/p/ - Photography » Thread #3733820

[21 / 9 / ?]

Artificial Intelligence on Photography

Anonymous Mon 28 Sep 2020 03:06:16 No.3733820 View View Reply Original Report

Quoted By: >>3733821 >>3733827 >>3733877 >>3733900 >>3733903 >>3737158

I have seen a popularity boom on the aficionado AI tools every time more easily accessible
i use GIMP and Topaz Gigapixel or online AI's to take my compact point and shoot camera's pictures and make them decently high quality.
what are your thoughts on the topic?
could you tell the difference between a big boi camera and an AI enhanced picture?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1434597652559.jpg, 36KiB, 177x174

Anonymous Mon 28 Sep 2020 03:19:05 No.3733821 Report

Quoted By:

>>3733820
>I have seen a popularity boom on the aficionado AI tools every time more easily accessible

what

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Sep 2020 04:03:55 No.3733825 Report

Quoted By:

Can we see some before and after shots?

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO A5FE35D9-F227-4BA9-BA04-10B320E0 (...).jpg, 13KiB, 272x185

Anonymous Mon 28 Sep 2020 04:05:01 No.3733827 Report

Quoted By: >>3733845

>>3733820
>I have seen a popularity boom on the aficionado AI tools every time more easily accessible

what

ericg

ericg Mon 28 Sep 2020 04:38:59 No.3733845 Report

Quoted By: >>3733849

>>3733827
He is trying to say that AI applications famous use difficult previously, now can make no many matter when.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO B2A24D0B-8EE4-45DD-AC7D-873BA86C (...).gif, 252KiB, 220x165

Anonymous Mon 28 Sep 2020 04:48:31 No.3733849 Report

Quoted By:

>>3733845
Roger that.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Sep 2020 05:43:46 No.3733877 Report

Quoted By:

>>3733820
"AI photography" shit is literal garbage and should never be used. Just look at what smartphone photos look like. All trash. It's fucking shit and will forever be shit.
Photos are photos. CGI is CGI.

Just nail exposure on any $500 DSLR and process a RAW without meme edits (literally just get white balance and a standard base curve) and you'll have an image ready for billboards.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO calibrating.gif.gif, 11KiB, 245x233

Anonymous Mon 28 Sep 2020 06:34:55 No.3733900 Report

Quoted By: >>3733903

>>3733820
>Topaz Gigapixel
I get as far as loading an image and it just stays like this forever.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO ENHANCE.jpg, 2MiB, 2000x4000

Anonymous Mon 28 Sep 2020 06:45:08 No.3733903 Report

Quoted By: >>3733938 >>3734028 >>3739438

>>3733820
>>3733900
Seeing as I can't get Topaz to work, I tried a couple of online ones.

Pic 1 is the original 2000x1000 image.
The rest are scaled down to 500x250 and then scaled back up in some way.
Pic 2 is scaled up using the default (cubic) algorithm in GIMP
Pic 3 is imglarger.com
Pic 4 is bigjpg.com

Pretty impressive stuff. Nothing is as good as the original as you would expect (I would like to test Topaz, though) but both the ““AI”” resizers are better than the plain GIMP resize.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Sep 2020 08:00:28 No.3733938 Report

Quoted By:

>>3733903
Pic 4 looks worse than Pic 2 with all the colourful artifacts.
Pic 3 seems to have applied a really good edge detection process and is very good considering the low source resolution. But I fail to see what this has to do with AI. Probably there's not even a neural net involved in the process.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO 1601275508080-a.jpg, 5MiB, 3980x1991

Anonymous Mon 28 Sep 2020 11:38:13 No.3734028 Report

Quoted By: >>3734050 >>3734052 >>3739438

>>3733903
>top 2x upscaled with topaz

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 28 Sep 2020 12:20:32 No.3734050 Report

Quoted By: >>3734052

>>3734028
Interesting. This is a crop of yours, vs basic cubic resizing of the 2000px top pic, vs the actual original full res image. You can see in yours some of the edges are more defined, like around the ear tags and the fine detail in the face has been reconstructed quite well.

