Is A.I. the future of post processing?

**Digitalis** · 10-12-2019, 10:23 PM

Originally posted by Adam

AI is nothing more than computers learning from their mistakes

In most cases the term A.I is just window dressing for Deep learning. In this case computers are just employing slightly more complex logic than the 7 basic states, but its not enough. Personally I won't be sold on A.I Until it can accurately do object/scene based keywording with a set-it-and-forget-it level of user input. I work with a rather advanced A.I software that has facial recognition, object recognition and scene analysis.

It makes quite a few mistakes. The Face recognition capability is reasonable and requires a bit of initial training, but once that is done it can pick out single faces even in photos of large groups. But objects are problematic, as a slight change in angle and lighting on the object in question can confuse the program.

Originally posted by DeadJohn

One smartphone manufacturer is already suspected of detecting photos that have the moon in them, then automatically pasting in a better copy of the moon taken with a DSLR.

....really?

garywakeling · 10-13-2019, 12:56 AM

Originally posted by DeadJohn

If anyone remembers Microsoft's oft-hated Clippy assistant, maybe there will be an A.I. photo version: "It looks like you took a photo of the Eiffel Tower. Would you like to substitute a better photo of that taken by a pro?"

Ok this is the best reason to forbid AI in cameras and computers, I hated the paper clip......

house · 10-13-2019, 01:26 AM

As mentioned almost nothing marketed as ai uses ai. Often its outsourced humans, deep learning or just "computers".

Clippy is indeed the risk, or just autocorrect like behaviour. Makes sense when the desire is to emulate a well known style. As you will know from cinema things like teal/orange spread like wildfire even amongst high level creatives.

**roberrl** · 10-13-2019, 02:43 AM

I have tried the Topaz Sharpen AI which worked OK as far as it went but .... when I saved the AI'd image it produced the most awful end product with bizarre treatment of colours.

I tried several different ways of using it but all gave unpredictable results so I decided I wouldn't spend any more time debugging somebody else's code and uninstalled it.

I echo the comments above about these AI products - I don't see where the feedback happens which would enable the software to "learn"

**Rondec** · 10-13-2019, 03:19 AM

AI as others have said is just a glorified term for machine learning. Probably useful in many terms, but not what has traditionally been termed AI.

I would say that these sorts of programs do some amazing things at bringing focus and clarity to things that are fuzzy for whatever reason (slightly missed focus, camera shake, subject movement, whatever). They tend to be overly aggressive aggressive in processing though and can give overprocessed looks easily. It feels like if this were true AI after using the program for four or five hours you could just dump your images into and go away and come back in half an hour and they would be done processing, but likely if you did that you wouldn't truly be happy with the results. The reason is that you have some vision for how you want your images to look and ceding control to your computer and its AI program won't actually give you that end result.

**othar** · 10-13-2019, 03:36 AM

Originally posted by Rondec

It feels like if this were true AI after using the program for four or five hours you could just dump your images into and go away and come back in half an hour and they would be done processing, but likely if you did that you wouldn't truly be happy with the results. The reason is that you have some vision for how you want your images to look and ceding control to your computer and its AI program won't actually give you that end result.

While this is true for current programs, they will no doubt improve in the future and take over more and more parts of the pp-work in the future

**Rondec** · 10-13-2019, 03:43 AM - **1 Like**

Originally posted by othar

While this is true for current programs, they will no doubt improve in the future and take over more and more parts of the pp-work in the future

Sure. And I have no problems using computer programs to automagically get rid of unwanted objects like power lines or other grunt work like that.

But I actually enjoy post processing and thinking about the image I captured and how to make it fit with my imagined visualization of it. Giving control of that to a computer would actually take away some of my enjoyment of photography.

**Madaboutpix** · 10-13-2019, 04:37 AM

I have no problem at all with AI entering into post-processing software, and that, certainly, will be part of the future of imaging. What I don't quite buy is the current hype around it, as if the latest software iterations expressly touting AI were the absolute game-changers mopping the floor with everything that doesn't have AI in its name. Imaging software has got smarter with each new version before AI was discovered by the marketing departments, and I'm sure that will continue to be the case in the future.

