSecTimeDigitized> <exif:SerialNumber>2010103</exif:SerialNumber> <exif:LensInfo> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>800/10</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </exif:LensInfo> <exif:Lens>80.0-200.0 mm f/2.8</exif:Lens> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> </x:xmpmeta> Although retrospective this is the same file info for the AId version... <x:xmpmeta xmlns:x="adobe:ns:meta/" x:xmptk="Adobe XMP Core 9.1-c001 79.1462899777, 2023/06/25-23:57:14 "> <rdf:RDF xmlns:rdf="http://www.w3.org/1999/02/22-rdf-syntax-ns#"> <rdf:Description rdf:about="" xmlns:xmp="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/" xmlns:aux="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/aux/" xmlns:photoshop="http://ns.adobe.com/photoshop/1.0/" xmlns:xmpMM="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/mm/" xmlns:stEvt="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceEvent#" xmlns:stRef="http://ns.adobe.com/xap/1.0/sType/ResourceRef#" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/" xmlns:crs="http://ns.adobe.com/camera-raw-settings/1.0/" xmlns:tiff="http://ns.adobe.com/tiff/1.0/" xmlns:exif="http://ns.adobe.com/exif/1.0/"> <xmp:CreatorTool>Ver.2.01</xmp:CreatorTool> <xmp:ModifyDate>2024-01-12T13:17:10Z</xmp:ModifyDate> <xmp:CreateDate>2011-09-02T10:59:59</xmp:CreateDate> <xmp:MetadataDate>2024-01-12T13:17:10Z</xmp:MetadataDate> <aux:SerialNumber>2010103</aux:SerialNumber> <aux:LensInfo>800/10 2000/10 28/10 28/10</aux:LensInfo> <aux:Lens>80.0-200.0 mm f/2.8</aux:Lens> <aux:LensID>94</aux:LensID> <aux:ImageNumber>21809</aux:ImageNumber> <aux:ApproximateFocusDistance>447/100</aux:ApproximateFocusDistance> <photoshop:DateCreated>2011-09-02T10:59:59.011</photoshop:DateCreated> <photoshop:LegacyIPTCDigest>348246247CC409862722155FC4E45FB7</photoshop:LegacyIPTCDigest> <photoshop:ColorMode>3</photoshop:ColorMode> <photoshop:ICCProfile>Display P3</photoshop:ICCProfile> <photoshop:DocumentAncestors> <rdf:Bag> <rdf:li>xmp.did:6a294f2a-518e-497d-8a63-21f6983a5238</rdf:li> </rdf:Bag> </photoshop:DocumentAncestors> <xmpMM:DocumentID>adobe:docid:photoshop:f86ec7fa-b0a4-c24c-857f-4149cac5603b</xmpMM:DocumentID> <xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID>4E7AE49CB09E573634B4A68BFA25DB71</xmpMM:OriginalDocumentID> <xmpMM:InstanceID>xmp.iid:60f5040f-c781-4cdd-857b-6bff227688fd</xmpMM:InstanceID> <xmpMM:History> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>derived</stEvt:action> <stEvt:parameters>converted from image/x-nikon-nef to image/tiff</stEvt:parameters> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>saved</stEvt:action> <stEvt:instanceID>xmp.iid:6a294f2a-518e-497d-8a63-21f6983a5238</stEvt:instanceID> <stEvt:when>2024-01-08T15:44:17Z</stEvt:when> <stEvt:softwareAgent>Adobe Photoshop Camera Raw 16.1 (Macintosh)</stEvt:softwareAgent> <stEvt:changed>/</stEvt:changed> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>saved</stEvt:action> <stEvt:instanceID>xmp.iid:df8a6993-c952-445f-b4f8-e6710da4889e</stEvt:instanceID> <stEvt:when>2024-01-08T15:59:51Z</stEvt:when> <stEvt:softwareAgent>Adobe Photoshop 25.3 (Macintosh)</stEvt:softwareAgent> <stEvt:changed>/</stEvt:changed> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>converted</stEvt:action> <stEvt:parameters>from image/tiff to application/vnd.adobe.photoshop</stEvt:parameters> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>derived</stEvt:action> <stEvt:parameters>converted from image/tiff to application/vnd.adobe.photoshop</stEvt:parameters> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>saved</stEvt:action> <stEvt:instanceID>xmp.iid:b58fa46b-6080-4592-9c75-e43bf4af0ebe</stEvt:instanceID> <stEvt:when>2024-01-08T15:59:51Z</stEvt:when> <stEvt:softwareAgent>Adobe Photoshop 25.3 (Macintosh)</stEvt:softwareAgent> <stEvt:changed>/</stEvt:changed> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>saved</stEvt:action> <stEvt:instanceID>xmp.iid:735e66d1-82b2-4379-ae3a-1ca0cea033df</stEvt:instanceID> <stEvt:when>2024-01-12T13:17:10Z</stEvt:when> <stEvt:softwareAgent>Adobe Photoshop 25.3 (Macintosh)</stEvt:softwareAgent> <stEvt:changed>/</stEvt:changed> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>converted</stEvt:action> <stEvt:parameters>from application/vnd.adobe.photoshop to image/jpeg</stEvt:parameters> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>derived</stEvt:action> <stEvt:parameters>converted from application/vnd.adobe.photoshop to image/jpeg</stEvt:parameters> </rdf:li> <rdf:li rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stEvt:action>saved</stEvt:action> <stEvt:instanceID>xmp.iid:60f5040f-c781-4cdd-857b-6bff227688fd</stEvt:instanceID> <stEvt:when>2024-01-12T13:17:10Z</stEvt:when> <stEvt:softwareAgent>Adobe Photoshop 25.3 (Macintosh)</stEvt:softwareAgent> <stEvt:changed>/</stEvt:changed> </rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </xmpMM:History> <xmpMM:DerivedFrom rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <stRef:instanceID>xmp.iid:735e66d1-82b2-4379-ae3a-1ca0cea033df</stRef:instanceID> <stRef:documentID>adobe:docid:photoshop:c5f50905-8919-8e49-97d2-1ed3057259db</stRef:documentID> <stRef:originalDocumentID>4E7AE49CB09E573634B4A68BFA25DB71</stRef:originalDocumentID> </xmpMM:DerivedFrom> <dc:format>image/jpeg</dc:format> <crs:Version>16.1</crs:Version> <crs:ProcessVersion>15.4</crs:ProcessVersion> <crs:WhiteBalance>As Shot</crs:WhiteBalance> <crs:Temperature>4650</crs:Temperature> <crs:Tint>+2</crs:Tint> <crs:Exposure2012>0.00</crs:Exposure2012> <crs:Contrast2012>+29</crs:Contrast2012> <crs:Highlights2012>0</crs:Highlights2012> <crs:Shadows2012>0</crs:Shadows2012> <crs:Whites2012>0</crs:Whites2012> <crs:Blacks2012>0</crs:Blacks2012> <crs:Texture>0</crs:Texture> <crs:Clarity2012>0</crs:Clarity2012> <crs:Dehaze>0</crs:Dehaze> <crs:Vibrance>0</crs:Vibrance> <crs:Saturation>0</crs:Saturation> <crs:ParametricShadows>0</crs:ParametricShadows> <crs:ParametricDarks>0</crs:ParametricDarks> <crs:ParametricLights>0</crs:ParametricLights> <crs:ParametricHighlights>0</crs:ParametricHighlights> <crs:ParametricShadowSplit>25</crs:ParametricShadowSplit> <crs:ParametricMidtoneSplit>50</crs:ParametricMidtoneSplit> <crs:ParametricHighlightSplit>75</crs:ParametricHighlightSplit> <crs:Sharpness>40</crs:Sharpness> <crs:SharpenRadius>+1.0</crs:SharpenRadius> <crs:SharpenDetail>25</crs:SharpenDetail> <crs:SharpenEdgeMasking>0</crs:SharpenEdgeMasking> <crs:LuminanceSmoothing>0</crs:LuminanceSmoothing> <crs:ColorNoiseReduction>25</crs:ColorNoiseReduction> <crs:ColorNoiseReductionDetail>50</crs:ColorNoiseReductionDetail> <crs:ColorNoiseReductionSmoothness>50</crs:ColorNoiseReductionSmoothness> <crs:HueAdjustmentRed>0</crs:HueAdjustmentRed> <crs:HueAdjustmentOrange>0</crs:HueAdjustmentOrange> <crs:HueAdjustmentYellow>0</crs:HueAdjustmentYellow> <crs:HueAdjustmentGreen>0</crs:HueAdjustmentGreen> <crs:HueAdjustmentAqua>0</crs:HueAdjustmentAqua> <crs:HueAdjustmentBlue>0</crs:HueAdjustmentBlue> <crs:HueAdjustmentPurple>0</crs:HueAdjustmentPurple> <crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta>0</crs:HueAdjustmentMagenta> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentRed> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentOrange> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentYellow> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentGreen> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentAqua> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentBlue> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentPurple> <crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta>0</crs:SaturationAdjustmentMagenta> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentRed> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentOrange> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentYellow> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentGreen> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentAqua> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentBlue> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentPurple> <crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta>0</crs:LuminanceAdjustmentMagenta> <crs:SplitToningShadowHue>0</crs:SplitToningShadowHue> <crs:SplitToningShadowSaturation>0</crs:SplitToningShadowSaturation> <crs:SplitToningHighlightHue>0</crs:SplitToningHighlightHue> <crs:SplitToningHighlightSaturation>0</crs:SplitToningHighlightSaturation> <crs:SplitToningBalance>0</crs:SplitToningBalance> <crs:ColorGradeMidtoneHue>0</crs:ColorGradeMidtoneHue> <crs:ColorGradeMidtoneSat>0</crs:ColorGradeMidtoneSat> <crs:ColorGradeShadowLum>0</crs:ColorGradeShadowLum> <crs:ColorGradeMidtoneLum>0</crs:ColorGradeMidtoneLum> <crs:ColorGradeHighlightLum>0</crs:ColorGradeHighlightLum> <crs:ColorGradeBlending>50</crs:ColorGradeBlending> <crs:ColorGradeGlobalHue>0</crs:ColorGradeGlobalHue> <crs:ColorGradeGlobalSat>0</crs:ColorGradeGlobalSat> <crs:ColorGradeGlobalLum>0</crs:ColorGradeGlobalLum> <crs:AutoLateralCA>0</crs:AutoLateralCA> <crs:LensProfileEnable>0</crs:LensProfileEnable> <crs:LensManualDistortionAmount>0</crs:LensManualDistortionAmount> <crs:VignetteAmount>0</crs:VignetteAmount> <crs:DefringePurpleAmount>0</crs:DefringePurpleAmount> <crs:DefringePurpleHueLo>30</crs:DefringePurpleHueLo> <crs:DefringePurpleHueHi>70</crs:DefringePurpleHueHi> <crs:DefringeGreenAmount>0</crs:DefringeGreenAmount> <crs:DefringeGreenHueLo>40</crs:DefringeGreenHueLo> <crs:DefringeGreenHueHi>60</crs:DefringeGreenHueHi> <crs:PerspectiveUpright>0</crs:PerspectiveUpright> <crs:PerspectiveVertical>0</crs:PerspectiveVertical> <crs:PerspectiveHorizontal>0</crs:PerspectiveHorizontal> <crs:PerspectiveRotate>0.0</crs:PerspectiveRotate> <crs:PerspectiveAspect>0</crs:PerspectiveAspect> <crs:PerspectiveScale>100</crs:PerspectiveScale> <crs:PerspectiveX>0.00</crs:PerspectiveX> <crs:PerspectiveY>0.00</crs:PerspectiveY> <crs:GrainAmount>0</crs:GrainAmount> <crs:PostCropVignetteAmount>0</crs:PostCropVignetteAmount> <crs:ShadowTint>0</crs:ShadowTint> <crs:RedHue>0</crs:RedHue> <crs:RedSaturation>0</crs:RedSaturation> <crs:GreenHue>0</crs:GreenHue> <crs:GreenSaturation>0</crs:GreenSaturation> <crs:BlueHue>0</crs:BlueHue> <crs:BlueSaturation>0</crs:BlueSaturation> <crs:HDREditMode>0</crs:HDREditMode> <crs:OverrideLookVignette>False</crs:OverrideLookVignette> <crs:ToneCurveName2012>Linear</crs:ToneCurveName2012> <crs:CameraProfile>Adobe Standard</crs:CameraProfile> <crs:CameraProfileDigest>AC58BA900C3A001F052B43DA5615508D</crs:CameraProfileDigest> <crs:HasSettings>True</crs:HasSettings> <crs:HasCrop>False</crs:HasCrop> <crs:AlreadyApplied>True</crs:AlreadyApplied> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue> <crs:PointColors> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>-1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000, -1.000000</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:PointColors> <crs:Look rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <crs:Name>Adobe Color</crs:Name> <crs:Amount>1</crs:Amount> <crs:UUID>B952C231111CD8E0ECCF14B86BAA7077</crs:UUID> <crs:SupportsAmount>false</crs:SupportsAmount> <crs:SupportsMonochrome>false</crs:SupportsMonochrome> <crs:SupportsOutputReferred>false</crs:SupportsOutputReferred> <crs:Copyright>© 2018 Adobe Systems, Inc.