Slashdot is powered by your submissions, so send in your scoop

 



Forgot your password?
typodupeerror
×
Google AI Technology

Google's New Magic Editor Uses AI To Totally Transform Your Photos (theverge.com) 50

Google's latest Photos trick is a feature it's calling Magic Editor, which uses generative AI to let you make major edits to a photo without professional tools. From a report: Google shared a couple examples of Magic Editor in action that are both pretty cool. In one, a photo of a person in front of a waterfall, Google entirely moves the person further to the side of the photo, erases people in the background, and makes the sky a prettier blue. In another photo, Magic Editor scoots a child on a bench closer to the middle of the photo, which generates "new" parts of the bench and balloons to the left to fill in the space. In this example, Google again makes the sky more vibrant.
This discussion has been archived. No new comments can be posted.

Google's New Magic Editor Uses AI To Totally Transform Your Photos

Comments Filter:
  • by argStyopa ( 232550 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @12:37PM (#63511569) Journal

    Aren't photos mainly to permanentize something that happened?

    I take photos of my family at the zoo, at graduation, whatever to enshrine the event in a shareable memory that will assist my own.

    If that picture of us at the Grand Canyon now has me wearing a more stylish jacket, flying a hang glider, with a veliciraptor as one of our children, what the fuck is that? It's not the event, it's not what happened, it's....just nothing. It might be amusing.

    Is that what we're coming to? Creating "amusing" pictures is more important than reality? Because they're getting to the point where we can't tell the difference.

    • In the 21st century we create our own reality [nytimes.com].

    • Aren't photos mainly to permanentize something that happened?

      Well, they are unless they aren't.

      I do wish there were some way to maintain some distinction between what is a 'photograph' and what is not - be it derived from a photograph, or a drawing, or whatever.

      But without some sort of all-encompassing DRM scheme, I don't see how.

      • How about a blue tick mark?
      • Shoot on film - one and only one original image.

      • Aren't photos mainly to permanentize something that happened?

        I do wish there were some way to maintain some distinction between what is a 'photograph' and what is not - be it derived from a photograph, or a drawing, or whatever.

        But without some sort of all-encompassing DRM scheme, I don't see how.

        https://www.theverge.com/2023/5/10/23718616/google-image-search-verification-about-this-metadata-io>

        According to that link, some of the AI image generators such as MidJourney will be adding similar features (image tagging) in a few months. Of course there's nothing to stop bad actors wiping the EXIF data.

    • by Darinbob ( 1142669 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @01:18PM (#63511687)

      This is AI. You use it in case you want to have 12 fingers on each hand you use this.

    • To make it look better on social media.

      When pictures are meant to amuse what's wrong with making them more amusing? It's not journalism or journaling, it's entertainment.

    • by TheNameOfNick ( 7286618 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @01:24PM (#63511701)

      People want to preserve memories of impressions and feelings, not make a documentary of their lives. No picture out of a modern smartphone is unedited. You're so used to the color enhancements that you don't even notice them anymore. The real world is much more bland, but you don't want your photos to accurately reflect that because it's not how you see the world.

      • by jbengt ( 874751 )

        You're so used to the color enhancements that you don't even notice them anymore.

        The sort of "improvement" that TFA shills for is depressing. I keep hearing how great over-processed photos are, and how someone's phone takes better pictures than the camera we used to use at work. But all I see is distorted "straight" lines and false rendering, and the occasional lack of proper flash. But the phones do have more megapixels.

      • People want to preserve memories of impressions and feelings, not make a documentary of their lives. No picture out of a modern smartphone is unedited. You're so used to the color enhancements that you don't even notice them anymore. The real world is much more bland, but you don't want your photos to accurately reflect that because it's not how you see the world.

        That seems particularly true of Samsung phones; but, although I know that Computational Photography is omnipresent on Cellphones, in my experience, iPhones seem to strive for a "That's what my eyes saw" Result, rather than Picture Postcard-World.