AI on board or not, I would always want to retain ultimate control over the actual image result. If AI has something offer to help me realize my creative vision, all the better.

**Rondec** · 10-13-2019, 05:10 AM

I guess the thing I see with folks who are very reliant on Topaz's software is I can usually identify it right off. Not sure if it is the AI thing, but there is a consistency of appearance (that I'm not a big fan of). This may be more the result of using of auto settings rather than dialing things back, but it definitely stands out (and not always in a good way).

BrianR · 10-13-2019, 05:48 AM

I think it's a given that more and more computational tools will make their way into our workflows. From editing, evaluating, cataloging, and even time-of capture, people will throw whatever technology they can at photography. It will only get better. As long as nothing is forced on the user more tools are usually nice to have.

It's been discussed here before, but a couple years ago Google trained a deep-learning network to find and edit landscape photos out of its street view imagery. It was trained to emulate high scoring photos on 500px, and while the popular style there might not be to your taste, it did a pretty decent job.

Google AI Blog: Using Deep Learning to Create Professional-Level Photographs

and the corresponding paper:

https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.03491.pdf

A computer mimicking artwork puts us one step closer to a functioning Erasmus and the Butlerian Jihad is sure to follow.

**StiffLegged** · 10-13-2019, 06:43 AM

I should think if a program can accurately predict what I want to do and then do it, my photography has grown much too predictable. I expect such software to be really popular among Instagram users (f'rinstance), but that would be time to rethink why I do it, urgently!

**bwgv001** · 10-13-2019, 08:33 AM

I think it may help for quick edits, and first edits. But I think ultimately folks still will do some manual editing, just like some folks go back, use in parallel, film. In my opinion developing is a big part of taking the photo.

**StiffLegged** · 10-13-2019, 12:37 PM

Originally posted by bwgv001

In my opinion developing is a big part of taking the photo.

I couldn't agree more, whether film or digital!

**ffking** · 10-13-2019, 12:58 PM - **1 Like**

At the moment, a lot of people are wowed by the technology in cameras and seem to want and expect more and more to be done by the camera to the point of eliminating anything ith a 'wrong' exposure or anything out of focus - but the better at automation the camera gets, the less the role of the photographer - which, when the wonder dies down, means the less satisfying the experience of photography. I think post processing will follow the same trajectory - the more you leave to the programme, the less you ill be able to point at the result and say 'I did that'. Some people might find that satisfying - many wouldn't.

**Madaboutpix** · 10-13-2019, 01:30 PM

Originally posted by StiffLegged

I should think if a program can accurately predict what I want to do and then do it, my photography has grown much too predictable. I expect such software to be really popular among Instagram users (f'rinstance), but that would be time to rethink why I do it, urgently!

There is a grain of truth in this, likely several grains. However, a certain degree of "predictability" can also be an expression of style or at least consistency. Total stasis is the end of creativity, of course.

Similar Threads
Thread	Thread Starter	Forum	Replies	Last Post
Thematic Post-Processing Post-Processing Challenge #277	tuggie76	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	17	12-09-2018 08:54 AM
Thematic Post-Processing Post Processing Challenge #258 - Harvard	tuggie76	Mini-Challenges, Games, and Photo Stories	11	05-24-2018 12:39 PM
People "The future's bright – the future's Orange"	Kerrowdown	Post Your Photos!	22	04-03-2014 01:01 PM
Lens Correction: 15mm DA Limited (in-camera Pentax Kx processing or post-processing?)	ADHWJC	Digital Processing, Software, and Printing	10	11-29-2010 08:11 PM

