5 ms·

I have to say that I think the photo without the Ligthroom processing actually looks better. The second one hasn't just added a bitcoin, it has also added the "

I have to say that I think the photo without the Ligthroom processing actually looks better. The second one hasn't just added a bitcoin, it has also added the "AI shimmer" that seems to be a part of a lot of generated images. I can't put my finger on exactly what the characteristic is, but my first instinct (separate from the bitcoin, which was hard to find) is "that's an AI picture." Someone should just spend some time in the blur tool if they don't like those glints.

samsartor 2y ago
That could be the VAE? The "latent" part of latent diffusion models is surprisingly lossy. And however much the image is getting inpainted, the entire thing gets encoded and decoded. Edit: I'll note some new models (SD3 and Flux) have a wider latent dim and seem to suffer from this problem less. AI generated images are also biased strongly towards medium lightness. The photographer's adjusting of the tone curve may simply give it that "look".
- Auracle 2y ago
  You absolutely do not need to encode and decode the whole image, even in ComfyUI. All you need to do is composite the changed areas back in the original photo. There are nodes for that and I’m sure that’s what Adobe does as well, if they even encode in the first place. These tools don’t really work quite like inpainting. There’s no denoise value - it’s all or nothing. I’ve used Photoshop’s generative fill many times on singular images and there’s no loss on the ungenerated parts.
serviceberry 2y ago
I don't think there's any AI-fication going on in that photo. The modified version has a more compressed tone curve to bring out more detail, along with jacked up saturation (especially evident for water). This is similar to what most cell phones do by default to make photos look more pleasing. I do agree that the original looks better, but the author of the post clearly prefers the modified version.
- strogonoff 2y ago
  Clipped highlights in digital photography are simply impossible to eliminate in post-processing without conjuring nonexistent information. Even if you shoot raw. Different raw processors use different tricks, color propagation and such, but naturally they are best used when highlights are really small. I would not be surprised if tools like Lightroom invoke ML at the first hint of clipping (because why not, if you all you have is a hammer…). Pro tip: Digital sensors are much less forgiving than negative film when it comes to exposing highlights. With a bit of foresight they are best tackled at shooting time. Highlights from water/glass reflections are tamed by a fairly cheap polarizing filter, and if you shoot raw you should do the opposite of negative film and always underexpose a scene with bright highlights (especially if highlights are large or are in your subject of interest). Let it be dark, you will have more noise, but noise is manageable without having to invent what doesn’t exist in the parts that are the most noticeable to human eye.
  - serviceberry 2y ago
    > Clipped highlights in digital photography are simply impossible to eliminate in post-processing without conjuring nonexistent information. Even if you shoot raw. Huh? This used to be true twenty years ago, but modern sensors in prosumer cameras capture a lot more dynamic range than can be displayed on the screen or conveyed in a standard JPEG. If you shoot raw, you absolutely have the information needed to rescue nominally clipped highlights. You get 2-4 stops of latitude without any real effort. The problem here is different. If the rest of the scene is exposed correctly, you have to choose one or another. Overexposed highlights or underexposed subject. The workaround is to use tone mapping or local contrast tricks, but these easily give your photos a weird "HDR" look.
    - strogonoff 2y ago
      You may be confused on at least two counts: — If you think there is “clipping” and the somehow different “nominal clipping”. Clipping is binary. Either you camera’s pixel clipped (i.e., accumulated enough photons to get fully saturated, and therefore offers no useful information for debayering), or it did not. If it clipped, then you lost colour data in that part of the image. If you lost colour data, and you want a colour photo, then in almost all cases one way or another you will have to rescue it by conjuring information up for the photo to look authentic and aesthetically good. (A lot of raw development software does it for you by default.) If the clipped bit is small, it is easy to do subtly. If it is big, which is a real danger with sun reflection bokeh, then… whoopsie. — If you think modern sensors are safe from clipping. This applies to any digital camera, from consumer to top professional models. Sensor bit depth is not even remotely enough to expose a scene with extreme highlights (e.g. sun or its reflections) without taking special measures regarding exposure at capture time. If you don’t tame highlights with a polarizing filter, you must dramatically underexpose the scene or they will clip.
ruraljuror 2y ago
This reminds me of the soap-opera effect[0] on modern tvs. I have difficulty watching a movie on someone’s tv with it enabled, but they don’t even seem to notice. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_opera_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_opera_effect
- johnnyanmac 2y ago
  A truly bizarre effect. One of the first times in my life I was ever thinking "wait, this looks TOO smooth. it's weird". As if my eyes just instinctively knew there were fake frames (before I understood the concept of "frames").

samsartor 2y ago

That could be the VAE? The "latent" part of latent diffusion models is surprisingly lossy. And however much the image is getting inpainted, the entire thing gets encoded and decoded. Edit: I'll note some new models (SD3 and Flux) have a wider latent dim and seem to suffer from this problem less. AI generated images are also biased strongly towards medium lightness. The photographer's adjusting of the tone curve may simply give it that "look".

