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.
then what's the POINT? (Score:5, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
In the 21st century we create our own reality [nytimes.com].
Re: (Score:2)
In the 21st century we create our own reality [nytimes.com].
That has been true for far longer than that.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: then what's the POINT? (Score:3, Funny)
Re: (Score:2)
#nofilter
Re: (Score:2)
Shoot on film - one and only one original image.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:then what's the POINT? (Score:4, Insightful)
This is AI. You use it in case you want to have 12 fingers on each hand you use this.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re:then what's the POINT? (Score:4, Informative)
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.
Re: (Score:3)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
The American social hierarchy accurately depicted in a photograph
Robert Frank, New Orleans (Trolly)
https://www.singulart.com/blog/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/Robert-Frank-Trolley-New-Orleans-1958-Image-via-fadedandblurredcom.jpg/ [singulart.com]
Re: (Score:2)
Hilariously, people (generally those seeking something to be aggrieved about) still feel that accurately represents America today.
Sure, 70 years ago.
Re: (Score:2)
still, an accurate depiction at the time the photograph was made - which was the reality of the time - no one said it was a contemporary photograph.
Re: (Score:2)
Ok, what about black and white photos? Those aren't exactly portraying reality either. How about grainy color photos from the 70's? How about instant developed Poloroid photos of the 80's that are all washed out? I mean, really, has there ever been a photograph that truly represented reality? You are flattening a 3D world into a 2D format, there is always going to be information loss.
There is a huge difference between a less than perfect capturing of reality and a complete fabrication.
A map is not a perfect representation of earth but if you start adding roads and cities that aren't there, it's not reality anymore.
We've been editing out exes in photos for probably as long as there have been photos.
This is a slight distortion of reality in that we want to pretend that that person wasn't present at the event we still want to remember
and better that the alternative which is what happened a
Re: (Score:1)
Just because you lack creativity don't hold the rest of us back.
Re:then what's the POINT? (Score:4, Insightful)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:1)
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
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.
We a different name for these things. (Score:5, Insightful)
Regardless the name Photo should no longer apply, the data is now useless for historical, legal, or accuracy purposes.
Re: (Score:2)
CGI.
Re: (Score:2)
We do already (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
A photograph is the result of capturing photons. These are not even "snaps".
Re: (Score:1)
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
Re: (Score:2)
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
False memory (Score:2)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:3)
Pretty much. I will confess to photoshopping out pimples in some cases. They're temporary after all!
So is hair, and life actually.
Re: (Score:1)
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.
Re: (Score:2)
Re: (Score:2)
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
What I want... (Score:1)
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)
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.
"Google, make my ___ really big!" (Score:1)
nufsed
How about making this generally available? (Score:1)
There's probably more out there (Score:1)