</crs:Copyright> <crs:Group> <rdf:Alt> <rdf:li xml:lang="x-default">Profiles</rdf:li> </rdf:Alt> </crs:Group> <crs:Parameters rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <crs:Version>16.1</crs:Version> <crs:ProcessVersion>15.4</crs:ProcessVersion> <crs:ConvertToGrayscale>False</crs:ConvertToGrayscale> <crs:CameraProfile>Adobe Standard</crs:CameraProfile> <crs:LookTable>E1095149FDB39D7A057BAB208837E2E1</crs:LookTable> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>22, 16</rdf:li> <rdf:li>40, 35</rdf:li> <rdf:li>127, 127</rdf:li> <rdf:li>224, 230</rdf:li> <rdf:li>240, 246</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Red> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Green> <crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>0, 0</rdf:li> <rdf:li>255, 255</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </crs:ToneCurvePV2012Blue> </crs:Parameters> </crs:Look> <tiff:ImageWidth>1181</tiff:ImageWidth> <tiff:ImageLength>1459</tiff:ImageLength> <tiff:BitsPerSample> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>8</rdf:li> <rdf:li>8</rdf:li> <rdf:li>8</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </tiff:BitsPerSample> <tiff:PhotometricInterpretation>2</tiff:PhotometricInterpretation> <tiff:Orientation>1</tiff:Orientation> <tiff:SamplesPerPixel>3</tiff:SamplesPerPixel> <tiff:XResolution>3000000/10000</tiff:XResolution> <tiff:YResolution>3000000/10000</tiff:YResolution> <tiff:ResolutionUnit>2</tiff:ResolutionUnit> <tiff:Make>NIKON CORPORATION</tiff:Make> <tiff:Model>NIKON D3</tiff:Model> <exif:ExifVersion>0231</exif:ExifVersion> <exif:ColorSpace>65535</exif:ColorSpace> <exif:PixelXDimension>1181</exif:PixelXDimension> <exif:PixelYDimension>1459</exif:PixelYDimension> <exif:DateTimeOriginal>2011-09-02T10:59:59</exif:DateTimeOriginal> <exif:ExposureTime>1/500</exif:ExposureTime> <exif:FNumber>5/1</exif:FNumber> <exif:ExposureProgram>3</exif:ExposureProgram> <exif:ISOSpeedRatings> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>400</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </exif:ISOSpeedRatings> <exif:ShutterSpeedValue>8965784/1000000</exif:ShutterSpeedValue> <exif:ApertureValue>4643856/1000000</exif:ApertureValue> <exif:ExposureBiasValue>0/6</exif:ExposureBiasValue> <exif:MaxApertureValue>30/10</exif:MaxApertureValue> <exif:MeteringMode>3</exif:MeteringMode> <exif:LightSource>0</exif:LightSource> <exif:Flash rdf:pa**eType="Resource"> <exif:Fired>False</exif:Fired> <exif:Return>0</exif:Return> <exif:Mode>0</exif:Mode> <exif:Function>False</exif:Function> <exif:RedEyeMode>False</exif:RedEyeMode> </exif:Flash> <exif:FocalLength>1120/10</exif:FocalLength> <exif:SensingMethod>2</exif:SensingMethod> <exif:FileSource>3</exif:FileSource> <exif:SceneType>1</exif:SceneType> <exif:CustomRendered>0</exif:CustomRendered> <exif:ExposureMode>0</exif:ExposureMode> <exif:WhiteBalance>0</exif:WhiteBalance> <exif:DigitalZoomRatio>1/1</exif:DigitalZoomRatio> <exif:FocalLengthIn35mmFilm>112</exif:FocalLengthIn35mmFilm> <exif:SceneCaptureType>0</exif:SceneCaptureType> <exif:GainControl>1</exif:GainControl> <exif:Contrast>0</exif:Contrast> <exif:Saturation>0</exif:Saturation> <exif:Sharpness>0</exif:Sharpness> <exif:SubjectDistanceRange>0</exif:SubjectDistanceRange> <exif:SubSecTime>11</exif:SubSecTime> <exif:SubSecTimeOriginal>11</exif:SubSecTimeOriginal> <exif:SubSecTimeDigitized>11</exif:SubSecTimeDigitized> <exif:SerialNumber>2010103</exif:SerialNumber> <exif:LensInfo> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>800/10</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </exif:LensInfo> <exif:Lens>80.0-200.0 mm f/2.8</exif:Lens> </rdf:Description> </rdf:RDF> </x:xmpmeta> I don't know if its possible to 'compare' these two sets of code OR whether they actually tell what's been done as opposed to basic software settings??? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Before my eyes glaze over can I just add something re using AI that I discovered which I think merits mentioning... The object masking creates a good mask. But the AI offers a lot of feathering around the object, which can cut into, mess up and do crazy things with the outline depending on the new background colours/textures. So if you follow the simple process of copying the object cut out onto a new layer BEFORE inverting the selection and adding the ai alternative setting on the background layer....THEN putting the cutout layer over the AI layer puts back the sharper edge of the original object mask. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
To save anyone analysing that code , I have done a comparison and there are differences from line 64 onwards which sort of describes changes I made but there's nothing that mentions AI as such....though they may be using different descriptors or terminology?ADDENDUM ANYWAY Graham has just phoned to tell me Adobe are planning to add "Content Credentials" in the next release so AI activity WILL be visible going forward. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
My Robin photos above were done in the latest PS version 25.3.1 as updated by me on 15.12.23 this is the version that should have "Content-Aware Credentials" on board. Like you, Eric I have looked at the data similar to your posting above and can not see what they are talking about. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
You can compare texts using diffchecker - see https://www.diffchecker.com/VW2ecUI6/ |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:You can compare texts using diffchecker - see https://www.diffchecker.com/VW2ecUI6/Thx I did use that. The different lines didn’t mean much to me. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
that's the same version I have. Need to look at the file info again. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I opened a new NEF in Phshp 25.3.1 without making any alterations and copied the file info to the text comparison software. I then used object mask on the image, inverted the selection and added a generative background, and saved the file as a jpg copy. I then reopened the jpg and copied the file info into the text comparison software 2nd window and compared the two file info text. There were one or two minor differences which I believe could be due to the change in file format. The only significant additional text was... </crs:Parameters> </crs:Look> <tiff:ImageWidth>4256</tiff:ImageWidth> <tiff:ImageLength>2832</tiff:ImageLength> <tiff:BitsPerSample> <rdf:Seq> <rdf:li>8</rdf:li> <rdf:li>8</rdf:li> <rdf:li>8</rdf:li> </rdf:Seq> </tiff:BitsPerSample> <tiff:PhotometricInterpretation>2</tiff:PhotometricInterpretation> <tiff:Orientation>1</tiff:Orientation> <tiff:SamplesPerPixel>3</tiff:SamplesPerPixel> <tiff:XResolution>3000000/10000</tiff:XResolution> <tiff:YResolution>3000000/10000</tiff:YResolution> I have no idea if this is the content aware reference |
|||||||||
Iain
|
PhotometricInterpretation>2</tiff:PhotometricInterpretation That’s the one that makes me wonder, does that mean something is ai. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I think that is part of the conversion to tiff from raw. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:I think that is part of the conversion to tiff from raw.You may be correct but there are another few lines, very early in the list, that referred to camera raw conversion which I assumed was just that….but this level of programming language is way outside of my knowledge range. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
OK....looking again at this file info... Ive opened a new NEF in photoshop via camera raw and copied its file info metadata to the difference software. I then masked and applied an ai generated background then saved the file as a psd. Whist it was still on screen I copied its file info into the difference software. Ignoring a couple of lines that refer to the commencement of the activities which differ by 3mins ....the time to carry out the masking and the Ai activities, there are only 3 section that differ as follows.....  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. This seems to differ to the previous 'photometricinterpretation' reference example we pondered over. I confess to being baffled as I can see no reference here to 'Content Aware Credentials' on anything that tells me the right hand txt is from an ai altered image. Unless Adobe haven't added it yet, I cannot see how an easily recognised reg flag can be thrown up for the average competition judge or even the average commercial artwork director who are unlikely to have programming know how to decipher the files metadata? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Back to some AI enhanced images..... Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I reckon it going to become like trying to attribute paintings etc. - it is in the eye and opinion of the viewer to decide if an image has been subject to AI In the case of splendor in the grass, I would wonder how the two animals managed to get in there without trampling the grass?? There is an odd junction between the two animals. The DOF also seems a bit deep for a 200 at f2.8. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:I reckon it going to become like trying to attribute paintings etc. - it is in the eye and opinion of the viewer to decide if an image has been subject to AIWell spotted, Chris! The junction between the cheetahs is an initial masking fault that I missed. Photoshop didn't see them as one joined object so I added them together and missed the fluffy bosom .....as did Photoshops object mask. Ive started overlaying the masked object over the AI layer as there are often weird artefacts at the edge of the mask (that's what you saw between them) but it merely overlayed the incomplete cutout. Ive posted the corrected image, without embellishments, below. On the matter of 200mm @f2.8 dof .....you would probably be quite right if it were a full frame (ie the camera was nearer to the subjects) but it is a 50% crop, so you should expect to 'keep' the greater dof from the greater camera distance in the final cropped image.... that's my story anyway lol. The cheetahs came down the tree along a branch and dropped in. As my mother use to say...Ive "got a plaster for every sore"  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I hope the silent majority are benefitting from this warts and all exposure. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
