Adobe AI Generative Fill before and after

[jcass]

Below are before and after versions of a photo where I used Photoshop's Generative Fill to remove a couple of annoying branches. My feelings are mixed. On the plus side, it was very fast and better than I could have done myself. I'm not good at Photoshop's clone tool. On the down side, if you pixel peep, it the modified areas don't match the noise and grain of the original, making the edit much more noticeable. Overall, it is hard to tell that an edit was made.

What are other folks' opinions on the AI Generative Fill and am I missing a useful technique?


This version was only edited in Lightroom.

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/400 sec
• ISO 25600

This version used the AI Generative Fill to remove a couple of sticks.

• Canon EOS R5
• RF100-500mm F4.5-7.1 L IS USM + EXTENDER RF1.4x
• 700.0 mm
• ƒ/10
• 1/400 sec
• ISO 25600

 

[Ephestia]

Wouldn't it be possible to remove the trunk behind the ears?

 

[pcassel]

How did you instruct the program to remove and replace those specific sticks? Was is a difficult / tedious selection process?

 

[tpatana]

Yesterday I was amazed with the PS AI fill.

This pic:

I just selected the white with magic wand and said fix.

Result:

Still needed bit fix here and there but in general that was amazing good result for 5 second of my work.

I did couple other images too, it's pretty amazing powerful.

 

[jcass]

How did you instruct the program to remove and replace those specific sticks? Was is a difficult / tedious selection process?

It was only a couple of minutes... very easy, very fast. I used lasso tool to draw an outline around the sticks, clicked Generate Fill, and did not write any text in the content box. This way it perform an AI based content aware fill. In a couple of seconds, Photoshop has three options for fill to select from. I did the stick over the deer's rump and the stick behind the deer as separate operations on their own layers. I did no further touch-up.

What I didn't like about it is that is removes grain and noise from the modified area. It is like masking a thin area and doing 100% Denoise and it's noticeable if you zoom in.

 

[PKM-UK]

Hi Jim,

I haven't spent much time playing with Generative Fill (the install of Photoshop Beta screwed up my customisations in the actual live Photoshop, so I rolled things back and licked my wounds).

Can I ask why you didn't use the new 'Remove Tool' in Photoshop - I'm finding it easy (and effective) at removing unwanted bits. (My tips for using this are treat a little bit at a time and deal with foliage linearly if possible).

Phil

Example using Remove Tool (I kept the NR off so you could assess any changes to the original grain/ noise). 1. Original, 2. Various bits of foliage removed, 3. Do we really need the deer?

• Canon EOS R5
• RF70-200mm F2.8 L IS USM
• 200.0 mm
• ƒ/2.8
• 1/160 sec
• ISO 1600

 

[jcass]

Can I ask why you didn't use the new 'Remove Tool' in Photoshop

Purely out of ignorance of the new tool's existence. I almost exclusively use Lightroom CC. I never got the hang of Photoshop's Clone and Stamp tools, so I rarely use it and it needs to be used regularly to keep muscle-memory on it processes and keyboard shortcuts.

I'll definitely give it a try and thanks for the tips.

 

[MikeZ]

On the down side, if you pixel peep, it the modified areas don't match the noise and grain of the original, making the edit much more noticeable. Overall, it is hard to tell that an edit was made.

I've not worked in PS but I have used LRCC and DxO, and have found the clone and removal tools in those two apps to work nicely though a little fiddly. I've also found that if you look hard enough (pixel peep usually, or sometimes just zoom to 100%) you can see artifacts from the "repair". Is the PS version better than LR (or DxO) in that regard?

 

[jcass]

No experience with DxO and limited exp with Photoshop. Given that caveat, I do think photo shop is better than LRCC and the new AI tools give it a bigger lead. Even so, I still find that LRCC is great and accomplishes 98% of what I want to do in post processing.

Phil will likely have much better insight.

 

[PKM-UK]

No experience with DxO and limited exp with Photoshop. Given that caveat, I do think photo shop is better than LRCC and the new AI tools give it a bigger lead. Even so, I still find that LRCC is great and accomplishes 98% of what I want to do in post processing.

Phil will likely have much better insight.

Hi Jim,

My ‘insight‘ with Photoshop is similar to a blind man groping round in a dark cellar using a torch with a flat battery.

I have the odd fleeting success - which can usually be put down to beginner’s luck using random button pressing.

However, that’s very kind of you and I’ll gratefully accept the plaudits…

Phil

(I really like DxO PhotoLab and Lightroom Classic, but for getting rid of annoying bits of stuff, Photoshop is king).