A lot of people are pointing out great this, but I tend to peep a little hard at my pixels. Good enough for government work isn't good enough for me ;) I retired from that mentality ;) lol
Great to hear from you in this "major update" that everyone else is over the moon about. Horses for courses! Indeed, it will be useful for snapshot edits and as a driver for Adobe doing what must be absolutely necessary in the long run - match the noise level! Your not being hard, you are pushing hard. Brilliant. Thank you!
@@f64Academy That's one of the reasons I follow you. Plus, of course, your superb guides on how to use the Adobe suite effectively and appropriately! (Big shout out about your work on separating colour!)
Blake: a f64 guy here. Per usual, thoughtful analysis. Interestingly, this bends back to the overarching automation in photography debate. What you gesture toward & what I see are just next generation tools that retain limitations like the ones that came before. No silver bullets...no magic wands... Thanks Blake!
I agree -- gen fill won't be a usable production tool until it seamlessly matches the background noise of the surrounding photograph. The remove tool may be better, but it still creates a noise pattern that it easily noticeable, which limits it usefulness. Thanks for continuing to point this out! And I can't wait until Adobe figures out how to resolve these artifacts.
Remember the client isn’t the photographer they don’t know what noise is. They don’t zoom in 100% - 300% pixel peeping like us. Zoom out look at the overall image you can tell what they will notice and what they won’t. These days with all the filters in facebook, insta and tik tok they are gonna destroy your original image anyway 😂😂😂😂. Good video tho man just subbed you!
Very true about the viewer, but we, we my friend are craftsman. Craftsman don't hide behind their imperfections with excuses or at least they shouldn't 😁 many people will use it and be okay with it and that's all good. I just can't talk about this feature with 100% good will without pointing out this serious design flaw. I appreciate your sub!
@@f64Academy Honestly you shouldn’t, being a reviewer you should tell every flaw. I’m a perfectionist myself and because of that I have problems pixel peeping so I understand. I’m trying to learn how to embrace noise this year instead of everything being perfectly clean. I also ask the client more. Work for me is one thing and work for them is another. I’ve taken things out that clients asked why did I do that. Now it’s hey this is gonna be in the pic do you want me to take it out or leave it? Gotta be careful with anything AI though. It’s nice but things can get ugly if you don’t look at it closely.
Thanks. As others have noted, this is an excellent comparison. I shoot in many low light/high ISO situations, so this test is extremely important for me.
Good job, Blake and I like your attitude about the whole thing. I do have the beta ver. of Photoshop because I like to experiment and I am not dependent on the results for a living. But note that the new Gen Remove thingy is "early access," which to me at least, means "still in development." Pretty much as is Firely itself, I guess...
One trick that could help with blending noise pattern, is to put heavy denoise on the photo first, but then add grain after it. I noticed that if you add noise on post on top of denoised image that has been denoised to the point of looking a bit plasticky, the noise helps to remove the plasticky look. So by adding bit of noise afterwards can allow you to be more heavy handed with the denoise tool, and that trick would help to blend this sort of areas that have no noise in image that has noise.
Great video! What about instead of initially using denoise for the entire photo (as previous suggestions), you added noise/texture mask(s) post generative fill to the removed (and less grainy) location?
What if I just do it in Photoshop where I'm going anyway and I know it works with the remove tool and I can use masks on my own later 😁 I appreciate it, but we're sitting here trying to make excuses for sometime that isn't ready for prime time use 😉
@@f64Academy understood. Guess I’m just a glass half-full type of guy. I try to veer from focusing on the negative and instead try to focus on solutions that still provide value even if something is “not yet ready for prime time use.”
Yes, it's still not that great you have to reduce the noise to an unacceptable level to get the two to match.. You are better off doing these tasks in PS at this point. When the 1024 limitation is increased it will be better, hopefully, for now you are better off doing that stuff in PS.
You can always add a bit of grain back in (use a mask if you want) to restore the smooth spot back to its noisy glory, and it would be more than acceptable for the vast majority of use cases.
Great video, but what would happen if you did noise reduction globally first, then, did the gen-fil object removal...or even use the removal tool? Would you be better off to pre-remove noise?
I've been hoping so, but here we are a year with Gen fill in PS and still the same 1024 limitation that causes it. I hope they fix this before developing it more
I thought the same, but it still doesn't match up. You have to denoise to the point of nearly a plastic finish, good bye detail! So it really is simple though, do it in PS 😁
I'm not crazy about AI unless it uses information already in the image. I understand and have discovered this myself if you remove the noise in the image first the remove tool works a bit better. That's for the remove tool.
I did get some better results using AI nose removal first and then the remove tools. But still not the best. I much prefer PS remove tool at this time. Lots more flexibility with the removal on its own layer too.
Hello Blake, would you also, like me, advocate that Adobe implements into ACR/LR that masks in ACR/LR can be transferred to Photoshop as layers? That IMO would make a seamless workflow really easier!
I dont think so. Masking is so much easier, more fluid, and easier to modify in PS. MUCH better masking tools and easier to control when you know how to use PS well. I think PS masking is far superior to ACR and Lightroom. I did however, make a tutorial that will show you how you can get those masks in PS if you so desire. Its a workaround, a little hack, but it works. ru-vid.com/video/%D0%B2%D0%B8%D0%B4%D0%B5%D0%BE-CV_ozGVzP-A.html
I did experiment with that, you would have to put the luminance slider up REALLY high to get the noise patterns to match which yields plastic looking images that while the noise is reduced so are the details that make certain characteristics of the image unique. Noise reduction is a push and pull of how far you can take it without degrading the detail.