However, it was created it is still a good photo. I agree about the coding also most judges at any normal camera club meeting or RPS or BIPP event would not have a computer plus Adobe and original files as edited by the photographer. Even in a comp with projected PDIs? An art director in an advertising studio producing his work would be using the photographer's files to produce finished artwork etc. I think Adobe would need to add a more easy-to-find menu for policing such matters. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Good photo Eric. The waters get deeper and deeper with the AI thing. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:Good photo Eric. The waters get deeper and deeper with the AI thing.Well, I think I’ve done enough trialling on old photos now and have come to the conclusion that it can be a very useful feature if you want 1) to seamlessly and quickly remove unwanted details from an image 2) to do a reasonable job of adding scenes/settings/backgrounds to improve the captured image. It’s by no means perfect but in time it will improve. The issue will always be, why are you doing it? Commercial graphic design activity (where allowed) will no doubt find it incredibly useful and for them the ethics of it all will be important. For us retired togs or hobbyists I can see it being an infrequent distraction, mainly because it’s only us as individuals that care what the final result looks like. With that I think I’ve said enough on the subject. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I said I would shut up but I have discovered one further 'snag' that's worth mentioning.....one last post, honest. As previously mentioned, replacing backgrounds was a frequent event while creating brochures back in the day. It was often necessary to give extra space around the product for text boxes/ slogans/logos etc. However leaving white space wasn't sexy enough so we often added a complimentary background. This photo of a custom built car was a rush job. The car (the only complete fully built model they had in the workshop) was being collected by the purchaser the next morning, so we only had the afternoon to photograph it ...and it couldn't be driven anywhere !!!!! So the back yard of the garage was the only location....and yet they wanted lots of location scenery shots with the car for the brochure. This was before digital cameras. Medium format negative scanned, manually masked and the background ( a Lake District holiday photo courtesy of my wife I believe) was added to this one.  Click here to comment on this image. So today for fun, I decided to replace the background using smart Object masking and Generative fill with a phrase "Lake district landscape" The smart object masking wasn't smart enough to include the 'see through' parts of the image....not surprising....It missed most of the quarter light, an area around the head rest and a see through the windscreen next to the pillar ...also on the other side (not shown in this close up). I therefore manually included these areas in the mask but excluded the road.  Click here to comment on this image. It generated an adequate image but the fill didn't include the areas I had manually added to the mask.  Click here to comment on this image. The strange thing is, all areas were included in the mask as you can see by the mask layer below....  Click here to comment on this image. AI decided not to include them!! As well as excluding manually added masked areas, AI also did some strange edge effects. It removed / trimmed areas around the front and back of the car as well as trimming the roof and 'fudging' the head rest area. (red dotted outlines compared to original photo)  Click here to comment on this image. Of course it will always be hard for ai to interpret the effect of multiple layers of glass and 'tone down' the background image in the areas were they occur. I have also noted that in small discrete isolated areas of a mask (like around the headrest in this image) AI seems to get confused trying to squeeze in detail that's a bit unreal. As mentioned previously, one could over lay the original cut out to recover the outline more faithfully....but not so the see through parts within the main outline. My final take from this is this is a LONG way from hands free photo editing. It's a bit like getting a child to paint a picture in the lounge. You need to make sure you've covered everything you don't want messed up and still stand over them to prevent random flicks and creative correction to the sofa or coffee table. Graphic designers and photo manipulators are safe for a while. I would just add that you can edit the smart mask selection criteria, so maybe this performance could be improved ......by ME or YOU adjusting the settings manually. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
As you say its not perfect, YET, but I think it might get there. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I like the old original image best by a long way. Eric thanks again for sharing it with us! In the 1960 & 70s I did similar jobs using high-quality 16x20 colour prints and cut-out product photos cut out by hand with great care and stuck in place. They are all long lost with most of my photos from when I left Rhodesia in 1975. I also worked with an art director Peter Selby who did very skilled camera-ready artwork with colour prints I made from the photographs he directed with me working camera and lighting etc (the easy bits) He would also retouch by hand and airbrush on the prints and strip in type and logos etc. How times have changed! |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I have just checked the latest version of Adobe Photoshop as of DEC 2023: 25.3.1 and now Content Credentials can be found: Edit-Preferences-History & Content Credentials there is a fair bit in there including Document Settings (Beta) I have copied info below and there is a link in blue see at the end to click: OVERVIEW Content Credentials allow creators to attach extra information to their content when they export or download it. By including this information, creators can receive more recognition for their work, connect with others online, and enhance transparency for their audience. To learn more about Content Credentials and why you should consider including them with your work, read the Content Credentials overview. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:I have just checked the latest version of Adobe Photoshop as of DEC 2023: 25.3.1 and now Content Credentials can be found: Edit-Preferences-History & Content Credentials there is a fair bit in there including Document Settings (Beta) I have copied info below and there is a link in blue see at the end to click: OVERVIEWGraham, Just discovered you can Enable ContCred. by going to Windows tab in photoshop. ContCred is in the list. Adobe are suggesting its in the creators interest to enable ContCred ....to protect their work. nothing wrong with that, as its aligned with copyrighting your work. However, Adobes initiative to push for complete transparency is also stating that they want to show exactly how something was created ie who did what, when and how. Anyone using AI would be exposed. Again nothing wrong with that, as using AI photos in your artwork becomes YOUR artwork...provided the photos were copyright free or you had permission to use them. So provided Adobe accept their Firefly generated images are totally free to use (privately AND commercially) there's no issue. No-one really needs to search for Adobes AI footprint if its all use free, unless the recipient of the artwork stipulates it must be ALL the artists own work including components in the process. For example judging a competition. Also read this on Adobe site..... Generative AI transparency Content Credentials indicating the use of generative AI tools will be included with all content generated with Adobe Firefly to help promote transparency around the use of generative AI. In the future, Content Credentials from other Adobe apps will also support indicating that generative AI was used in the creative process. It suggests that the AI footprint will be there whether you enable ContCred or not.....somewhere. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Graham, your YouTube link in post#4 is no longer available. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=W4X47zqGtTE Hi JK this is my U-Tube link no new bit there since Swiss trip last Feb |
|||||||||
jk
|
Sorry I must have got the wrong link. It was a url that you pasted in to show how to do the Photoshop AI stuff. The error message from YouTube said that the linked data had been removed due to licensing issues. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Graham Whistler wrote:https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=l_Vcc3oJhBkYes this is post#4 with the link that doesnt work. It probably doesnt matter as with each new version of Photoshop the menus change. I will be glad when they get the product stable again. I find the differently coloured menu items a distraction. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Yes this is post#4 with the link that doesnt work.I agree Jk |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Content Credentials is now live in the latest version of Photoshop 25.3.1 Here is a simple test the top photo is as shot the second is a screenshot taken after expanding the edges of the photo with the expand crop tool and then using Generative Fill to expand the edges. Is Big Brother watching us now? I did this test in Photoshop Beta version 25.4 but it works the same in the latest version of normal Photoshop as stated.  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Glad that the Content Credentials is now there. I have the latest v25.4 so will check it out. We need to be very aware that it is easy to create an image from almost a dud image by clever AI manipulation. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
This is a bad news photo I have created using AI see the data. If you look at my church image above compare that data it is AI but "CONTENT AWARE" IE all my own work so is OK to use in our club comps. QED Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I know this is going on a bit but this is a photo I have just added with AI Content Aware active and I did a full Photoshop edit using a mix of tools some AI. I then imported a new sky from my own set of saved sky photos. As you will see all I did is Content-Aware so would be good to use in a Club Competition QED. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that if you switch on (enable) content awareness before editing begins, all your edits are recorded. If you don’t enable content aware till after doing the editing, only the mention that AI was used is shown. Does this mean that enabling content aware retrospectively doesn’t reveal all the activity taken beforehand? In other words it’s not storing all our edits unless we ask for it in advance? |
|||||||||
jk
|
Another item for disclosure if/when you put images into club competitions (which I don't do, as I think that the judges comments are frequently specious! Either they/you like it or you don't.) AI is going to bring about some very interesting comments. Graham, do you think that AI Generative Fill could rebuild the building walls in your image? From a historical and archeological perspective this would be incredibly useful. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham, If I understand you correctly, what you are saying is that if you switch on (enable) content awareness before editing begins, all your edits are recorded. If you don’t enable content aware till after doing the editing, only the mention that AI was used is shown. Does this mean that enabling content aware retrospectively doesn’t reveal all the activity taken beforehand? In other words it’s not storing all our edits unless we ask for it in advance? |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Yes Eric I think that is the way it works but still early days to be 100% on that. By looking at older pe AI photos it shows up very little info. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Photoshop with new AI features can help remove unwanted backgrounds very quickly. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Have you managed to use AI to replace a background with your own complete image? I was wondering if there was a way to direct Forefly to use one of your images rather than Adobe stock? I realise you can of course invert the subject mask and paste in your image in the old fashioned way….but it won’t automatically faithfully mirror shadows and reflections like it does when using Firefly generated images. Being able to add your own background and get AI to get the lighting and shadows correct on your background would be a huge step forward. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
