I think some readers were a bit hasty to give the human version of the images I showed yesterday a quick win. I'm not sure everyone understands that it's not a "me" versus "binary setting on the machine" contest that I was trying to communicate. What I was trying to do is to point out that the new preset is a very, very good starting point for anyone trying to retouch a portrait. And here's why:
The settings you get when you choose Polished Portrait (or any other of the new, A.I. driven presets) is not a binary setting, etched into stone that you must either accept or decline. Far from it. Rather, the preset does a lot of heavy lifting to quickly mask all the parameters you might wish to further enhance in a portrait in one smooth step. I've included a screen shot of part of a sub-menu in Lightroom from a similar test this morning. Yesterday's sample gave me back 17 different layers which allowed for corrections in small parts of the overall image. Today's sample gave me 9 layers. You can see in the screen shot that Polished Portrait gives me nine discreet, masked layers along with the option to add additional layer masks manually. The number of layer choices will vary by image and also by any work you have already done on a file.
When one clicks on one of the masks, like "eyebrows", you get a full menu of controls like the one on the right side of the screen shot. The image of the subject shows you, via a color mask, which area you are working on. You now have many options just for eyebrows. You can increase or decrease the shadow slider which makes the eyebrows darker, and which appears to make them also look fuller. You could enhance clarity, change colors, even apply curves if you want to. The range of control and the amount of final changes to the file are limited only by your choices. But, importantly, each of the very accurately masked selections is there for you to enhance, de-enhance or ignore. The preset is there as a powerful assist, not an arbiter of style or taste.
If I had dived more deeply into the file created yesterday I might have pulled some of the shadow out of the eyebrows since that seemed to be the area that vexed most readers. I personally liked the way the preset presented the eyebrows to me and if the image was made for myself I would have gladly left it that way --- but the point is that you have absolute control over each of the masked selections. That doesn't make my manually arrived at version "the winner." It just means I didn't make the same choices as the preset and it didn't make the same choices I did.
There were a few things that sidetracked some readers. One being the skin color. It was suggested that the preset made the skin tone too yellow. But checking the selected mask for skin tone showed me that no changes had been make in the preset to the skin color. That was a global adjustment I made after the fact. That one is on me.
But I think people have the tendency to want to prove automatic analysis and automatic setting suggestions like this as "not ready for prime time" and in doing so they miss the absolute value of the automation for making precise masked selections for adding overall control to image editing.
If we divorce this time saving addition to portrait retouching in LRC from the existential angst currently being generated by generative A.I. programs like DALL-e and Midjourney, and also ChatGBT we can see that at it's core this is a method merely to identify and mask selective parts of the image and then "suggest" changes/enhancements to each individual segment. Don't want to change the eyebrows at all? Then disable that selection. Want more control over the whiteness of the subject's teeth? Well, click on that selection and get to work.
But to couch the process as some sort of contest between a human photographer and the machine is the wrong way to look at this. It would be similar to all those early Photoshop users, myself included, who used the program before you had "command Z". There was not such thing as an "undo" command. You saved and saved and saved your work as you went. And I'm sure there were some hot shot early adapters who thought everyone who wanted an "undo" command was some sort of tyro pussy who couldn't understand the value of neolithic computing. No layers either. No... I could go on. I usually do...
Each step forward in programming like this is a time saver and wholly welcome by the folks who already spend a lot of time retouching. And it's all under your control.
It's okay, I guess, to hate technology, and by extension, any change. But let's not assume that because you got a sample from me that you didn't like that all the fault lies with the program or that the things you didn't prefer aren't readily changeable and controllable. Now more than ever before.
The presets are supplied to you for free. It's considered an upgrade by most. But you don't need to click on them if you prefer to do all the selections, masking and layering for yourself. It's always your choice. The thing we should be on guard against are programs that don't give you any choice. Now that would be bad.
Let's resist the temptation to toss the screaming baby out with the bathwater. Let's just learn to take advantage of some extra control delivered with less work. No contest here.