Auracle 2y ago
You absolutely do not need to encode and decode the whole image, even in ComfyUI. All you need to do is composite the changed areas back in the original photo. There are nodes for that and I’m sure that’s what Adobe does as well, if they even encode in the first place. These tools don’t really work quite like inpainting. There’s no denoise value - it’s all or nothing. I’ve used Photoshop’s generative fill many times on singular images and there’s no loss on the ungenerated parts.

serviceberry 2y ago

I don't think there's any AI-fication going on in that photo. The modified version has a more compressed tone curve to bring out more detail, along with jacked up saturation (especially evident for water). This is similar to what most cell phones do by default to make photos look more pleasing. I do agree that the original looks better, but the author of the post clearly prefers the modified version.

strogonoff 2y ago
Clipped highlights in digital photography are simply impossible to eliminate in post-processing without conjuring nonexistent information. Even if you shoot raw. Different raw processors use different tricks, color propagation and such, but naturally they are best used when highlights are really small. I would not be surprised if tools like Lightroom invoke ML at the first hint of clipping (because why not, if you all you have is a hammer…). Pro tip: Digital sensors are much less forgiving than negative film when it comes to exposing highlights. With a bit of foresight they are best tackled at shooting time. Highlights from water/glass reflections are tamed by a fairly cheap polarizing filter, and if you shoot raw you should do the opposite of negative film and always underexpose a scene with bright highlights (especially if highlights are large or are in your subject of interest). Let it be dark, you will have more noise, but noise is manageable without having to invent what doesn’t exist in the parts that are the most noticeable to human eye.
- serviceberry 2y ago
  > Clipped highlights in digital photography are simply impossible to eliminate in post-processing without conjuring nonexistent information. Even if you shoot raw. Huh? This used to be true twenty years ago, but modern sensors in prosumer cameras capture a lot more dynamic range than can be displayed on the screen or conveyed in a standard JPEG. If you shoot raw, you absolutely have the information needed to rescue nominally clipped highlights. You get 2-4 stops of latitude without any real effort. The problem here is different. If the rest of the scene is exposed correctly, you have to choose one or another. Overexposed highlights or underexposed subject. The workaround is to use tone mapping or local contrast tricks, but these easily give your photos a weird "HDR" look.
  - strogonoff 2y ago
    You may be confused on at least two counts: — If you think there is “clipping” and the somehow different “nominal clipping”. Clipping is binary. Either you camera’s pixel clipped (i.e., accumulated enough photons to get fully saturated, and therefore offers no useful information for debayering), or it did not. If it clipped, then you lost colour data in that part of the image. If you lost colour data, and you want a colour photo, then in almost all cases one way or another you will have to rescue it by conjuring information up for the photo to look authentic and aesthetically good. (A lot of raw development software does it for you by default.) If the clipped bit is small, it is easy to do subtly. If it is big, which is a real danger with sun reflection bokeh, then… whoopsie. — If you think modern sensors are safe from clipping. This applies to any digital camera, from consumer to top professional models. Sensor bit depth is not even remotely enough to expose a scene with extreme highlights (e.g. sun or its reflections) without taking special measures regarding exposure at capture time. If you don’t tame highlights with a polarizing filter, you must dramatically underexpose the scene or they will clip.

ruraljuror 2y ago

This reminds me of the soap-opera effect[0] on modern tvs. I have difficulty watching a movie on someone’s tv with it enabled, but they don’t even seem to notice. 0: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_opera_effect https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Soap_opera_effect

johnnyanmac 2y ago
A truly bizarre effect. One of the first times in my life I was ever thinking "wait, this looks TOO smooth. it's weird". As if my eyes just instinctively knew there were fake frames (before I understood the concept of "frames").