JohnWolf
Well-known
Photoshop just introduced this new AI technology called "neural filters." One of the filters converts black and white images to color.
Below is one from my Leica Monochrom. The hair and skin color are just right. I don't remember the color of his shirt, but the choice it made looks pretty good. Quite amazing, I think.
John
Below is one from my Leica Monochrom. The hair and skin color are just right. I don't remember the color of his shirt, but the choice it made looks pretty good. Quite amazing, I think.
John
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
The link is not working for me. Beyond that? Amazing, yes. And creepy. Another example of the many reasons I shoot film. Grouchy old Luddite, and proud to be.
JohnWolf
Well-known
Hoping the example photo is okay now.
Saganich
Established
Somehow this seems like the way it ought to be and helps justify (to those who require it) having a monochrome. Would be nice to see the limits and range of this filter.
Interesting for real.
JohnWolf
Well-known
I tried it on a few more complex pictures. In a street photo it apparently decided the street was grass and colored it accordingly. In a still life it made the green peppers red, maybe thinking they were apples. So definitely a long way to go.
Still impressive, I think. First the computer must determine what the subject is, then identify the various elements and color them appropriately.
Hmmm, sounds like there are creative ways to exploit this.
Saganich
Established
I was thinking the same thing...algorithmic misinterpretation could be interesting...would be nice if you could identify objects manually.
JohnWolf
Well-known
One is the original from the GR II. The other was the file converted to grayscale in Photoshop and had the neural filter applied.
Richard G
Mentor
Number one is the real colour one - bluish veins.
Pretty amazing.
Pretty amazing.
Retro-Grouch
Well-known
Yes, working now, thank you! Perhaps an elaboration of my Luddite response is in order: For me, in my work, the indexical relationship between the film image and the subject is an important (perhaps the important) conceptual reason for using film. My work is primarily documentary in nature, and I want there to be no question that what Is depicted in my photo actually occurred, and that the unaltered indexical relationship can be confirmed via the negative or transparency. Could I get the same results with digital? Of course, but that chain from viewfinder image to finished print is too easily broken by invisible alterations. If nothing else, I want future viewers to trust that chain, and they can when I use film. Yes, alterations can be made to the film image as well, but they are most often detectable, particularly if the original is available for reference. A whole can of philosophical worms here, that I'm only touching upon, but I think I'm communicating the fundamentals of my position.
Interestingly, I find the GRII image with the neural filter applied to be "better". The distracting red dress at far right is gone, and the blue pattern, also distracting, in the dress of the woman with the phone is gone as well. The image is stronger, structurally, and doesn't seem to alter the narrative content of the image. But to what degree are we willing to surrender authorship to an algorithm? For my part, I'll sacrifice the "improvements" of Photoshop for the messy reality of an unwanted telephone wire or a pimple on the chin.
coogee
Well-known
Wow, amazing technology!
I don't think it changes the truth of the negative any more than any other software could. It's interesting to go back to scans of black and white images to see what it produces.
So far I've only tried two or three but they truly 'wowed' me.
It must be said that, at the end of the day, my first love remains silver halide and I use black and white film for this reason.
But it's interesting to have this available. Kudos to those that wrote this software.
I don't think it changes the truth of the negative any more than any other software could. It's interesting to go back to scans of black and white images to see what it produces.
So far I've only tried two or three but they truly 'wowed' me.
It must be said that, at the end of the day, my first love remains silver halide and I use black and white film for this reason.
But it's interesting to have this available. Kudos to those that wrote this software.
raid
Dad Photographer
If the Monochrom can capture finer details in images than a matching color sensor, does it imply that Monochrom images that are converted to color will exhibit finer details in the colors than from a matched color sensor? Interesting software for sure. This reminds me of discrete and continuous value in Mathematics. You can easily go from continuous to discrete but it is difficult to go from discrete to continuous.
JohnWolf
Well-known
I would think that's true, raid. It's not like a physical Bayer filter that reduces resolution and slightly blurs the image.
Of course, Monochrom users aren't the audience for this; we buy MMs because we want BW. More likely it will appeal to those wanting to give their old BW film negatives new life. Like Ted Turner's classic film colorization. Remember that brouhaha? Not everyone's cup of tea.
For now it's a global function, but I imagine it will eventually be combined with masking for local coloring of you choice.
Incidentally, colorize is just one of the new neural filters. There's portrait processing, zooming, bokeh, and others. Even one that supposedly can turn a frown into a smile!