      • So rose-colored glasses for everyone then? Or maybe green [litcharts.com]... "The green-tinted spectacles worn by every citizen of the Emerald City are symbolize the Wizard’s deceit and the power of perception. These mandatory spectacles enable a deception, as the Emerald City isn’t really as green as it appears—the city seems so green because the green spectacles color every person’s perception of the city. However, the Wizard doesn’t trick his subjects for any malicious purpose. He only wan
    • I tend to agree. It starts to become art rather than photography, while still looking like photography.

      Then again, I guess that is how images worked before the camera was invented. If you wanted a picture of yourself, an artist painted your likeness. Same thing with images of a scenic locale.

    • by Anonymous Coward

      Just because you lack creativity don't hold the rest of us back.

    • by Hodr ( 219920 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @02:11PM (#63511789) Homepage

      Believe it or not, these tools aren't mandatory. And sometimes people use photography for artistic purposes rather than strictly for documentary evidence that an event occurred.

    • When my wife and I went to a close family friend's wedding, we got a picture taken with her. I was visibly feeling a little under the weather, and we had paid a nice little chunk of change to have my wife's makeup professionally done... by someone who obviously had no idea how to properly complement her hair color and complexion. The bride did not need any retouching at all, but I managed to make my wife and I look as we *should* have - and we all agree the picture is better for it. Sometimes you want a his

    • by tlhIngan ( 30335 )

      Aren't photos mainly to permanentize something that happened?

      I take photos of my family at the zoo, at graduation, whatever to enshrine the event in a shareable memory that will assist my own.

      If that picture of us at the Grand Canyon now has me wearing a more stylish jacket, flying a hang glider, with a veliciraptor as one of our children, what the fuck is that? It's not the event, it's not what happened, it's....just nothing. It might be amusing.

      Is that what we're coming to? Creating "amusing" pictures is

    • You take pictures to show off to your friends.
    • But you know already that sometimes we really don't want something that happened to come inside the frame.
    • The point is to have tools to create alternate reality so that an argument can be made about what is real and what is not, creating fear, uncertainty and doubt and placing the most important thought into your head: there is no objective truth that you can know.

      Once you start believing *that*, you are done, you lose your power (whatever you had on your own or as part of a group) to change your circumstances and someone else will control your life and will use you and abuse you and you will not be able to res

    • Aren't photos mainly to permanentize something that happened?

      No. What gave you that idea? Historically photos only existed to replace paintings. The control has always been in the hands of the artist. I just replaced my previous camera, with 70k shutter clicks on it I don't think I ever took a photo of a family member or a sharable memory (I do that with my phone and Facebook).

      If that picture of us at the Grand Canyon now has me wearing a more stylish jacket, flying a hang glider, with a veliciraptor as one of our children, what the fuck is that? It's not the event, it's not what happened, it's....just nothing. It might be amusing.

      One of my favourite pictures is one my great grandfather took before WWII. It shows a scuba diver getting out of a puddle on the road. It was darkroom perfection. It definitely is not what happ

    • Aren't photos mainly to permanentize something that happened?

      I take photos of my family at the zoo, at graduation, whatever to enshrine the event in a shareable memory that will assist my own.

      If that picture of us at the Grand Canyon now has me wearing a more stylish jacket, flying a hang glider, with a veliciraptor as one of our children, what the fuck is that? It's not the event, it's not what happened, it's....just nothing. It might be amusing.

      Is that what we're coming to? Creating "amusing" pictures is more important than reality? Because they're getting to the point where we can't tell the difference.

      I could see treating a Copy of a few select vacation/party pics with this software "just for fun"; but, I agree that you take pictures of events primarily to memorialize (correct term) them; not to use them as SnapChat fodder.

    • by bjwest ( 14070 )

      Aren't photos mainly to permanentize something that happened?

      Photography is also an art from, and part of that art can be editing to highlight certain portions, remove unwanted elements, as well as other things the artist want's to perform in order to make the statement they desire.

  • by Fly Swatter ( 30498 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @12:48PM (#63511599) Homepage
    It is no longer a 'Photograph.' It is now a drawing? Art? Collage?