All are generated from this same photo. I have just generated this AI from nothing just asking for a Robin and got this. I think they are improving the quality compared with the Goldfinch I did last year? Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
It still doesn't compare with you direct photo. I read a precautionary note regarding Generative Fill while searching for info on credits. It basically admitted/confessed that the resolution of creative fill is capped and using it on "high resolution" images (what ever that means) could result in the fill areas being blurred or fuzzy. ......something else to look out for! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Eric wrote:GrahamAnswering my own question: there doesn’t seem to be a way to use your own photos in AI all you can do is replace the existing area using the old fashioned Paste Into command after masking is in place. I did note that you can upload your images when using the Firefly app that comes with the Adobe subscription. They are quite happy for you to donate your images via the app to their database for Firefly to use on other user’s editing. If you did donate your photos, I wonder if you could preface the instructions in the generative fill box with “Graham Whistler’s photo of…..” to get YOUR own image offered? |
|||||||||
novicius
|
I think that the " enemy " of AI are us, ye olde photog, who,looking at a photo might say that something does not look right,and we are a dwindling few. Whereas the younger generation,who are used to TV quality and computer games are more ready to exept what they look at as a good photo. Manipulation could be a problem for Documentary reportage. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Lol - they have been manipulating documentary footage for ages - AI just means they can, and have been, using it to hoodwink us even more |
|||||||||
Iain
|
chrisbet wrote:Lol - they have been manipulating documentary footage for ages - AI just means they can, and have been, using it to hoodwink us even moreYes, manipulating photos started just after photography started. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:Yes, manipulating photos started just after photography started. Certainly by 1901….  Click here to comment on this image. Although no manipulation in our woodland in 2021….  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I think Novicious was eluding to the understanding that digital manipulation for documentaries and reportage image, certainly was a no no at the start of digital photography. There was a US sports reporter that was sacked because he airbrushed out a person walking in front of a pitch side advertising hoarding. ( whether the advertiser paid him was unclear) That said, I was watching a tv documentary last week about coastal erosion where I was able to say “that’s not been filmed there”. They had cut in a section of footage from another UK location to better emphasise the point. And many wildlife documentaries have cut aways to different occasions and even a different bird…that they were able to capture close up. I suppose it depends how far people are prepared to go to stretch the general understanding …that documentary evidence should be unsullied. There is no doubt with AI it’s a lot easier and more convincing to do what they want….and who is there to argue authenticity anymore. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I think it is still important for us to keep a firm eye on what is going on and I think we have made good progress in understanding a lot about AI on this forum. There is still much more to learn. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Yes, back in the day, I was shooting in B&W negative and Color with slides. There is No way to Manipulate slides ( it would be Detected right away ). Would I be in the game today, then I would have a camera loaded with color-slide , say take one shot with it and then followed by a series in Digital of the same subject. I would be very careful of Not to be sued or accused by security forces. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Eric wrote:I think Novicious was eluding to the understanding that digital manipulation for documentaries and reportage image, certainly was a no no at the start of digital photography. There was a US sports reporter that was sacked because he airbrushed out a person walking in front of a pitch side advertising hoarding. ( whether the advertiser paid him was unclear)Yes, Eric, exactly that,thank You for seeing my point. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
I just want to adress the example of the B&W photo with the fairies, which can hardly be called manipulation but would be considered Creative use of the media. As I understand it, Manipulation can be a blatant lie with grave repercussion as a result, specially when security forces are involved, yes, I do know of an incident where the photog got into a Hefty dispute where he was accused of causing an upset ,when luckily he could produce a color slide . Documentary is about showing what is outthere, nothing more, nothing less. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
novicius wrote:I just want to adress the example of the B&W photo with the fairies, which can hardly be called manipulation but would be considered Creative use of the media.I would still regard the fairies photo as manipulation. It presumably involved the overlaying of two glass plate negatives in the darkroom. That’s not really any different to masking an area and pasting in another image in Photoshops “lightroom”. Graham can also tell the stories of touching up glamour models…….or rather photographic transparencies of glamour models ….back in the 60s. However, the key point is neither of these examples fall into the documentary category. Howard Carters photos of Tutankhamen burial chamber could have been easily ‘manipulated’ by photographing the chamber after all the gold had been removed. “Sorry guys it had been plundered long ago”…..and the people involved took their silence cut of the spoils. Documentary photography has always relied on the integrity of the photographer. It’s just that today there are easier, foolproof ways of manipulating images….and fewer people with integrity, when integrity is needed. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
novicius wrote:Yes, back in the day, I was shooting in B&W negative and Color with slides.And yet forensic scientists use digital cameras for their work, even with IR and UV filtration which could arguably be a manipulated image. So the modern world has come to accept the risk around authenticity in digital images to some degree. Or they have ways of safeguarding or assuring authenticity? |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote:And yet forensic scientists use digital cameras for their work, even with IR and UV filtration which could arguably be a manipulated image. So the modern world has come to accept the risk around authenticity in digital images to some degree. Or they have ways of safeguarding or assuring authenticity?Nikon produced hardware and software to support authentication of digital images from their film and digital cameras so that digital images could be used in court as definitive images that had full authentication against tampering or editing. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
Eric wrote:And yet forensic scientists use digital cameras for their work, even with IR and UV filtration which could arguably be a manipulated image. So the modern world has come to accept the risk around authenticity in digital images to some degree. Or they have ways of safeguarding or assuring authenticity?Point well made ,but then this is about Documentation of a Scientific Purpose,yet as You can see, Debates can arise, so yes, the Integrity of the photog is then at stake, a reputation can be long and hard to build ,yet easy and quick to destroy. |
|||||||||
novicius
|
jk wrote:Nikon produced hardware and software to support authentication of digital images from their film and digital cameras so that digital images could be used in court as definitive images that had full authentication against tampering or editing.I was n`t Aware of that, or are you referring to " watermarks" ?...which can be easily removed ? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Nikon produced hardware and software to support authentication of digital images from their film and digital cameras so that digital images could be used in court as definitive images that had full authentication against tampering or editing.Bye eck ….you know some stuff.  Have Canon, Sony et al followed suit? |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I don't know what the procedure is nowadays but when I was much younger working for HMC&E investigation we had to give witness statements preserving the chain of evidence for photos, so that meant everyone involved in the production of the photo including the processing! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I wonder if all these visitors to the forum that don’t say anything or stay, are baffled (or bored) by the protracted banter that seems to pervade our threads? (Mea culpa by the way.) It’s like having a drink and natter with 5 or 6 mates down the pub, while the rest of the bar occupants look over our shoulders listen in. (Without the beer of course  ) |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
It’s like having a drink and natter with 5 or 6 mates down the pub,Yes - that is exactly what most fora have become now and I don't see an issue with that, it is preferable to the mainstream chat places that are always shoving adverts or "suggestions" at you! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Absolutely. It’s just a shame people out there seem to prefer to tell the world what they had for lunch and where they are going at the weekend rather than share and learn something with more substance.It’s like having a drink and natter with 5 or 6 mates down the pub,Yes - that is exactly what most fora have become now and I don't see an issue with that, it is preferable to the mainstream chat places that are always shoving adverts or "suggestions" at you! |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote:Bye eck ….you know some stuff.Here is a link. https://www.nikonusa.com/en/nikon-products/product-archive/imaging-software/image-authentication-software.html The product was withdrawn as the algorithm was cracked by a russian company. https://petapixel.com/2011/04/28/nikon-image-authentication-system-cracked-just-months-after-canons/ |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I think the difference is that we share a common interest, as I do with horsey friends, most of whom I know in real life. When I ask my grandchildren why they post on FB / X they say 'cos everyone else does ..... ???? When I look on the likes of Reddit, all I see is a lot of misinformed opinion, I really despair of the level of eduction of the average person ! Time for another beer I think before we are ticked off for thread drift. |
