AI Edits to Photos -- Opinions?
I think I am like most people in that I take the time to edit an image prior to uploading to my Memories. Cropping, straightening, tweaking the contrast/color, etc. If the image has a bad tear or significant specks/hair/scratches, I have been dealing with that as well using photo editing software. For me it takes a fair bit of time to do it well. The edited photo is no longer 'original', but is faithful to the subject matter.
So now we have AI tools that can do what takes me 30-40 min to accomplish and it does an even 'better job'. The AI modified images are almost too good it seems which is making me hesitate. I'm interested in what you think about the subject.
Should I be a purist and upload exactly what I've scanned without edits or go full-tilt with an AI 'product' and don't worry about it. Here's an example. The AI image is very similar, but in many ways, just not quite right to my eye anyway…. At least they all have the right number of fingers!!
Answers
-
Just started with this site been using other sites but this is the easiest quickest wuickesand best
0 -
In the AI photo, the woman on the very left has eyes that are disturbing.
AI takes it a bit too far in the wrong direction.
0 -
@Mark McKenzie_1 I would be asking myself whether a human who knew the individuals would have recognised them from the AI'd photo. There's just no way of telling, it seems to me. I'm not therefore convinced that using AI-enhanced photos is a good idea.
1 -
I think that we need to be clear in our own minds what the difference is between traditional photo enhancement and AI based photo enhancement. And we need to understand that AI created images and AI manipulated images are something else again.
AI enhancement is, so far as I understand, totally automatic. Given that, I'm having a hard job distinguishing that from single button enhancement options in conventional software like Photoshop. Matching an image's histogram to an ideal profile in Photoshop doesn't seem very different from the similar process in an AI facility, excepting that you'll get the full gamut in the AI, whereas you could omit adjusting focus (say) in Photoshop.
Indeed, given that manual enhancement can include things like cropping that removes some people from the frame entirely, which will not happen with the AI process, you might argue that the AI version could be closer to the original!
The one thing that AI cannot do is recreate missing information if it's been degraded too much. But I fear that it will try... The original poster's pair of photos illustrate this - the original is authentically fuzzy, perhaps taken on a pocket camera, whereas the AI version looks like something taken on a large format, plate glass camera.
I think that if it was me (and it isn't) I would post both photos and clearly label the AI enhanced version. I see no reason to reject that version so long as people are informed.
3 -
@Adrian Bruce1's proposal works for me.
1 -
Having worked in a photo-producing shop during the 1960's, and judging from the clothing worn, I'd say this photo (a black/white when there were no color photos) was originally taken in the early 1900's and we shouldn't worry too much about the sober, even frowny faces or the eyes of the girl on the left 😎
1 -
The woman on the left I believe has her closed. The AI version looks like it kind of added pupils at the top of her eyes, especially her right eye. The main thing that I've concluded with AI, it adjusts the mouths. It doesn't really keep the mouth's the same, they're slightly different. Really the same thing with the eyes. But I fix those in PS myself. Overall, I love what AI can do with old photos, both cleaning up and enhancing (if needed.)
2 -
Hey Adrian,
I must disagree with this "AI cannot recreate missing information if it's been degraded too much." I just recently found out it can create what wasn't there, or extend it. Because if the pic was enclosed in that cloud like look (as in the original pic), AI filled it in. I was very surprised what the final result showed.
-1 -
@Dave3403 said
"... I must disagree with this "AI cannot recreate missing information if it's been degraded too much." I just recently found out it can create what wasn't there, or extend it. ..."
Well, it depends on what you think of as recreating missing stuff. My thoughts are that what the AI has done in your example pair of photos, is to fill in the missing area with something that is a best guess. Without a TARDIS, we have exactly zero means of proving that the missing information looks like what the AI suggests. The lady could have been sitting on a chair, with her hands in her lap, for instance. "Recreation" would have been an exact replica of the missing information but that's gone - indeed, it was probably never on the photo as the oval part of the image was, I think, created at printing (vignetting?).
So I'm distinguishing an exact replication of a long lost part from a best guess at that missing part. If it's missing for whatever reason, it's impossible to create the missing part exactly - it's only ever a best guess - and there are times when that best guess can, in my head, be a useful insight, providing always that it's labelled correctly.
2 -
I Think with the correct tools using AI Is a great idea I have Restored Thousands of Photos where you couldn't pick the difference. The Background can often be the hardest to control.
1 -
@Bev-Williams why would you use an AI-tweaked version of a photo at all rather than (if really necessary) a manually enhanced one, given that AI almost by definition knows less about the photo and its context than you do and therefore is far more likely than you are to produce misleading output?
To me Memories are not about 'perfect' images, they are about giving family members contextual information, and the fundamental issue here is that what AI introduces (with, effectively, zero accountability) may make some of that contextual information questionable.