TBF though, my pic isn't exactly sharp. Taken with an old slightly fugusy tele lens, and I probably missed focus slightly as well. Wonder how well Topaz would cope with a sharper image, where the details are fine enough that scaling down completely removes them.

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO topaz vs cubic vs 100%.jpg, 2MiB, 4896x1632

Anonymous Mon 28 Sep 2020 12:21:41 No.3734052 Report

Quoted By: >>3739438

>>3734028
>>3734050
Fug, forgot pic

Anonymous

View Same Google ImgOps iqdb SauceNAO baa-2-gigapixel-scale-6_00x ps.jpg, 5MiB, 3876x3846

Anonymous Sun 04 Oct 2020 10:18:33 No.3737137 Report

Quoted By:

I use topaz too, got the whole suite actually from HaxNode

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Oct 2020 11:18:54 No.3737158 Report

Quoted By: >>3737181 >>3737182

>>3733820
speaking of AI softwares: how is Luminar 4?

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Oct 2020 12:31:07 No.3737181 Report

Quoted By: >>3737326

>>3737158
Stay away from that one. I use topaz gigapixel from time to time if I've cropped egregiously, but fuckin luminar is for shit photographers who can't make a good photo without fucking destroying everthing in it. You can do a better job than the portrait tools after a few seconds in photoshop, and the sky replacement is just replacing part of a bland photo with a part of someone else's.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Oct 2020 12:33:07 No.3737182 Report

Quoted By: >>3737326

>>3737158
>speaking of AI softwares: how is Luminar 4?
I like it. Quick and easy. Excellent results.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Oct 2020 17:38:54 No.3737326 Report

Quoted By: >>3737334 >>3737548

>>3737181
>>3737182
who should I believe? Yeah sky replacement is super lame. I'd like to use Photoshop and Lightroom but no way I'm gonna spend more than 100$ for them. I can't believe how many people use these softwares. Every time I've tried to find them ""for free"" there was always some kind of virus in it. I currently use Gimp/Darktable btw.
Luminar might be shit and I'll probably never buy it but at least you pay once and that's it.

Anonymous

Anonymous Sun 04 Oct 2020 17:51:22 No.3737334 Report

Quoted By:

>>3737326
It's no worse than Lightroom or Capture one as raw editor, provided you stay away from stock sky replacement, and few other flashier plugins. It's actually better than free Capture One imho.

Anonymous

Anonymous Mon 05 Oct 2020 01:27:48 No.3737548 Report

Quoted By:

>>3737326
>who should I believe?
Me obviously!
Seriously though, the AI is excellent at differentiating skin tones, sky etc so masking is incredibly rarely needed.
Also if you adjust the sky tones, reflections will also be adjusted accordingly.
I’ve never replaced the sky except on day 1 to see what it looked like, and it was actually pretty darn good.
It’s genuinely very good software, and easier to use than anything else I’ve seen. Regular updates, and pay only once.

Anonymous

Anonymous Thu 08 Oct 2020 07:08:28 No.3739438 Report

Quoted By:

>>3733903
>>3734028
>>3734052
Upscaling is a meme.
If you just scale up 200% with nearest-neighbor/none you get better results than cubic.

The AI compared to None is ironically worse. It compares to cubic because cubic shits on the finer details to begin with. For any detail "added" by the AI it removes a ton with blurring and other nonsense. Fake details don't compare.

Capcode	All Only User Posts Only Verified Posts Only Moderator Posts Only Manager Posts Only Admin Posts Only Developer Posts Only Founder Posts
Show Posts	All Only With Images Only Without Images Only Spoiler Images Only Non-Spoiler Images
Deleted Posts	All Only Deleted Posts Only Non-Deleted Posts
Ghost Posts	All Only Ghost Posts Only Non-Ghost Posts
Post Type	All Only Sticky Threads Only Opening Posts Only Reply Posts
Results	All Grouped By Threads
Order	Latest Posts First Oldest Posts First

On these archives

Your latest searches

Artificial Intelligence on Photography