|||||||||
Iain
|
Eric wrote:Bye eck ….you know some stuff.Canon did it from the 1Dmkii. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Long before photography, there were Magic Lantern Slide Shows. This was a very interesting evening last night at our Gosport Camera Club presented by Alan Brindle of the early hand-painted slides dating back to before 1800. Many of the early Victorian 1800's B&W were all very skillfully hand painted and early views from all over the world. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Has the Princess of Wales has been messing with…..AI ? I bet she too gets more credits than me! |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Yep - she coughed to it! I don't think people see anything wrong in using the built in AI in modern phones and to be honest, in this case, I don't - mountains and molehills - but once the thin end is allowed it thickens up quickly |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Yep - she coughed to it!I was going to offer to give her some PShp tuition when she is next up at Anmer. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Or maybe HM cos' it wasn't her who took the photo..... |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Or maybe HM cos' it wasn't her who took the photo.....I have to say, the reaction to the photograph is totally absurd and symptomatic of a society that’s got nothing better to do with its time than to “pick”, making silly, offensive and harassing comments. The bellowing proletariats fuelled by the evil media shout…. “conspiracy”, “we can’t trust them anymore”, “what else are they hiding”. Seriously? Is this what we have come to in our enlightened society? The mistake we make is unnecessarily exposing our lives to scrutiny, by people ill equipped to form a reasoned opinion. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I agree 100% the Press are very silly why should Kate NOT use a bit of Photoshop? Most serious photographs do and in no way are they trying to deceive but just improve. I removed the green post with AI to improve this photo and why not there is no harm in it? Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Seems to me that the harm is to the pigeon.... I agree completely with Eric, the world has gone potty with spreading all sorts of silly rumours. The only way to avoid it is to stay away from all forms of public media. Maybe AI should stand for Absence (of) Intelligence? Listening to an old episode of Infinite Monkey Cage last night - Brian Cox was saying that one in five Americans believe that the moon landings were faked - he referred to a report about the relative costs of faking it and doing it - apparently the only difference would have been the catering! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Seems to me that the harm is to the pigeon.... I agree completely with Eric, the world has gone potty with spreading all sorts of silly rumours. The only way to avoid it is to stay away from all forms of public media. Maybe AI should stand for Absence (of) Intelligence? But even more dangerous if Alec Baldwin was involved with the filming. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:I agree 100% the Press are very silly why should Kate NOT use a bit of Photoshop? Most serious photographs do and in no way are they trying to deceive but just improve. I removed the green post with AI to improve this photo and why not there is no harm in it?I suppose the key question here is…..do Kate/ William receive any payment for the use of their images? If so, they would be subject to the same constraints as we would be. That said, I’ve seen ‘photos in photo libraries like Getty and Alamy that have images that have been modified. It’s just that they were done better than Kate’s submission. We are left to surmise that it was probably better publicity for every one ( except Kate) to mention the editing errors as it added to the feeding frenzy that seems to surround ‘a woman having a serious operation’. If it was a cleaner from Warrington, after having a hysterectomy and doing some amateur photographic editing while recuperating, it would not get a mention….not even on social media, let alone the world press. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric wrote:Actually I dont see the issue with Baldwin, it is the person who loaded the gun that is at fault. Typical of the USA legal system always looking for opportunity to 'add' a fall guy who might have more insurance or publicity so the lawyer gets more kudos. No sanity in the USA legal system otherwise Donald Trump would be locked away many years ago! |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I see an issue with Baldwin - he was mucking about and assumed the gun had blanks - he should never have pointed the gun at anyone, let alone fired it. Even if it had blanks loaded it may have caused distress to the victim. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:I see an issue with Baldwin - he was mucking about and assumed the gun had blanks - he should never have pointed the gun at anyone, let alone fired it. Even if it had blanks loaded it may have caused distress to the victim.Totally agree. Doesn’t matter who loaded it or with what, he pulled the trigger. In my book … criminally negligent manslaughter. But with top lawyers he will get away with it. I remember reading recently about an incident where a bloke was mucking about with a hand axe at a garden party with friends…until the axe head came flying off and hit a guest in the eye. Not friends anymore after sight loss AND the court case. When I was learning to drive with my father, on one occasion, exasperated with his instructions I took my hands of the wheel to ‘gesticulate my point’. He went ballistic at me removing my hands, shouting I was ‘in charge of a lethal weapon’. At the time, being 17, I thought he was just being silly….but of course he was right. He sent me to BSM for the rest of my lessons. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
A bit more creative imaging with one of my old studio model photos and some help from Photoshop AI Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Very good Graham. How was the original model photo taken? Was she in water or hung up or leaping? Did you or AI decide to put the one bubble reflection of her right hand? And on a more flippant note…I like the way the ghosted fish positioning has effectively created the first female cod-piece. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Set subject for a camera club comp for next season is "Abstract"? This is some of my D800 USA landscapes with some creative work in Photoshop?  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I have improved above as white line needed to be much softer. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I am going to be a bit contentious. Is that sufficiently abstract? I think the underlying landscape is still recognisable as a landscape...and I always thought abstract artwork should have no recognisable features? In the early days of digital design I used Kai Power Tools (in PS) to create weird background effects including fractals and laser effects. Then tweaking Curves abnormally gave even weirder colour distortions to the designs. Didn't do anything with them apart for one that was used as a CD cover for an emerging pop group......they never made it either. This what I mean about distorting Curves. It renders more of the recognisable parts....unrecognisable. Maybe a tad OTT to emphasise the idea  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Interesting take on the abstract set subject Eric. Abstract is not for me but I will enter my go at it to support the camera club. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Anyone guess what this is an abstract of? Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
An industrial landscape? |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Not really industrial nor a landscape - there is a clue to the object which is the subject.... |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Globe? Football? Noooooo! |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
NOOOOO ! never football..... |
|||||||||
Eric
|
As I understand it, the key point about abstract is that the artist is trying to say something. Sadly it’s often only the artist that knows what that ‘something’ is, without a clue in its title. So mere observers like me, are left having to decide if “it looks nice” ….whatever it depicts. There are a myriad of software packages/filters that enable us to ‘b*gger about’ with our photos. The question must be, why are we doing it or what are we trying to say? Nothing wrong with mucking about just to see what happens and if the end result is pleasing to the eye, success! I like to title my photos (often because Jan says “why on earth did you take that?” )Last year I created a photobook for her on the occasion of our Golden Wedding, called “To the Casual Eye”, which shared many of my grabshot photos over the years….with explanations/captions. Having looked back over these photos, I confess probably 40% of my titles were ‘thought up’ after seeing the captured image, as opposed to seeing and capturing a ‘subject with an obvious title’. But in the long run, does it matter why we do it or what we read into it? It’s a bit of fun. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Some examples of “see it…say it” photos. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. Of course sometimes you don’t need to add a title…the photo does it for you.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
When I saw these boys standing looking at the events unfolding on a quayside (to which they were excluded) it immediately made me think they were ‘behind bars’ or ‘barred entry’. So many options for titles after the event …but I couldn’t resist a more edgy (but probably completely unfair) one.  Click here to comment on this image. Yes I know there’s a bad edit by the ear of the right hand boy. There was a shop sign coming out of his ear! In fairness, it was the early years of digital photo editing and I had yet to perfect faultless cloning……still trying. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:NOOOOO ! never football.....Lampshade? How many guesses do we get? |
|||||||||
jk
|
This should help identify the AI'ed v Natural products. https://www.dpreview.com/news/8360583669/adobe-adds-cai-content-credentials-option-to-camera-raw |
|||||||||
jk
|
Re Chris image..... AI dount know! Does theee understand me accent? |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
You been at the scrumpy again??? |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
AI Self Portrait by Sally Sallertt ARPS a photographer from West Yorkshire Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