@@pattymattes7124 I tried that as well and the results were better, much better, actually, but I had to reduce the noise quite a bit, above 60 and then some minor details got lost and the straight lines of the architecture started doing weird things because of the AI reduction. Again, more push and pull unfortunately. I felt the loss of detail and weird lines were not worth the effort when the remove tool in PS can do the job better.
Firstly, I denoise high ISO images, then add sharpening and texture judiciously before using the removal tool or Generative AI. Saving as a JPG compresses the file, which can suppress additional noise. It's important to remember that any noise impacts the quality of the image. It's quite subjective-everyone has their preferences! As an aside, I consistently use the Beta version of Photoshop to access the latest stable features before their official release. In the past six months, out of hundreds of images, I've experienced maybe three crashes, all of which were recovered. Additionally, I don't have Lightroom installed on my workstation, but I do use it on my laptop for live camera shoots.
I too denoise high ISO images, but even with mild noise reduction to retain detail, the Generative AI can't quite match the noise patterns, its too plasticky (if that's even a word) perfect. I'm going to take all my serious work into PS anyway, so I'd prefer to use a serious tool, like Photoshop's Remove Tool to do that heavy lifting. I find it far more accurate at rendering noise patterns and retaining detail than gen fill as of today. We are similar in that I do not use Lightroom, strictly ACR and PS for me.
It's an awesome place. This one is Anthony Chapel. There are two others that are similar, Thorn Crown and the Mildred B Cooper Memorial. I am visiting both of those next week, I can't wait!
@@f64Academy I did engagement photoshoots at Anthony Chapel a few months ago. Beautiful place to shoot! Have fun! the Garden charges money to use for photography.
You'd think so, and I've answered this about 7 times already, but you have to reduce the noise to a level that is equal to the patch. That level of NR destroys detail and leaves the image looking plastic. That's comparative to saying, well, we had to patch the wall, so we could either paint the patch to look like the wall or make the wall look like the patch. haha
@@pblancaster it still doesn't look the same, the level of nose you have to reduce it to is too high to make the match. Experiment with it, that's the only way you'll know.
Couldn’t you run Denise first then the AI Generative fill? That is a lot of pixel peeping, but like you said it may only be noticeable on very large prints.
The level of noise you'd have to reduce to get it to match the patch is unacceptable, there's entirely too much detail lost at the level of NR you'd need to do.
I find the noise patterns created by the remove tool to be far worse than the smooth, no-pattern gen fill results. My work requires restoring big areas of skin, removing tattoos for example and it is way easier to add noise to gen-fill than to remove the very artificial patterns created by the remove tool.
But you are 100% correct that gen-fill is not ready for production. It only works really well on low-res SFW images. For boudoir or any type of photography that features humans showing more than 10% skin it just doesn't work. I find there is not enough outrage that a tool I'm paying for censors my work.
The noise never matches though, that's my main issue. In small areas, to me the remove tool is far superior, on large areas, I feel the remove tool product is a better start and when I do add noise to it (because I do it on it's own layer) I feel like the added noise plus the remove tool texture looks rather good. But I mainly work on landscapes where it's generally more forgiving.
I've tried several high ISO images and it has matched the noise pattern almost perfectly every time. Odd that your example did not. I cannot find an image that this tool will not match the noise pattern on.
One more thing - this tool *burns* through generative credits. Every time you make a new brush stroke, even if you don't hit apply, it counts. I'd say it's pretty scummy and intentional since it's slower than PS's Remove Tool, worse than it, stuffed right under everyone's nose without any mention of how credit-costly it is. All of a sudden "oops, burned through your 250 credits? Guess what, it'll be -even slower- from now on". Well played, Adobe. It's also funny how people are more willing to Denoise super aggressively and use this in LR when the Remove tool in PS could be fired up and used by the time the denoise+generative remove are finished processing :D PS+LR really is the best plan to get, though LR is kind of just a module of PS so I defaulted to ACR and never touch LR.
while in early release its not burning through credits. Even though the credit count is going down it is for monitoring purposes on usage bur will not go against your cumalitive totals
😮 awesome! That must have been incredible! No this was the Anthony Chapel, a similar structure, slightly larger, but I'm going to photograph Thorn Crowne again next week 😁
You are being very silly in your comparisons Blake. You show this large image with with a small piano (actually most would not necessary decipher that it was a ;piano) and zoom way in on it to make your ridiculous point. How about just using a normal photo of that piano, at lets say 10 yards away from it. Now do your comparison. Win, lose or draw, at least you would be fair about it. This new tool was actually created for Lightroom and as a result it is also in ACR. Anyone using Photoshop or Photoshop Beta does not need to use this ACR tool.
To each their own. I stick to my opinion. I find it valid 😁 but I appreciate your perspective. I have high expectations for my images, not saying you don't, but this doesn't work for me, especially at the raw level when moose masking controls are limited.
Зрителям плевать на эти 5 квадратных сантиметров генеративной заливки. На то что мы - фотографы замазываем, только мы внимание и обращаем. Не зная где заплатки никто в здравом уме даже не будет выискивать эти миллиметры косяков. Издалека посмотрят и всё норма, так что у фотографа в голове на самом деле тараканов больше чем у зрителей
I translated this comment: Viewers don’t care about these 5 square centimeters of generative fill. Only we pay attention to what we photographers cover up. Without knowing where the patches are, no one in their right mind would even look for these millimeters of jambs. They will look from afar and everything is fine, so the photographer actually has more cockroaches in his head than the audience My response: Sure, you can think that, but a true craftsman knows every nook and cranny of their work. A craftsman would NOT consider this new tool acceptable. You can be what you will for your work. I gave you an alternative, one that is very suiting and MUCH better than Gen Fill in ACR/LR at this time.
