I Let ChatGPT Edit My Photos in Lightroom !!
Stumbled across this fascinating video on YouTube It demonstrates a massive shift in how AI interacts with post processing photography, rather than just doing standard pixel manipulation:
Why this is entirely different from typical AI photo editing that most us have been exposed to so far
• No pixels are being artificially generated or swapped out dynamically
• The AI actively operates your actual Lightroom software, mechanically adjusting the sliders and creating precise masks
• It preserves the full quality of your original RAW files exactly like a manual workflow would
• Every single setting remains completely adjustable, allowing you to fine-tune the final image 90% of the way through. You can still add to the edits to finalize the end result.
A quick request for the discussion:
I would love to get your perspective on the technical execution of this workflow and how it could potentially fit into our day-to-day processing.
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?
My request to those who wish to respond. We All know the standard arguments regarding the "AI takeover" and the perceived loss of traditional post-processing skills, the downfall of mankind and so on. . let's leave the philosophical laments aside for this instance. That is not what this is about, so please do not hijack the thread.
Let's look at this 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. .
Watch the video Here (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=-yfI-ZLqQsQ&t=899s)
avoiding unwanted rant except to say Utility for me? no-just-no
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.
Quote from: Bharat Varma on October 10, 2026, 11:56:57 PMNot exactly the same thing at all, but I was trying to mix a few paints (yellow, brown 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.
Wow ! That is very interesting !
Quote from: Bharat Varma on October 10, 2026, 11:56:57 PMAI is a force multiplier.
But you absolutely need to know what you're doing for it to give you the results you want.
Not necessarily.
I skimmed through the video briefly, and the fellow asked AI to analyze his work and then edit photos in his style.
What's stopping someone telling AI to analyze Ansel Adams work and edit their photos in Ansel's style? They can very well do this without any knowledge about the zone system or in depth processing.
All you need to know is how to give AI a prompt.
Quote from: Bharat Varma on October 10, 2026, 11:56:57 PMIn 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.
Can he claim this picture style to be his creation, or call it his signature style considering AI helped create it.
There is a whole grey area around this.
Its a great tool for someone doing bulk processing (say a wedding photographer) but terrible for say a fine art photographer who spent years developing a signature style, which can simply be replicated now with a prompt.
Studio Ghibli trend comes to mind as an example.
Quote from: g2 on October 11, 2026, 12:31:54 PMQuote from: Bharat Varma on October 10, 2026, 11:56:57 PMAI is a force multiplier.
But you absolutely need to know what you're doing for it to give you the results you want.
Not necessarily.
I skimmed through the video briefly, and the fellow asked AI to analyze his work and then edit photos in his style.
What's stopping someone telling AI to analyze Ansel Adams work and edit their photos in Ansel's style? They can very well do this without any knowledge about the zone system or in depth processing.
All you need to know is how to give AI a prompt.
Quote from: Bharat Varma on October 10, 2026, 11:56:57 PMIn 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.
Can he claim this picture style to be his creation, or call it his signature style considering AI helped create it.
There is a whole grey area around this.
Its a great tool for someone doing bulk processing (say a wedding photographer) but terrible for say a fine art photographer who spent years developing a signature style, which can simply be replicated now with a prompt.
Studio Ghibli trend comes to mind as an example.
This 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. Let's stick to any technical inputs that you may have (if any) about how the man in the video made his bulk edits easier
Quote from: Krish Chandran on October 11, 2026, 05:14:14 PMQuote from: g2 on October 11, 2026, 12:31:54 PMThis 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. Let's stick to any technical inputs that you may have (if any) about how the man in the video made his bulk edits easier
You seem to be looking for sort of confirmation bias towards how good AI is, if that is the case you should have just asked for it rather and seemingly asking for a discussion about AI and image editing.
Regarding sticking to technical inputs, Bharat's post does not do this yet you seem to find it "Wow" and "Interesting" but my post which actually did talk about AI and image editing is "thread hijacking"
Quote from: g2 on October 11, 2026, 05:33:50 PMQuote from: Krish Chandran on October 11, 2026, 05:14:14 PMQuote from: g2 on October 11, 2026, 12:31:54 PMThis 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. Let's stick to any technical inputs that you may have (if any) about how the man in the video made his bulk edits easier
You seem to be looking for sort of confirmation bias towards how good AI is, if that is the case you should have just asked for it rather and seemingly asking for a discussion about AI and image editing.
