I Let ChatGPT Edit My Photos in Lightroom !! Watch

[Sanjay Mehta]

Not exactly the same thing at all, but I was trying to mix a few paints (yellow, red and white iirc) to get a particular shade.

Quite painful.

Made a few mix combinations, kept track of the proportions, painted adjacent patches on the test surface and then quite literally entertained myself watching paint dry.

Wasn't working. Too many variables, and not enough experience to juggle three colors to get the desired result.


Then the brainwave.

Uploaded a shade card, mentioned the three colors available, and asked for an appropriate mix.
Got a weird mix proportion that I probably wouldn't ever have guessed.

Result was spot on.


AI is a force multiplier.
But you absolutely need to know what you're doing for it to give you the results you want.



In a similar photographic context, a friend used AI to help create and fine tune a picture style that could emulate a Leica like rendering on a Sony camera.

Let me share the exact opposite of AI. This 17th century dutch book, where the author showed how to create water colour paints. High res digital scans of each page. Hundreds of pages of colour swatches.

https://www.openculture.com/2026/10/a-900-page-pre-pantone-guide-to-color-from-1692.html

Aside and re-introduction. I was fairly active on this forum some 7-10 years ago, seem to have lost my old account, recreated this account as I now again have some time for photography. Still using a 6D and a mirrorless OMD (bought on this forum).

[Thad E Ginathom]

Programs like Adobe Lightroom  don't touch your pixels when you adjust a slider. They just record instructions—like Exposure +1.0—as metadata.

I understand that.I use darktable, which does the same. None the less, it's still all pixels, in that that is what digital photographs are.

[Krish Chandran]

I think there is some terminology confusion. All processing is pixel-based, whether it is simply changing  exposure, or making substantial colour changes to all or part of the picture. And those most basic alterations are the building blocks of the art.

That is technically true for raster images (JPEGs, PNGs, or RAWs), but it oversimplifies how today's software works.

Even though the final output is pixel-based, modern editing logic is entirely different. Programs like Adobe Lightroom  don't touch your pixels when you adjust a slider. They just record instructions—like Exposure +1.0—as metadata. The software recalculates and previews those changes on your screen in real-time, but nothing is permanent until you hit export. Until then, your original pixels remain completely untouched.
Thus the term "non destructive editing"

[Thad E Ginathom]

Okay That is a position can understand. More power to you. I am guessing that your edits are small enough in number for something like what was shown in the video to be unnecessary. I know you have your mind made up but I am going to say this anyway.

I am not a wildlife or sports photographer who comes home with bursts totalling thousands of pics from every outing/event. I understand that there are applications which can help with the culling from that kind of load. A wedding photographer can, for instance, see which pics have everybody's eyes open. If I worked in those fields, I'd be open to using such apps. I bring home 50-100 pics from every concert, and that can be anything from three a month to three a day! It takes me far, far longer to cull and process than it did to watch the concert. If I chose to think differently, I could use the convenience of automation. But, when there are literally not enough hours in the day, I'd rather just use the camera jpegs.

This video demonstrates a way for Ai to take up the drudgery and repetitive slider based tasks like  exposure, colour, masking and de-noising.

That's the majority of the creative work!  It seems to me that one either does one's own, or it's manufacturing. Even if the manufacturing is to specification, eg match style of example pics.

AI denoising is going to happen, if one has it in the software. And it very well might be generative: if the detail is lost, it is lost: feathers might have disappeared in noise, ai generates them. Same with facial details, which end up looking like different people.

Some ai denoising is available in darktable. I am not against it. Just: my work mostly fits within limits where non-ai denoising is sufficient.

As previously said, I do use object-detection ai masking where it will be quicker.

Sky replacement, object deletion, etc, is, of course, completely generative. At least at this time, the developers of darktable have chosen not take this kind of ai into the software. Also, that there will only be  local models: there is no cloud processing, no phoning home. No possibility that ai will be keeping copies.

I'm very happy with this limit. Future changes are future changes.

No where in the video does he advocate pixel based manipulations like sky replacement or people removal which got  moralists up in arms in its initial stages. It is a significant shift in its usage. AI being used for actual work not fancy gimmicks. That is a first for me and I thought, worthy of appreciation

I think there is some terminology confusion. All processing is pixel-based, whether it is simply changing  exposure, or making substantial colour changes to all or part of the picture. And those most basic alterations are the building blocks of the art. No, I don't want to outsource that to mass production.

Apologies for repetition, but I did do some more thinking about the issue since my last post. For which, thank you!

