For me, the negative aspects of redefine outweigh the positive.
I have to work a lot on the images to make them look less artificial and they are full of errors.
1 Like
Redefine is definitely more of an artistic feature than corrective. That’s one of the main reasons I took it to the extreme and just went with it…
I’m presently reviewing some of my wild WOMBO > Redefine high Creativity results to see what “moderate” usage I can get out of them.
Indulge me this one transitional example:
The crop at 100%:
After some Luminar treatment (using the Black and White feature you can restore selected individual colors, which reduced the garishness of this render):
Final artsy:
Final-final artsy if you want to keep going…
Is this bad? No freak show, just art 
It looks better to me when the skies aren’t so fiery.
Well, I don’t know about ‘artistic’ (guess a definition for that could be fluid…) but it’s certainly wild & crazy (maybe we should refer to it as the Steve Martin model) … and, to your point, not corrective! Which makes me question its feature relevance in GAI - if GAI and PAI are supposed to be corrective pre-processors and scalers.
We certainly could use a corrective gen AI/expand feature. i.e., not generating wacky new content, but correcting gen ai content from other apps to an appropriate, higher res version of itself without improvising radically.
Just a side note: As you write – a sharp boundary between artistic and non-artistic generally does not exist, it is not a (classical) mathematical function. I guess even artists would argue with each other. Some photo correction may seem to someone as an artistic element (artificially introduced into the photo), while to another it may seem like getting closer to reality by correcting an imperfect photo. Photo retouching was done even in the good old days without AI, to see the world more beautiful 
.
So (somewhere above) the suggestion from plugsnpixels to start the Creativity level from “0” and continue with finer steps until reaching that wilderness would compensate for the fluidity of the boundary for different subjects (and the others would not have to use it at all).
1 Like
Since reading the comments above about my WOMBOLAND renders I’ve been trying Redefine on actual photographs, and as I mentioned earlier, creative (or not) re-defining is taking place even at minimal levels, so this feature is not useful for corrective work.
So one has to conclude that it is mainly meant for creative reinterpretation.
I was curious how it might work on cartoon-type illustrations:
1 Like
Yes. Agree. Plus couple with my proposal to have more granular settings options between the current 1, 2, 3 … n! 
Kinda important to art that everyone brings their own perceptions of what it is and what it reps to them based on their background, tastes, personality, what they’ve been exposed to as representing ‘art’, etc.
Years ago I developed an elementary school art class on Native American Art for 4th graders. That’s not my heritage. But I’ve been to enough museums and seen enough to know there was a glaring gap in the elementary school art curriculum - at least in CA. My class covered both traditional and contemporary Native American art. The thing was - there wasn’t a word, in most Native American vocabulary - at least in the time of the traditional arts I showed - for art. But, to me, what I wanted to expose the kids to went beyond craft. And, over time, from traditional to contemporary - there were also shifts in who could or would produce what types of arts. Things the men were only ever allowed to produce changed so that women began doing so too over time and vice versa.
These are so fun!
1 Like
A friend with a high powered system was able to render/process this for me at the settings I could only preview on my mere system.
I’ll try to attach a snip from that output. If you (aka, anyone or specifically @Lingyu who was interested in what happens when trying to use Redefine in a ‘straight’ way on photos) look at the faces of the runners in the original image (in my post further up) then look at these people in this output, they are not the same people. They’ve been altered. So - at least for this example - Redefine is not appropriate if one must retain true to the original details and, at minimum, there are people in the photo. Improvs must be acceptable if using Redefine even at the minimal settings..
Nice cartoons of The Beatles, but that definitely belongs to art, not corrections. By the way, there is also the field of art photography (but I am not at all familiar with that).
1 Like
Another Beatles-inspired image, from my original circa-1979 35mm photo (colorized). I blurred my friends’ faces, as if they still look the same today, ha! (The one on the right is a statue…)
Original:
With some cranked-up Creative Redefining, we get Topaz Girl & The Topaz Triplets Band!
On lower levels of Creativity there was only annoying distortion of the original, so you might as well go all out:
Classic models on autopilot, hmm. Creative Redefining is so much sharper!
2 Likes
That’s a lot of what I do. Fine art photography - which spans into composites too as well as the subject matter, lighting, use of blur, color grading, etc., etc. of uncomposited photos.
1 Like
Photartgraphy maybe?
2 Likes
That’s better than Glicked!!! (Gladiator + Wicked movie releases duo)
1 Like
OMG, the animal head!
2 Likes
I thought I just made that up but it’s Googleable…
2 Likes
Maybe such a thing could be used to anonymize people (or car license plates, or…). But I wouldn’t call this either correction or art. Apparently the Redefinition sometimes behaves quite unexpectedly (it seems to me that it’s still early for it to be a beta version).
Did the tiger without a musical ear eat one of the trio of musicians? Was there only a duo left? Or perhaps… better not to think!
Now you know what happened to the keyboardist…
1 Like