For a bit of fun I have just tried to create a similar AI image using latest version of Photoshop. It took less than 5 mins to creatre this image on a blank white canvas.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I am a bit confused, Graham. You say your image was from a white canvas. Did you use a photo of the lady or did AI select her? Could you walk us through the sequences you took to arrive at that image? The original self portrait image looks to me to have used some additional software to create that characterised cartoon look of a photo? Or was it ALL created by AI in PS? They are both interesting images but without knowing something of the path taken it’s hard to understand how much AI contributed. What I am struggling with is how much of the self portrait image could be created with simple commands in PS AI? |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Here are the first three pages of Sally Sallett ARPS feature on AI Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Thanks for the explanation Graham. It’s clear that Microsoft Bing is a more comprehensive AI package than Photoshops version. Whenever I try to input such commands in to PShp interface it offers limited selection and no option for cartooning or characterised images….unless I haven’t got the knack of their commands? If I use the same wording that your lady used ... "a skinny, smooth haired, brindle Lurcher" in Photoshop this is what I get......  Click here to comment on this image. Not exactly smooth haired, not brindled, not skinny and not a Lurcher! The only thing it is ....is a dog. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I suspect (but do not know) that the "AI" simply searches the internet for images that are associated with your key words and selects to some sort of algorithm - the problem with that is that it relies on people who post things on the interne - most of whom would not know a lurcher from an elephant. This was in a google search for that phrase -  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
"Curlews in Turner Like Estuary" an other AI image, I am getting the hang of this a bit better now, sorry still not photography. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Sorry about above those two took me less than 10mins to create with a few simple words. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
"Storm at sea" AI generated Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
It’s all very impressive what can be achieved but the more I see of these images the more I feel it is distancing us all from photography. I see this almost as a new art form, closer to digital illustration than digital photography. I have seen the benefit from ‘replacing’ elements of a photograph…MY OWN photographs. One (or more) step beyond the traditional cloning out of distracting elements or introducing additional elements to better balance the image…..somewhat akin to the artistic licence afforded to a painter, when depicting his version of the landscape in front of him. I disagree with Sally’s assertion that photography won’t be harmed by this new technique. In the long run it will rob up and coming photographers of their ‘seeing eye’. Images will come more from their imagination delegated to a computer to effect. Sure Da Vinci and Michelangelo had their apprentices who prepared much of the canvas for their masters to step in and finish off. I see a similar abdication of ownership with the AI. Origination would be from the photographers written instruction, rather than crafted by his own hand. Our work will be the cheaper for the lack of complete involvement. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Graham, it might be useful for us to see the series of commands that you input to get your image. |
|||||||||
jk
|
As a registered world cynic.... Eric said.. "Our work will be the cheaper for the lack of complete involvement." Is that not what our industrialisation process does? It removes or reduces the highly rated human skill to a point where it can be performed by a machine. This allows for the replacement of expensive humans with cheap machines that can be run 24/7/365. Higher profits for the owner, starvation for the craftspeople. Photography used to be a valued and not inexpensive process that was valued, now every idiot with a smartphone is an expert photographer and videographer! |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Thank goodness they haven't found a machine that can ride a horse - the skill on display at the equestrian olympics is worth watching. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
JK look back to the post last week I have copied the instructions from the RPS magazine "Old Woman Uses AI" She explains how she did it. My image of a "Turner like very rough sea-scape with dramatic sunset, dark clouds, thunder storm and sailing ship!" This took less than 5 mins to create and gererate. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:As a registered world cynic.... Eric said.. "Our work will be the cheaper for the lack of complete involvement."I acknowledge a lot of what you say is true, Mr World Cynic. To a great extent I share some of those feelings.However a feel a line can be drawn between occupational and recreational tasks. During my several careers I embraced mechanical advantage whenever it came along. I happily accepted auto ‘this and that’ on my recreational cameras as a way to improve the rate of success….even before turning them into occupational tools. The use of computers for digital image manipulation is still within ‘my’ acceptable zone. Were I think AI starts to introduce a divide is the usurping of ownership of the creative result. That may still be ok if your job/career/ living depend on results. However, as someone who no longer seeks financial gain from my photography, I get a greater pleasure in thinking up and effecting the ideas myself. AI may come up with something more stunning and impressive…in a fraction of the time but where’s the sense of achievement in that? NOW…if AI and robotics come together to give me a device to weed my garden, leaving ‘proper’ plants untouched (something Jan reckons I fail to achieve), I would sign up straight away. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:JK look back to the post last week I have copied the instructions from the RPS magazine "Old Woman Uses AI" She explains how she did it.I thought the seascape was very good….and realistic …apart from perhaps two concurrent lightning strikes (does that happen at sea?). The image reminded me of a painting, I came across at Greenwich Maritime Museum, while doing some genealogical research about an early 1700s ancestor of Jan. He ran a tavern in Westminster and over one Winter a group of Privateers lodged with him squandering their share of the “bouty” from the taking of 2 French ships. We learnt all the details of their “cruise against the enemies of the king” from litigation between the parties. Jans ancestor was granted guardianship over the youngest privateer ….as wait for it…he was under 18 and required a responsible adult to handle his share of the prize. (You couldn’t dream up a dafter scenario than underage pirates needing adult consent on spending their prize). Anyway…the young pirate claimed Jans ancestor stole his money….BUT the whiley innkeeper had an inventory of everything the lad ate, drank and bought …including “ye clothes and trinketts”. So the court ruled the account was fair and ordered Jans ancestor to hand over the £30 residue of his £300guineas prize (work out how much the lad got in 1740 in todays money!!) Mysteriously, Jans ancestor died suddenly the next Summer.  But I digress…..the painting in Greenwich was of the actual battle of the taking of the very two named French ships in which these privateers had been engaged. All of which is a rambling story about nothing of consequence except to my good lady. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
if AI and robotics come together to give me a device to weed my garden, leaving ‘proper’ plants untouched (something Jan reckons I fail to achieve),Lol - I wish I could find a "gardener" who could do that - too many are unskilled and think gardening is whizzing around with a number of petrol driven tools and have no idea what the plants actually are nor how to prune them! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Exactly our problem.if AI and robotics come together to give me a device to weed my garden, leaving ‘proper’ plants untouched (something Jan reckons I fail to achieve),Lol - I wish I could find a "gardener" who could do that - too many are unskilled and think gardening is whizzing around with a number of petrol driven tools and have no idea what the plants actually are nor how to prune them! |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I came home one day to find that my wife had engaged a gardener who had knocked looking for work - he was about to attack my Abelia with shears as she had asked him to cut it back - I stopped him and asked if he knew what the bush was - "No" he said - then how do you know how to prune it? I asked. Answer is one branch in 3 back hard.... he got his marching orders. Later I noticed he had pulled up the poppy seedlings and left the weeds ...... |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:I came home one day to find that my wife had engaged a gardener who had knocked looking for work - he was about to attack my Abelia with shears as she had asked him to cut it back - I stopped him and asked if he knew what the bush was - "No" he said - then how do you know how to prune it? I asked. Answer is one branch in 3 back hard.... he got his marching orders. Later I noticed he had pulled up the poppy seedlings and left the weeds ......Did he move to Norfolk? |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Lol - Romania, I think! |
|||||||||
jk
|
Eric said.. "I thought the seascape was very good….and realistic …apart from perhaps two concurrent lightning strikes (does that happen at sea?)." Yes it is possible to get multiple lightning strikes from close by clouds but I dont think it is possible to get two from the same point (at least I have never seen them). Living in the tropics we had many severe lightning storms during the rainy season. I can say that I have seen anything as severe since living in UK. Once in Spain in 2009 there was a three day storm with very bad lightning but it was mostly sheet lightning rather than the forked lightning. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:Lol - Romania, I think!I didn’t realise people ever went TO Romania. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Living in the tropics we had many severe lightning storms during the rainy season. I can say that I have seen anything as severe since living in UK.What not even in Cornwall? |
|||||||||
jk
|