10-12-2019, 10:23 PM	#16
Digitalis Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Melbourne, Victoria Photos: Gallery Posts: 11,694	Originally posted by Adam AI is nothing more than computers learning from their mistakes In most cases the term A.I is just window dressing for Deep learning. In this case computers are just employing slightly more complex logic than the 7 basic states, but its not enough. Personally I won't be sold on A.I Until it can accurately do object/scene based keywording with a set-it-and-forget-it level of user input. I work with a rather advanced A.I software that has facial recognition, object recognition and scene analysis. It makes quite a few mistakes. The Face recognition capability is reasonable and requires a bit of initial training, but once that is done it can pick out single faces even in photos of large groups. But objects are problematic, as a slight change in angle and lighting on the object in question can confuse the program. Originally posted by DeadJohn One smartphone manufacturer is already suspected of detecting photos that have the moon in them, then automatically pasting in a better copy of the moon taken with a DSLR. ....really?

10-13-2019, 12:56 AM	#17
garywakeling Moderator Join Date: Jul 2011 Location: Melbourne Photos: Gallery \| Albums Posts: 1,773	Originally posted by DeadJohn If anyone remembers Microsoft's oft-hated Clippy assistant, maybe there will be an A.I. photo version: "It looks like you took a photo of the Eiffel Tower. Would you like to substitute a better photo of that taken by a pro?" Ok this is the best reason to forbid AI in cameras and computers, I hated the paper clip......

10-13-2019, 01:26 AM	#18
house Pentaxian Join Date: May 2015 Photos: Albums Posts: 3,306	As mentioned almost nothing marketed as ai uses ai. Often its outsourced humans, deep learning or just "computers". Clippy is indeed the risk, or just autocorrect like behaviour. Makes sense when the desire is to emulate a well known style. As you will know from cinema things like teal/orange spread like wildfire even amongst high level creatives.

10-13-2019, 02:43 AM	#19
roberrl Site Supporter Join Date: Feb 2010 Location: Oxford, UK Photos: Gallery Posts: 346	I have tried the Topaz Sharpen AI which worked OK as far as it went but .... when I saved the AI'd image it produced the most awful end product with bizarre treatment of colours. I tried several different ways of using it but all gave unpredictable results so I decided I wouldn't spend any more time debugging somebody else's code and uninstalled it. I echo the comments above about these AI products - I don't see where the feedback happens which would enable the software to "learn"

10-13-2019, 03:19 AM	#20
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	AI as others have said is just a glorified term for machine learning. Probably useful in many terms, but not what has traditionally been termed AI. I would say that these sorts of programs do some amazing things at bringing focus and clarity to things that are fuzzy for whatever reason (slightly missed focus, camera shake, subject movement, whatever). They tend to be overly aggressive aggressive in processing though and can give overprocessed looks easily. It feels like if this were true AI after using the program for four or five hours you could just dump your images into and go away and come back in half an hour and they would be done processing, but likely if you did that you wouldn't truly be happy with the results. The reason is that you have some vision for how you want your images to look and ceding control to your computer and its AI program won't actually give you that end result.

10-13-2019, 03:36 AM	#21
othar Site Supporter Join Date: May 2014 Location: Linz Photos: Albums Posts: 3,098	Originally posted by Rondec It feels like if this were true AI after using the program for four or five hours you could just dump your images into and go away and come back in half an hour and they would be done processing, but likely if you did that you wouldn't truly be happy with the results. The reason is that you have some vision for how you want your images to look and ceding control to your computer and its AI program won't actually give you that end result. While this is true for current programs, they will no doubt improve in the future and take over more and more parts of the pp-work in the future

10-13-2019, 03:43 AM - 1 Like	#22
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	Originally posted by othar While this is true for current programs, they will no doubt improve in the future and take over more and more parts of the pp-work in the future Sure. And I have no problems using computer programs to automagically get rid of unwanted objects like power lines or other grunt work like that. But I actually enjoy post processing and thinking about the image I captured and how to make it fit with my imagined visualization of it. Giving control of that to a computer would actually take away some of my enjoyment of photography.