    Regardless the name Photo should no longer apply, the data is now useless for historical, legal, or accuracy purposes.
    • CGI.

      • by Pascoea ( 968200 )
        Don't suggest that to the flat-earthers or moon-landing-deniers. They'll try and tell us that all the photos from the moon are AI generated.
    • Images. Pictures. Language changes though and not always in a logical way, so they're called whatever the society collectively decides to call them, what catches on, etc
      • A photograph is the result of capturing photons. These are not even "snaps".

        • Then no photo truly exists other than film since literally no digital representation of capturing photons looks correct without manipulation due to the linear nature of photo capturing technology and the logarithmic nature in which we perceive light.

          If the first step involved capturing photons, then it is a photo, regardless of what manipulations occur afterwards. And we have manipulated photos for well over 200 years. There's a reason all the tools in Photoshop have strange names like dodge and burn, they

    • What's a photograph then? Images have been faked and manipulated throughout all of history. Most of the tools used in Photoshop "cut" "paste" "dodge" "burn", the concept of "layers", "masks", etc are named that way because that's what they were called for the past 200 years in the darkroom.

      the data is now useless for historical, legal, or accuracy purposes

      Photography has never been about historical, legal or accuracy purposes any more than those of artists on drugs drawing self portraits. The fact you can use photography to document something is entirely incidental to the

  • I just came here to say what the first two posts do.

    It's no different than people who get pictures taken of their kids but then make their eyes bluer, or their hair blonder. It defeats the purpose.
    • Pretty much. I will confess to photoshopping out pimples in some cases. They're temporary after all!
      • by Potor ( 658520 )

        Pretty much. I will confess to photoshopping out pimples in some cases. They're temporary after all!

        So is hair, and life actually.

    • It defeats the purpose

      What purpose? Photography is art, it's not about making a historical record. A few people just happened to use it for that.

      • When they take pictures of their kids and give it out to people it's not for art. It's to remember them how they are when they aren't there. Sure, some portraits are artistic and have the attire, the lighting and the setting just right for that moment. But most people don't go to a photographer that puts that much time and energy into into it.
        • Only if they don't modify it. You are not in any position to say what purpose another person had for taking a picture.

          But most people don't go to a photographer that puts that much time and energy into into it.

          Quite the opposite. Most people actually go precisely to such a photographer for their most cherished memories. I can only assume you're a loner living in a basement somewhere, because you quite clearly have never had either a wedding, or kids, two life events that have spawned an incredibly massive industry based around using photographic medium for perfect artistic expression that *most* p

  • by Anonymous Coward

    no longer matters. And hasn't for a very long time.

    When I take my phone (iPhone13 Pro) - and take a picture, I expect the default to be - "What I See" (or a normalized reasonable approximation thereof).

    If it's a sunset, and the sky ranges from deep blue, through fuchsia, purples, oranges, etc.. that's what I want my picture to show. Not convert everything to robins's egg blue!

    I'm not a professional photographer. I'm not trying to do award winning National Geographic covers! Just want to take decent pict

    • Re:What I want... (Score:4, Interesting)

      by eneville ( 745111 ) on Wednesday May 10, 2023 @04:09PM (#63512153) Homepage

      Agreed. Not a professional either, just some who walks around with a DSLR, a dying breed.

      I seriously hope Nikon/Canon/Sony/Pentax/... don't add computation to camera bodies. That'd suck. I can see it though, since other things were added to the shooting modes, but /altering/ the photo with a camera's idea of what it has chosen is far beyond changing ISO shutter speed and aperture. The exposure triangle happens in your eye, twisting/morphing the image is a different level.

  • So far as I can tell, you can only use this with pictures taken on particular Google phones. Now I have one of these phones by chance, but I would like to have this capability for any picture I might have, even one not on my phone.
  • 2023 filters are getting better to the point they are almost natural, magic editors, deepfakes in Turkey elections, and much more.

Riches: A gift from Heaven signifying, "This is my beloved son, in whom I am well pleased." -- John D. Rockefeller, (slander by Ambrose Bierce)

Working...