Well Cornwall may be the most southerly part of UK but it certainly isnt tropical. That said the cornish men wear shorts all year! |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:Well Cornwall may be the most southerly part of UK but it certainly isnt tropical.WOW….that is severe. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Who needs a camera now? I have just created these AI images with a few simple commands in AI Photoshop it is amazing how the quality has improved in just 6 months. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Superb creations Graham. You certainly have learnt the secret of the command wording. I would still like to know whether Firefly is using photographs or photorealistic drawings as its main inspiration. My eagle eyed wife said “where is the water?” Not the river, but the residual water on the bird and fish that should be there after exiting the river with its catch. Which I am sure would be present IF the original source was a photograph. My overall feeling is that, as a photo realistic drawing, it is superb. But AI needs to add natural defects. The birds plumage….. the fish scales… the leaves, are all pristine. That’s what make the image unrealistic. I don’t know if you can add to the command “wet dishevelled feathers”, “torn fish scales”, “water droplets on bird and fish”, “bug damage on some leaves”……and if it adds back some natural imperfection realism? |
|||||||||
jk
|
Graham Whistler wrote:Who needs a camera now? I have just created these AI images with a few simple commands in AI Photoshop it is amazing how the quality has improved in just 6 months.Too artificial for me sorry AI doesnt pass my tests. Images look oversharpened and so unreal. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I agree JK this can easily be turned back with normal Photoshop editing. What Eric said also is the bird would be wet as it had just caught a fish so I will have another go and adjust I am on a steep learning curve. Compare this with the quality of the Goldfinch from AI Photoshop late last year. As you say it is almost too good now. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Could I suggest trying to replicate one of your excellent kingfisher photos of the bird emerging from water with a fish in its beak. Describing exactly what your photo depicts should??? give a comparable result if AI is as good as you are as an accomplished photographer. Only then would it be worth hanging up your camera in favour of ‘ordering your image from a computer’. Just think….you could create wonderful landscape images of Southern France and Spain without having to drive there and hire a villa for a fortnight. It would save you a fortune and get you a Yorkshire Thrift Award. All joking apart, I salute your commitment to the steep learning curve and applaud the results you are achieving. Most commendable. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Eric in no less than 5 mins I have done what you wanted. "Kingfisher with fish in beak comming out of water close up with wings half open and lots of splashing water with spring green leaves on trees"  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
In readiness for your eventual success and the resulting sale of your photographic equipment along with cancellation of all travel I have asked AI to create a special Yorkshire Thrift Award....... Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
NEWSFLASH. Just had chat with Graham and I have been misunderstanding a significant point. Grahams Kingfisher images were NOT created with Photoshop's AI "Firefly". They were created in Microsoft Bing...the software used by the lady, whose work Graham presented a little earlier in this thread. So he is now a Bing officianado......let's hope he doesn't start to sing White Christmas. What is clear is that Microsoft Bing is waaaaaay ahead of Photoshop, and it's FREE!  It also answers to some extent the question about whether these images are derived from photos. In the case of Adobes offering, Firefly, they actually state they have a massive library of images it uses. Some may be illustrations but a lot are actual stock free photos. These find significant use in replacing photo backgrounds with different photo backgrounds but when it comes to more creative compilations I don't think it's in the same league as BING. I don't know if Bing uses stock photos in the same way or at all? Generally speaking, I still believe AI has got to learn about natural imperfections. All the images seem to be too perfect and it's that very fact that makes them unrealistic (to my eye at least) and as such NOT direct competition for photographs. It's a fascinating area of artistic development. Whether photographers will decide this is the direction they want to go, remains to be seen. Personally I am happy to continue 'seeing things I want to capture' as opposed to 'imagining things I want to create'. ....but I could have done with Bing et al in my graphic design years! It would have saved me hours and hours of Illustrator work. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I prefer the real thing from Graham! The Bing stuff is a pale shadow of reality. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I have now reworked the AI image in Photoshop to make it look far more like normal photography.  Click here to comment on this image. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Two Kingfishers also slightly reworked to look bit more photographic? Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Hmmm. Yes it’s less saturated and more typical of photographic renditions…but it’s still too perfect to be true. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Sorry Eric just to wind you up more BING Generated Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Haha…not winding me up my friend. I just think Bing is effectively creating 19th century fine art illustrations. Admittedly VERY fine and VERY fast…but perfect illustrations. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I have been pondering about what it is tha makes these images look artificial - I think it is because they look 2D, flat, the feather detail is regular right to the edge of the bird - you would expect the lines of the feathers to get closer as they approach the edge because birds are 3D.... |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:I have been pondering about what it is tha makes these images look artificial - I think it is because they look 2D, flat, the feather detail is regular right to the edge of the bird - you would expect the lines of the feathers to get closer as they approach the edge because birds are 3D....Well observed, Chris. They are similar to the results of decoupage. My wife produces old winter street scenes as Christmas cards and mounts multiple cutouts of the same elements on top of each other….to get a 3d effect that’s missing from the flat prints. Then has to pay extra postage for “fat” cards. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
The top images has just been generated with the latest version of Photoshop Beta using exactly the same set of instructions of the image below generated in BING (that you have seen before) I think there is no doubt that BING is far more advanced in generating on a blank canvas. Perhaps Photoshop is not keen to develop this way? PS just tried again but same set of instructions into normal Photoshop with up to date version is much better than Bets PS but middle pix with BING is still the winner.  Click here to comment on this image. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
This confirms my own observations that Phshp AI is lacklustre, easily outperformed by Bing in terms of returning a quality image from long, detailed descriptions. I wonder if that’s because they see their AI objective more as “modifying and enhancing our photos” rather than dreaming up images on a white canvas? Phshp AI is good at slickly swopping photographic backgrounds to a basic description, around a pre-masked subject. It does a good job of blending the subject into the background. (Although I wouldn’t say seamlessly, as there are often some edge touch ups required). It has also applied its AI well when it comes to adding intelligent fill as an alternative to manual cloning. Again, fast, effortless and convincing photo manipulation. It starts to fall down when you give it a blank page and add multiple combination criteria to the description. Just querying the Photoshop Beta performance……is that not because the beta has now been superseded by the latest version of Photoshop? Wasn’t the beta the starting point and we are now several revisions/ updates down the road? |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I have never tried to generate on a blank canvas with Beta till the above test today also I have not used Photoshop for this since late last year when I just did a few tests. At that time saw no point in taking it any further as my main interest is as Eric states using all the very good Photoshop new AI features to save time and improve the quality of my photography. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
AI is and perhaps always will be unable to capture reality, that is still firmley in the hands of photography and the person behind and in control of the camera. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
AI BING again I have been refining my gererative writing skills a bit. Little Owls for a change? Normal Photo below AI enhanced one.  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
That’s not too bad actually. It’s really just the eyes that don’t look totally real. Again too perfect. Here’s a challenge Graham…. Take your hide photo of a Little Owlet, cut the bird out and paste it in the middle of this Bing image, so it’s sized correctly between the other owlets. Let’s see if the difference is still noticeable. |
|||||||||
jk
|
Graham Whistler wrote:AI BING again I have been refining my gererative writing skills a bit. Little Owls for a change? Normal Photo below.Those images look much better. A little too bright and saturated to be natural in my view but then again many people over sharpen and over saturate. My preference is for 'normal images' to less brightened in the highlights and less saturated, but Instagram seems to life is bright and saturated even though we know this is artificial. Maybe the people at IG are on some Timothy Leary special! No doubt the whole AI stuff will become more normal as it matures and is incorporated as a widget with a set of control sliders. Graham, I put your comment about which image is which in bold. I still prefer your original unless I was buying an owly postcard! |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Friend in BIPP advised me to add wording plus "as photograph taken with a Nikon with 500mm lens". I think it look a boit more like a normal photo now? Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I don’t know if it’s due to the “500mm” request, but to me, much of the bird is blurred. Only the front plane has feather detail. It’s as if the instruction gave an apparent dof of 1/2”. As I mentioned on the phone, I applaud your commitment to this challenge and I hope the article you will be writing is well received by readers. I don’t believe photographers are at risk or should be concerned with this new technology. More likely graphic illustrators will be the ones either embracing these new methods or holding their heads into retirement/ redundancy. There will always be a need for the factual recording of an event, location or product in a photograph. With respect to this development, I don’t mind being called a Luddite. Were I still working it would be a different matter of course. In retirement the finished product has no consequence attached to it, only personal satisfaction. I find greater satisfaction going out and about and seeing things that I want to record as seen. |