10-13-2019, 04:37 AM	#23
Madaboutpix Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Rhine-Westphalia Posts: 1,446	I have no problem at all with AI entering into post-processing software, and that, certainly, will be part of the future of imaging. What I don't quite buy is the current hype around it, as if the latest software iterations expressly touting AI were the absolute game-changers mopping the floor with everything that doesn't have AI in its name. Imaging software has got smarter with each new version before AI was discovered by the marketing departments, and I'm sure that will continue to be the case in the future. AI on board or not, I would always want to retain ultimate control over the actual image result. If AI has something offer to help me realize my creative vision, all the better.

10-13-2019, 05:10 AM	#24
Rondec Loyal Site Supporter Join Date: Mar 2009 Location: Gladys, Virginia Photos: Gallery Posts: 27,663	I guess the thing I see with folks who are very reliant on Topaz's software is I can usually identify it right off. Not sure if it is the AI thing, but there is a consistency of appearance (that I'm not a big fan of). This may be more the result of using of auto settings rather than dialing things back, but it definitely stands out (and not always in a good way).

10-13-2019, 05:48 AM	#25
BrianR Veteran Member Join Date: Dec 2010 Location: Ontario Photos: Gallery Posts: 3,332	I think it's a given that more and more computational tools will make their way into our workflows. From editing, evaluating, cataloging, and even time-of capture, people will throw whatever technology they can at photography. It will only get better. As long as nothing is forced on the user more tools are usually nice to have. It's been discussed here before, but a couple years ago Google trained a deep-learning network to find and edit landscape photos out of its street view imagery. It was trained to emulate high scoring photos on 500px, and while the popular style there might not be to your taste, it did a pretty decent job. Google AI Blog: Using Deep Learning to Create Professional-Level Photographs and the corresponding paper: https://arxiv.org/pdf/1707.03491.pdf A computer mimicking artwork puts us one step closer to a functioning Erasmus and the Butlerian Jihad is sure to follow.

10-13-2019, 06:43 AM	#26
StiffLegged Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,635	I should think if a program can accurately predict what I want to do and then do it, my photography has grown much too predictable. I expect such software to be really popular among Instagram users (f'rinstance), but that would be time to rethink why I do it, urgently!

10-13-2019, 08:33 AM	#27
bwgv001 Site Supporter Join Date: Aug 2015 Location: Alabama Photos: Gallery Posts: 698	I think it may help for quick edits, and first edits. But I think ultimately folks still will do some manual editing, just like some folks go back, use in parallel, film. In my opinion developing is a big part of taking the photo.

10-13-2019, 12:37 PM	#28
StiffLegged Site Supporter Join Date: Jan 2018 Photos: Gallery Posts: 4,635	Originally posted by bwgv001 In my opinion developing is a big part of taking the photo. I couldn't agree more, whether film or digital!

10-13-2019, 12:58 PM - 1 Like	#29
ffking Site Supporter Join Date: Nov 2015 Location: Old South Wales Posts: 6,039	At the moment, a lot of people are wowed by the technology in cameras and seem to want and expect more and more to be done by the camera to the point of eliminating anything ith a 'wrong' exposure or anything out of focus - but the better at automation the camera gets, the less the role of the photographer - which, when the wonder dies down, means the less satisfying the experience of photography. I think post processing will follow the same trajectory - the more you leave to the programme, the less you ill be able to point at the result and say 'I did that'. Some people might find that satisfying - many wouldn't.

10-13-2019, 01:30 PM	#30
Madaboutpix Site Supporter Join Date: Dec 2011 Location: North Rhine-Westphalia Posts: 1,446	Originally posted by StiffLegged I should think if a program can accurately predict what I want to do and then do it, my photography has grown much too predictable. I expect such software to be really popular among Instagram users (f'rinstance), but that would be time to rethink why I do it, urgently! There is a grain of truth in this, likely several grains. However, a certain degree of "predictability" can also be an expression of style or at least consistency. Total stasis is the end of creativity, of course.