1 -
I don’t think the choice has to be AI versus manual for me, AI is simply one tool within a much larger, hands on restoration process, not a replacement for judgement or context.
I run my own restoration business, [name removed] and AI is actually a very small part of the overall workflow. Every image is assessed individually, and any AI-assisted step is reviewed, corrected, or discarded if it introduces something misleading particularly in faces or historically important details.
I completely agree that memories aren’t about “perfect” images. They’re about preserving context for family members. That’s exactly why I don’t rely on one click solutions. AI can help with cleanup or damage reduction, but it doesn’t get to define the final image. The responsibility and accountability always remain with me.
Used blindly, AI can absolutely distort context. Used carefully, transparently, and with restraint, it can support restoration without erasing character. As with any tool, the risk isn’t the technology itself it’s how thoughtfully it’s applied.
And when everything does come together when a restoration looks like it could have been taken yesterday the real measure isn’t technical perfection, it’s the look on a family’s face when they collect it. That’s ultimately what the work is for.
4 -
@Bev-Williams - thanks very much for that. I think that, as I attempted to say earlier, we need to distinguish between AI assisted restoration of existing images and AI driven creation of new images. If many of us see "AI" it's likely that we think solely of the sort of AI creation that gives us American Founding Fathers who are 50% black. Ditto Vikings. What you describe is a much more sensible / accurate / selective / legitimate process that is, I suspect, going to give more credible results than my one button press, purely algorithmic enhancements of images in things like Photoshop.
0 -
@Bev-Williams that makes sense. You are an expert professional in this field. Can you suggest any relevant 'dos and don'ts' or other helpful resources that we can point FS Memories users at, please?
1 -
From a restoration point of view, I don’t see this as AI versus manual work. AI is just one tool, and like any tool it needs clear limits, good judgement, and a healthy dose of common sense. A few practical do’s and don’ts that might help this is only my opinion, not a direction:
Do:
- Use AI mainly for cleanup dust, scratches, fading, and minor damage.
- Keep checking against the original scan, and stop if the image starts to look “too modern.”
- Be especially cautious with faces, eyes, and mouths that’s where identity lives and where AI most often goes wrong.
- Keep the original image alongside the restored one wherever possible.
- Clearly note in the description if AI has been used.
- Trust your gut if something doesn’t feel right, pause and, if needed, do a second fix.
Don’t:
- Don’t let AI invent missing areas or details unless it’s clearly stated as a best guess.
- Don’t rely on one-click results without reviewing them carefully.
- Don’t aim for perfection at the cost of period character softness, lighting, and even awkward expressions are part of the history.
- Don’t alter historically important details like uniforms, medals, jewellery, or buildings.
For Memories, I always come back to one question: would this image potentially mislead a future family member about how this person actually looked or lived? If the answer could be yes, then it needs either more restraint, slowing down, adjustment, or explanation.
Even older photo restoration guides from well before AI are still useful, because the principles haven’t changed: respect the original, work reversibly, and document what you’ve done.
Used thoughtfully, AI is an amazing help for restoring old photos sometimes it can make them look like they were taken yesterday but it can’t replace judgement or context. Above all, don’t post anything you wouldn’t consider perfect, and always keep checking against the original. If it isn’t right, fix it again. Memories deserve nothing less.
2 -
@Bev-Williams I think your first two in your 'Do List' are kind of where I was coming from with my original post.
- Use AI mainly for cleanup dust, scratches, fading, and minor damage.
- Keep checking against the original scan, and stop if the image starts to look “too modern.”
To me anyway, the cleanup process is kind of like cleaning your computer monitor. It doesn't make any fundamental change to what you see, but it sure makes the experience a better one.
It's the 'too modern' characteristic of AI assist that really struck me. Clearly good judgement is needed to know where to stop and baby-steps in the process are probably key to help from gong too far. Now colorization is a wholly different thing, but even that was done well before the age of computers.
Thanks for your insight. Very helpful
0 -
0 -
Genealogy is part history, part documentary research, and part science, none of which are consistent with slathering original images in technicolor AI vomit. Authenticity is more important than aesthetics, so just add the cleanest unaltered copy available. If somebody really wants to see their ancestors in digital clown makeup, they can download a copy and do it themselves. I've already seen enough Memory pages where different people uploaded their own horrifying AI renditions of the same image.
1 -
RTorchia, Authenticity is important, and the original scan should always be kept. That said, clarity matters too many old photos I’ve worked on wouldn’t survive another 50 -150 years without some restoration.
AI is just a tool; if used carelessly it can exaggerate features, but you can get the same “clown makeup” effect from everyday editing apps.
Good on anyone giving it a go it’s not easy. Just remember, these are their own family photos to do as they please with, not yours or FamilySearch’s.
I value seeing these images clearly while preserving their history. If it was me in another 100 odd years id appreciate looking at clown makeup than nothing at all.
1