Regarding sticking to technical inputs, Bharat's post does not do this yet you seem to find it "Wow" and "Interesting" but my post which actually did talk about AI and image editing is "thread hijacking"
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.
My purpose of putting up this post was to share what I thought was an absolutely brilliant use of AI in everyday mundane post processing steps. To that end you could say that I am biased towards such usage of AI in Lightroom. No shame there. Do you know of a better usage or of any obvious disadvantage in getting 90% of the repetitive steps done this way while using Lightroom or Photoshop? If yes, please share.
In all fairness, We All also know the standard arguments regarding the "AI is panacea to all our problems" and the perceived urgency to modernize our traditional post-processing skills, how AI can help fly you to the moon and back and so on... let's leave the prophetic predictions aside for this instance. If you could just plainly tell us what you want us to write, I'm sure some of us will simply go ahead and do it ! At the moment the "approved band" for responses is so narrow, most of us barely feel confident of making it.
Oh...lest this comment be dismissed as NOT being a discussion on the specific use of AI in Lightroom and maybe photoshop, let me add this :-
(1) the output shown in the youtube video is kinda least I'd expect from "generative AI" as it stands today. In fact rather underwhelming I'd say.
(2) About the bullet points -
• No pixels are being artificially generated or swapped out dynamically - Why would it do that if its preserving the RAW file ? And if it did that how would you find out ?
• The AI actively operates your actual Lightroom software, mechanically adjusting the sliders and creating precise masks - so did our good old hands ! The sample chosen is a standard underexposed image that gives a lot of editing latitude. What if it were the same image, correctly exposed, but with an added artefact (say a cat or a mouse) that needed to be highlighted and treated locally unlike the edited files the AI has based its GIGO learning upon ?
• It preserves the full quality of your original RAW files exactly like a manual workflow would - so whats different/new ?
• Every single setting remains completely adjustable, allowing you to fine-tune the final image 90% of the way through. You can still add to the edits to finalize the end result. - Didnt batch processing take us 75-80% there, albeit with the added benefit of user deciding which template to apply to each batch ? What is the level of incremental gain here compared to the cost (allowing computer control) ?
To me the video is more of a 'clickbait' experiment which demonstrates what most of AI supporters (learned or otherwise) and shunners (also learned or otherwise) already know.
Quote from: SwanOfUtrecht on October 11, 2026, 08:04:18 PMOh...lest this comment be dismissed as NOT being a discussion on the specific use of AI in Lightroom and maybe photoshop, let me add this :-
(1) the output shown in the youtube video is kinda least I'd expect from "generative AI" as it stands today. In fact rather underwhelming I'd say.
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. What I do know is that by adjusting sliders in Lightroom no generative AI is being deployed. AI is moving those sliders instead of a human. The integrity of the RAW file remains untouched.
Quote from: SwanOfUtrecht on October 11, 2026, 08:04:18 PM(2) About the bullet points -
• No pixels are being artificially generated or swapped out dynamically - Why would it do that if its preserving the RAW file ? And if it did that how would you find out ?
RAW editing is done in Lightroom. After edits the file is still an ARW/CR3/NEF file. Still RAW. Pixel level edits are done in Photoshop where the files become PSD on import. This person has done another video where he has tried the same thing in Photoshop where Pixel levels edits are made on PSD files. This video only covers edits on RAW files in Lightroom.
Quote from: SwanOfUtrecht on October 11, 2026, 08:04:18 PM[/color][/b]
• The AI actively operates your actual Lightroom software, mechanically adjusting the sliders and creating precise masks - so did our good old hands ! The sample chosen is a standard underexposed image that gives a lot of editing latitude. What if it were the same image, correctly exposed, but with an added artefact (say a cat or a mouse) that needed to be highlighted and treated locally unlike the edited files the AI has based its GIGO learning upon ?