[SwanOfUtrecht]

This is how you disagree ? And you see nothing wrong with it ? Seriously?

Not exactly actually.
Normally I just ignore a post like this.
In this case I didnt. My Bad !

[Krish Chandran]

As at the time of writing this, Generative AI as per Google "AI overview" is supposed to create new and original content—such as text, images, audio, video, and computer code—in response to user prompts - precisely the thing you and the youtuber are talking of. Now, how much of what it actually does is what it's supposed to do - users like me are grossly underqualified to answer. Which is what one of my questions was. If it did alter the image - how would you find out ? For someone whose "good old hands and eyes and brain" might get tired, would he compare every image at pixel level with the original to check if a few pixels have been swapped with what looks like a similar set of pixels but actually arent ?

What is being labelled as revolutionary "AI" is hardly anything new. Its been around for ages, even in Photography. Decades ago the Canon 7D used 'generative AI' in their AF system so that it learnt from user habits/preferences. The only thing that has changed is the processing power. So when Big Tech with a hammer decides to turn everything into a nail just by giving us a fancy name and creating FOMO, clickbaity videos such as this one spring up dime a dozen - some sponsored, some just riding the wave.

So the complaints might continue till such time as the definition is changed by Google to read something like..."Generative AI creates new, original or modified content — such as text, images, audio, video, and computer code—in response to user needs and demands or other necessities for their well being and protection as may be required from time to time...."

Once again you are missing the point - Generative AI reference here was in the context of what is being done in Lightroom and Photoshop. I cannot understand why you think this mindless rant is about big corporations and other enemies is relevant in this discussion

Simple. You wouldnt listen to anything else. Guy tries to explain with rationale why he thinks it doesnt work for him and you dismiss it as "sort of lament is exactly what I was hoping to avoid. It seems one has only to say the word "AI" and all the Thread Hijack ghosts come out of the closet". Wouldnt you dismiss a comment like "I wouldnt touch AI with a 50m barge pole" as a rant from someone who doesnt know any better than than to think AI will lead to "the downfall of mankind" ? So, this is not responding to clickbait. This is trying to tell you just why I mightn't touch AI with a 50m barge pole to quote your requirement "purely from a utility standpoint and a potential learning tool for the software we already use. How much we can use it in everyday functioning - who would need it most and so on.."

Still more mindless ranting. No clue why this disturbs you so much. 

It may be "confrontational" for you, for me it isnt. For me disagreements are the most fundamental tenets for "constructive" conversation. In fact any conversation at all !

This is how you disagree ? And you see nothing wrong with it ? Seriously? 

[SwanOfUtrecht]

Not sure what you mean by this or what you expect. Generative Ai alters the image - which is one of the big complaints against it. 

As at the time of writing this, Generative AI as per Google "AI overview" is supposed to create new and original content—such as text, images, audio, video, and computer code—in response to user prompts - precisely the thing you and the youtuber are talking of. Now, how much of what it actually does is what it's supposed to do - users like me are grossly underqualified to answer. Which is what one of my questions was. If it did alter the image - how would you find out ? For someone whose "good old hands and eyes and brain" might get tired, would he compare every image at pixel level with the original to check if a few pixels have been swapped with what looks like a similar set of pixels but actually arent ?

What is being labelled as revolutionary "AI" is hardly anything new. Its been around for ages, even in Photography. Decades ago the Canon 7D used 'generative AI' in their AF system so that it learnt from user habits/preferences. The only thing that has changed is the processing power. So when Big Tech with a hammer decides to turn everything into a nail just by giving us a fancy name and creating FOMO, clickbaity videos such as this one spring up dime a dozen - some sponsored, some just riding the wave.

So the complaints might continue till such time as the definition is changed by Google to read something like..."Generative AI creates new, original or modified content — such as text, images, audio, video, and computer code—in response to user needs and demands or other necessities for their well being and protection as may be required from time to time...."

Then why bother with all that you wrote above?  We have all seen clickbait . . Do we respond to clickbait ?

Simple. You wouldnt listen to anything else. Guy tries to explain with rationale why he thinks it doesnt work for him and you dismiss it as "sort of lament is exactly what I was hoping to avoid. It seems one has only to say the word "AI" and all the Thread Hijack ghosts come out of the closet". Wouldnt you dismiss a comment like "I wouldnt touch AI with a 50m barge pole" as a rant from someone who doesnt know any better than than to think AI will lead to "the downfall of mankind" ? So, this is not responding to clickbait. This is trying to tell you just why I mightn't touch AI with a 50m barge pole to quote your requirement "purely from a utility standpoint and a potential learning tool for the software we already use. How much we can use it in everyday functioning - who would need it most and so on.."