I drink coffee sometimes while I'm driving. I don't want a clutch and a manual shifter. I love the convenience of automatic transmission. YMMV.
10 comments:
Catching up on a previous post, I tried Denoise on a photo I've edited several times over the years - a picture through a shop window at night, very noisy - and the result flabbergasted me (great obsolete word). For instance, there were small bottles of shampoo; I could read the brand name after the AI was applied. Of course, who knows if it was the real brand name, but very impressive nonetheless.
Hi Kirk. Firstly, one thing I love about you is the time you take to read and respond to your commentors. I hope you find that satisfying and not a waste of your time. This set of articles on how to use the new preset is very important to us (at least to me) since it comes from one of the greatest portrait artists that I have come across. So, in my case, I wanted to really pay attention to it.
Admittedly, as I believe that at least part of this post was directed at my comments, I may be a source of some frustration, but please know that I have really appreciated the first posts and this excellent follow-up.
I think you have hit the nail on the head when you say, "Each step forward in programming like this is a time saver". I guess my question is did this actually save you time? When I saw 17 layers I thought it may take quite a while to figure out which layer you want to tweak - "I wonder if Kirk's usual editing workflow would take as long as changing the preset?"
Hi Jon, I actually enjoy the friend back and forth with my readers. You are fun and happy. That makes for good conversations.
I think the preset was faster than me because anything I wanted to change probably stood out quickly to me and the layers are well labelled so it's intuitive to know which ones to dive into and do further work on. In many cases you could probably ignore all but two or three of the selections and be happy. Having the flexibility to jump right in and work on, say, the eyes, is so nice.
Thanks for posting!!!
And, NO. You didn't frustrate me. If anything you let me know that I didn't explain what I was talking about as well as I could have.
I read somewhere that the new AI adjustments make dedicated monochrome cameras less useful in terms of resolution. Apparently one of the bigger problems with the color sensors is color noise in the shadows, which B&W sensors don't have. But if the AI removes the color noise, that problem might no longer be so severe. In the link you put up to the Paul Reid video, Reid suggests there's not much benefit to a B&W sensor (over a color sensor) at the lowest ISOs, like 100 or 200. The benefit seems to come at higher ISOs, where color noise is a problem. If the AI can take out color noise without removing the luminance values...where are we?
John, I think we're right where I thought we should be. Shooting images with current and widely available cameras and using the tools from Adobe, C1 and others to do the extra polishing. Seems to me that buying single strength niche cameras and putting up artificial constraints to shooting is a bit like running cross country races in cowboy boots. Not very practical, not very comfortable and with generally less than stellar results.
Would that people actually got out and shot a lot of frames to discover the realities of how to work before spending a lot of seat time in conjecture. But YMMV.
Head over to Tucson and check out the Linda McCartney show. Then, let me know how you like it.
Since I know you have been wondering what you want to do with this blog, I would like to point out something that I have begun to realize about how I regard it, and which may resonate with some of your other followers. While I always enjoy your musings on swimming, food, coffee, and malfunctioning appliances, I have been mostly interested on your take on equipment. In fact, I have often blamed you for emptying my bank account.
What I have started to realize (which, of course, I knew all along) is that the equipment is not going to get me better results. I think I have tried them all, and the reality is that some of my best work has come from basic equipment. The truth is that I hate post-processing and anything that will make that tedious task easier and quicker is what I need to learn. So, posts like this one are tremendously valuable to me – and, I suspect, to others. Thanks again.
Thanks! My pleasure as well.
Thanks for the update - I was kinda wondering about the eyebrows. :-)
Since I wrote yesterday I've had a chance to spend a few hours with the new toys and have to admit I'm seriously impressed. It's going to take a while to master adaptive portrait, but I think it will be time well spent. And the AI noise reduction is sweet.
Fun times.
Thanks Gato, I agree that it's all so much fun.....till someone gets their eye poked out. (had to add that. I must be channeling my mom).
The A.I. noise reduction is another good reason to shoot color raw files instead of monochrome. The noise reduction works best when it has chromatic noise to throw away. And it makes the files look great.
Post a Comment