Your good old hands were and can do it. When your images are many - in the 50s and 100s your good old hands and eyes and brain gets tired. So you take breaks and the whole process takes time. This process cuts time by applying changes quickly and accurately. Reminds me of the argument : "we have legs, we can get where we want - what's the use of cycles or cars?
The edits are all local - shown in the video. Whether it is a cat or a mouse or a bird or a mountain or waterbody once you show AI how you want it edited it will do so.
The trick is in making the correct prompt. Everything hinges on that. Since you seem to be so knowledgeable
I was rather hoping you could shed some light on that
Quote from: SwanOfUtrecht on October 11, 2026, 08:04:18 PM• It preserves the full quality of your original RAW files exactly like a manual workflow would - so whats different/new ?
It is not the difference but the sameness that is of value. At the end of an edit your RAW files are exactly as if you edited them in your style, unlike current day batch edits which are quite hit or miss.
Quote from: SwanOfUtrecht on October 11, 2026, 08:04:18 PM• Every single setting remains completely adjustable, allowing you to fine-tune the final image 90% of the way through. You can still add to the edits to finalize the end result. - Didnt batch processing take us 75-80% there, albeit with the added benefit of user deciding which template to apply to each batch ? What is the level of incremental gain here compared to the cost (allowing computer control) ?
Have you ever tried batch edits with masks? Invariably after image no 3 or 4 masks shift away from where it was applied in the first image. So the answer to that was to batch edit all non masking edits and then go back and apply masks one at a time. Laborious and time taking. In this video he shows how each mask is individually applied to each image. Time and effort saved.
Quote from: SwanOfUtrecht on October 11, 2026, 08:04:18 PMTo me the video is more of a 'clickbait' experiment which demonstrates what most of AI supporters (learned or otherwise) and shunners (also learned or otherwise) already know.
Then why bother with all that you wrote above? We have all seen clickbait . . Do we respond to clickbait ?
You also said that you were "underwhelmed" by this video yet you made a half page of questions in addressing them in a manner as if I have the responsibility to defend what is shown in the video - that must have taken some effort. For what?
Quote from: SwanOfUtrecht on October 11, 2026, 08:04:18 PMIn all fairness, We All also know the standard arguments regarding the "AI is panacea to all our problems" and the perceived urgency to modernize our traditional post-processing skills, how AI can help fly you to the moon and back and so on... let's leave the prophetic predictions aside for this instance. If you could just plainly tell us what you want us to write, I'm sure some of us will simply go ahead and do it ! At the moment the "approved band" for responses is so narrow, most of us barely feel confident of making it.
#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
#What I wanted is to talk about what this means for people like me and others who spend a fair bit of time in post processing in Lightroom and if and how we could implement it in part or whole or if any one else knew of such a thing. Instead of constructive conversation this has become a confrontational exercise in Ai bashing or Ai messenger bashing. I should not be surprised, I guess
Quote from: Krish Chandran on October 11, 2026, 05:49:09 PMActually 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.
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.
QuoteCould 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.
Quote from: Thad E Ginathom on October 12, 2026, 02:01:51 AMI 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.
QuoteCould 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
Quote from: Krish Chandran on October 11, 2026, 10:46:36 PMNot 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...."
Quote from: Krish Chandran on October 11, 2026, 10:46:36 PMThen 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.
Quote from: Krish Chandran on October 11, 2026, 10:46:36 PM#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.
Quote from: Krish Chandran on October 11, 2026, 10:46:36 PMInstead 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 !
Quote from: SwanOfUtrecht on October 12, 2026, 09:43:24 AMAs 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
Quote from: SwanOfUtrecht on October 12, 2026, 09:43:24 AMSimple. 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.
Quote from: SwanOfUtrecht on October 12, 2026, 09:43:24 AMIt 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?
Quote from: Krish Chandran on October 12, 2026, 10:18:05 AMThis 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 !
Quote from: Krish Chandran on October 12, 2026, 07:01:01 AMOkay 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.
QuoteThis 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.
QuoteNo 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!
Quote from: Thad E Ginathom on October 12, 2026, 08:16:59 PMI 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"
Quote from: Krish Chandran on October 13, 2026, 07:13:16 AMPrograms 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.
Quote from: Bharat Varma on October 10, 2026, 11:56:57 PMNot 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).