Once again - we are still clueless ! Please tell us what you'd like us to write. Or better still use AI on your previous threads to help condition us.

#I do not know of any one who said that AI is the Panacea of anything - except you - just now
#There is no "urgency" to modernize PP skills. It is moving ahead all on its own. Grumbling/ranting  will not slow it down

Well, thats precisely the point. Neither do I know of anyone who has said AI will lead to "the downfall of mankind" - except you. And PP skills - of course it is moving ahead all on its own. Throwing a fancy name to old technology and creating FOMO or making "AI shunners" feel archaic will NOT speed it up.

Instead of constructive conversation this has become a confrontational.

It may be "confrontational" for you, for me it isnt. For me disagreements are the most fundamental tenets for "constructive" conversation. In fact any conversation at all !

[Krish Chandran]

I started looking at the video and found it revolting.

Again, no thanks.

Now, position (aka biases) stated: I don't use Windows, I don't use Adobe software and I will not even allow this stuff on my machine. Thanks, it's worth knowing what it's upto these days, but no thanks.

I do listen, and I listen, for instance, to programmers who find AI useful. A lot of new stuff in the raw processor I do use has been written using AI's help with the coding. I use AI object selection in mask creation. Where it has a valid use for me I might well use it.

If I want processed pictures with less drudgery, I can use a lot of saved styles; I can copy one image's edits to another, and, bottom line, I can let my camera do it: it produces, I think, beautiful jpegs. It's just that I like to add my own touch. And AI processing, like camera jpegs, is not that.

Could we please keep the discussion strictly focused on the technology itself, its mechanics, and how we might use it to optimize our actual processing workflows?

I have strictly focussed on how I will not use it. Many of us will have that answer. Sure, never mind whether or not it is planning to wipe out humanity: for reasons varying from security concerns (AI companies are mass thieves. Nothing philosophical about that, it is the business model), through aesthetics to ways I am and am not comfortable working.

Okay That is a position can understand. More power to you. I am guessing that your edits are small enough in number for something like what was shown in the video to be unnecessary. I know you have your mind made up but I am going to say this anyway.
This video demonstrates a way for Ai to take up the drudgery and repetitive slider based tasks like  exposure, colour, masking and de-noising. No where in the video does he advocate pixel based manipulations like sky replacement or people removal which got  moralists up in arms in its initial stages. It is a significant shift in its usage. AI being used for actual work not fancy gimmicks. That is a first for me and I thought, worthy of appreciation 

[Thad E Ginathom]

I started looking at the video and found it revolting.

Again, no thanks.

Now, position (aka biases) stated: I don't use Windows, I don't use Adobe software and I will not even allow this stuff on my machine. Thanks, it's worth knowing what it's upto these days, but no thanks.

I do listen, and I listen, for instance, to programmers who find AI useful. A lot of new stuff in the raw processor I do use has been written using AI's help with the coding. I use AI object selection in mask creation. Where it has a valid use for me I might well use it.

If I want processed pictures with less drudgery, I can use a lot of saved styles; I can copy one image's edits to another, and, bottom line, I can let my camera do it: it produces, I think, beautiful jpegs. It's just that I like to add my own touch. And AI processing, like camera jpegs, is not that.

Could we please keep the discussion strictly focused on the technology itself, its mechanics, and how we might use it to optimize our actual processing workflows?

I have strictly focussed on how I will not use it. Many of us will have that answer. Sure, never mind whether or not it is planning to wipe out humanity: for reasons varying from security concerns (AI companies are mass thieves. Nothing philosophical about that, it is the business model), through aesthetics to ways I am and am not comfortable working.

[g2]

Actually Bharat's post is a very instructive case - he wanted a clear result out of many variables and AI helped him find one. That was and still is worthy of a "wow !"

You said something about "skimming thru", I can see that is true. This is not a general discussion on AI and image editing - it is a discussion on the specific use of AI in Lightroom and maybe photoshop. The steps involved and maybe the issues if any.

So your post is specifically regarding the use of AI in Lightroom and Photoshop.

You received two replies, both would be considered off-topic.

One was pro-AI, which you considered "wow", and the other was negative which was "exactly what I was trying to avoid"

Kinda reinstates what I said, doesn't it?

Seeing what your expectations are; I don't think I have anything further to add.