|||||||||
jk
|
I actually think the 'less perfect' output in Graham's latest post is more realistic than the kingfishers images. As Eric has pointed out this image has elements of OOF that look unreal. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
jk wrote:I actually think the 'less perfect' output in Graham's latest post is more realistic than the kingfishers images. As Eric has pointed out this image has elements of OOF that look unreal.It made me wonder whether if Bing would change the image dof, if Graham put 50mm lens? |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Just been playing with Photoshop AI. If you preface the description with “Photo realistic…” Photo quality…” or similar, then Firefly gives you a photograph of the subject..IF ITS GOT ONE! If it hasn’t got a photo of that …..it starts to graft things onto a photo. if you remove the photo realistic, it seems to start to work with drawings. If Bing works the same way giving preference to the first part of the description, it might be worth starting your description with that key requirement. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Basic command... "Photo realistic male goldfinch sitting on a post"...  Click here to comment on this image. Then add ...."eating seeds"....  Click here to comment on this image. What's wrong here is that Goldfinches don't get a bunch of seeds in one go! So it made this image up. Substituting seeds for "a peanut in its beak"......  Click here to comment on this image. What's wrong here is Goldfinches can't hold a peanut kernel in their fine beaks. Going more bizarre..." a peanut on its head" or "wearing a blue neck tie" or "feeding a baby parrot with a fish"  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. Even with more bizarre commands, it sticks with the photo realistic intro. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
How about photo realistic vulture as president of the USA? |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
As I said I have been asked to write for RPS Digit Magazine about AI, how close is it getting to photography. I was down in the woods today with a camera or was I on the computer asking AI to generate a high photo quality image of a robin feeding it's young in a wood? Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Since there is no camera/lens data in the EXIF, I guess you were chatting with photoshop AI - looks like it is being fed a poo sack..... |
|||||||||
Eric
|
The image is certainly photo quality but not photo realistic. The thing that AI cannot get right is ‘natural imperfections’. No bird would have such pristine, manicured, almost plastic moulded looking plumage as that adult Robin…especially given the rigours of foraging for food to feed young. They look more like this….  Click here to comment on this image. Even one’s early in the season have their plumage “unpreened”…  Click here to comment on this image. Perhaps you have to add ….. “with some dishevelled feathers” and “thin, emaciated”…. or other such natural modifiers? I suppose even photographers resist the urge to photograph birds post breeding and during the moult….so in fairness AI may not have any closer examples to reference. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
The other "giveaway" is that the parent bird is not gripping the surface with its claws. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:The other "giveaway" is that the parent bird is not gripping the surface with its claws.Not to mention it’s too young to be out of the nest and wouldn’t be out in the open waiting to be fed. It’s a remarkably pristine image….it just doesn’t fit the natural real life behaviour or appearance of the birds. Which, sorry to reiterate, is exactly what AI is getting wrong (at the moment). There’s a world of difference between photo quality and “true to life”. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
You are both right. it is just too good to be true. I asked for parent Robin feeding a young Robin on an old moss covered log in a wood. High quality photographic quality. It took less than a min to generate, this Microsoft app is getting better by the day or I am learning to use the right words. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:You are both right. it is just too good to be true. I asked for parent Robin feeding a young Robin on an old moss covered log in a wood. High quality photographic quality. It took less than a min to generate, this Microsoft app is getting better by the day or I am learning to use the right words.Graham, what happens if you add into the wording something like “some disturbed feathers” ? On another point…what’s the deadline on your article? |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Eric deadline is no problem as I have more than enough photos and suitable matching AI most of them you have seen. Deadline is early Nov for the article so now it is mostly getting the wording right and all the help I have had from comments from you and other friends is most helpful. You are 100% with: "The image is certainly photo quality but not photo realistic." |
|||||||||
Eric
|
I know Adobe is a US company and everything is bigger in America but Photoshops interpretation of a "green woodpecker in a bird bath" has seriously over stated the size of my bird bath.... Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
Or it is a very small woodpecker .... |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
New AI version asked as requested with ruffled feathers and other slight improvments? Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
That’s getting quite good. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
AI getting better new generate wording with BING: "Robin with tatty feathers feeding a worm with open beak to a young robin on an old moss covered log both birds seen in full size with background of a wood all round in photographic high quality"  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
It’s getting very good quality now Graham…..and the dishevelled plumage is a lot more realistic. By the way…shouldn’t this be in the AI thread rather than Bird photography, for other interested viewers to find? I may be wrong, but I don’t believe baby robins have even an embryonic red breast. They have dark brown spots. Bing’s birding knowledge of nestlings needs updating. What happens if you add “specks of dirt on the parent Robins legs and under belly and mud specks on the worm” |
|||||||||
Iain
|
It’s getting there but the juv Robin is wrong as Eric said. It is a bit worrying how good it’s getting, if the little Robin was right you could potentially have a competition winner if you didn’t tell them it was AI. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Iain wrote:It’s getting there but the juv Robin is wrong as Eric said. It is a bit worrying how good it’s getting, if the little Robin was right you could potentially have a competition winner if you didn’t tell them it was AI.I still think the nestling is too big compared to adult at that stage of development and would still be in the nest…hidden from view. The setting and its pristine condition are still things that defy realism but there’s no doubt it’s a lot better. Well done Graham. It’s quite bizarre in a way that Graham is having to introduce instructions to get Bing to make things less than the perfect perception Bing has of our world. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I am surprised that you don't get an american robin given Bing's parentage..... Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
chrisbet wrote:I am surprised that you don't get an american robin given Bing's parentage.....That happened to me when trying “a Robin” in Photoshop. There is no doubt that Bing is far superior to the current offering in Photoshop. However, Adobe are now offering a premium AI program ….for an extra fee. I suspect they haven’t been advancing the AI in Photoshop with this “charge more” option in the wings. Still think these last few posts should be on the AI thread. |
|||||||||
chrisbet
|
I agree with Eric and have moved these last few from 'Birds' to here |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Yes thanks for that Chris there will not be much more on BING from me I only needed to do these for my write up in RPS Digit Magazine. It is not for me I will stick to reality photography with a camera. The new Adobe BING type software is a lot of money for something I would hardly ever want to use. Photoshop in it's latest version very good indeed for editing and improving normal photography and not a rip off price for a retired person. |
|||||||||
Eric
|
Graham Whistler wrote:Yes thanks for that Chris there will not be much more on BING from me I only needed to do these for my write up in RPS Digit Magazine. It is not for me I will stick to reality photography with a camera. The new Adobe BING type software is a lot of money for something I would hardly ever want to use. Photoshop in it's latest version very good indeed for editing and improving normal photography and not a rip off price for a retired person.Thanks for all your efforts Graham in sharing with us your AI journey. As a work tool, it would have been an incredible asset for me during my commercial photography and graphic design years. I am sure it will be even more useful to the next generation working in this field. For my part, being now retired, I find little incentive to pursue these new creative techniques. The need to learn new creative skills is greatly diminished with the absence of client pressure. Paradoxically, it’s easier to push forward when something is pushing back at you. I still prefer the simple pleasure of capturing a spontaneous moment with a camera, warts and all. I am content in restricting my digital witchcraft to minor adjustments in Photoshop. As such I don’t feel the need to post any further comments on this thread. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Thanks Eric for that. I still think A! and BING type image generation always will be unable to capture reality, thank goodness, that is still firmly in the hands of photography. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
I had to have one more go with BING and Avocets with young compared with a Nikon D810 Avocet photo that has done well in several comps. Click here to comment on this image.  Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Tulips in Holland, sorry used AI again to generate a birthday card. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Graham Whistler
|
Sorry another A! Seascape with Bing I created with an artist friend who paints seacapes as a demo. Click here to comment on this image. |
|||||||||
Current theme is Blue
| A small amount of member data is captured and held in an attempt to reduce spammers and to manage users. This site also uses cookies to ensure ease of use. In order to comply with new DPR regulations you are required to agree/disagree with this process. If you do not agree then please email the Admins using info@nikondsl.uk Thank you. |