JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Here is an example of Generative Fill. Perhaps not perfect. But actually, quite a good try at filling in what was missing.

By the way, I increased the width in 3 steps. One reason is the number pixels that Generative Fill uses per step is low, and by making smaller slices, it ended up with more pixels. Second, is if I give Generative Fill too much open space, it gets creative and adds more than I want to add.

Also used the "Remove Tool" to remove the lady on the other side of the bars.

The days of believing a photograph are officially over!

Two hippos at feeding time, but I can't quite see their faces

(Download)

Generative Fill removed the wall, and could see their faces

(Download)

Horseart Loc: Alabama

I know a person who is "borrowing" famous works of art by long time famous artists and adding her ideas to them using AI and calling it her own. I'm sorry but to me, that is theft of someone else's work. To use your own photos or paintings and add to or enhance is one thing, but to me, deceit will always be a NONO!!!! .

JimH123 Loc: Morgan Hill, CA

Totally agree!

joecichjr Loc: Chicago S. Suburbs, Illinois, USA

Amazing ⭐⭐⭐⭐⭐

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Exactly right Jo. As I and many others have said over and over, the use of AI is an issue of ethics and must be debated and resolved at some point.

When I use Stock Photos, ether purchased or free, from the internet I am not required to give credit to the photographer. Often times I don't even know who provided the shot, however my ethical model requires me to state which pictures are mine and which came from another source. Once I have purchased or downloaded the shot I have never had any issue in modifying the shot to fit my needs, only to tell folks I didn't take it.

I can't speak for others but my ethical model requires me to state something like "AI generated image."

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

Ever since photography was invented there have been photographers whose goal was a faithful representation of what they saw and those who wanted to manipulate their photos into their own vision. It's not a new thing with digital, but has always been a part of photography. Sky replacement has been done since photographers were using glass plates. The emulsions were orthochromatic and blue skies came out stark white, so photographers shot skies at a different exposure and printed them in in the darkroom. It bugs me when people claim techniques which have been used all through the history of photography are all of a sudden not a part of photography.

yssirk123 Loc: New Jersey

AI is a totally different and transformative technology, and will affect manufacturers of all types of photography equipment whether it's in cellphones, DSLR's or mirrorless cameras.

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Would you please expand on that idea. I can't see where AI will have any effect on cameras.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

I don't doubt that AI technology will be used in cameras, just as it is being used in photography software and practically everything else.

Cherihorn Loc: Toledo

I was glad when the whole argument about whether it was ethical to add vibrancy to an image, if it was ok to go mirrorless … etc etc etc. finally went away because despite the various opinions, Adobe and everyone else doesn’t care and technology marches on. So being upset gets you no where. I developed black and white film and printed in a darkroom. Creative and fun.Removing an annoying stick at the touch of a button-also fun. Constant argument over whether one is more art than than other -less fun and won’t change a thing.

Linda From Maine Loc: Yakima, Washington

The popularity of these types of topics indicates that UHH regulars have quite a bit of fun endlessly arguing

However, I agree with your point 100% and often long for the days when main forum discussions talked about photography, including composition and use of light.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

Curmudgeon Loc: SE Arizona

Trigger Warning: Sarcasm, irony and personal opinion are included in this post.

I agree with your sentiment Linda but to quote Bob Dylan, "The times they are a changin'".

There are still some "real photographers" who post on UHH but they have learned that they are regarded as dinosaurs by many UHH members. On the whole, these photographers continue to produce quality shots with with minimal post processing. They tend to take few shots in the course of a daily outing and sometimes wait for days to get exactly the right lighting for their shots. These people will continue to be around, but I fear in fewer and fewer numbers.

Some action and wildlife picture takers rely on technology to produce good images and there is nothing intrinsically wrong with that approach. These people tend to take many more shots on each outing. The camera is the most important factor while in the field. They tend to favor/depend on high frames per second, fast high quality autofocus and other benefits that come with high priced, high end cameras.

The post processing group care only about focus, anything else can be fixed in post processing using a variety of constantly improving software. Lighting not right? A little tweak in LR fixes it. Subject violates the Rule of Thirds? A little Generative Fill will fix it. Subject a little too small, run it through Gigapixel. Too noisy or not sharp enough Topaz Labs and others have the answer. Adjust colors, vibrance or saturation many programs are waiting to help. Distractions in the image? Again many PP programs ready to fix the problem.

Bottom line? Get the shot. If you are a real photographer your pride will ensure the image is the best that is obtainable.

If you are a picture taker the quality of the subject should be your only concern. Use all the appropriate bells and whistles your camera provides for your shooting style. If you have a frame rate of 120 fps, use it. Except for a few specialized situations, Manual mode is for suckers. If you spent $4,500 for a camera use what you paid for. Always remember: Get the Shot you can always fix it later.

AzPicLady Loc: Behind the camera!

You have spoken well. I'll admit to being a dinosaur and I take pride in getting an image that needs little work. I hate the "I'll fix it in post." But I admit that I do it sometimes.

JohnSwanda Loc: San Francisco

If it is done as satire or parody, artists have been doing that for a long time. See this work by Salvador Dali:

https://www.dalipaintings.com/self-portrait-mona-lisa.jsp