Adetailer to imply inpainted

BUR #524 is pending approval.

create implication adetailer -> inpainted

As discussed a bit on the Discord, adetailer pretty much functions like an automatic inpainting tool, it uses the same features and such as inpainting. I can't see why exactly this shouldn't be an implication of inpainted.

Yeah it does Adetailer does do that, but inpainted images tend to have a bit more love and care put into them imo, compared to images generated with a single tickbox ticked for Adetailer. Feel it would be kinda weird to lump Adetailed images together with Inpainted, where people add/adjust separate elements or complete new ones through transforming and inpainting over stuff they added in with Photoshop. Same with images that were mostly made through ComfyUI + Krita Inpainting. Feel like Adetailer should kinda stay a separate category.

WanderingDiffusion said:

Yeah it does Adetailer does do that, but inpainted images tend to have a bit more love and care put into them imo, compared to images generated with a single tickbox ticked for Adetailer. Feel it would be kinda weird to lump Adetailed images together with Inpainted, where people add/adjust separate elements or complete new ones through transforming and inpainting over stuff they added in with Photoshop. Same with images that were mostly made through ComfyUI + Krita Inpainting. Feel like Adetailer should kinda stay a separate category.

Honestly we should only care about what it's doing on the technical level for inpainting. I have a few old images that were inpainted but the way I did it, it was basically a manual way of doing adetailer (eg, highlighted the eyes in sketch and then prompted for eyes or whatever).

Note the official wiki description for inpainted:

AIBooru Wiki:

Inpainting is the process of fixing/restoring or adding additional elements to an image. In the context of AIBooru, it applies to images that were edited in some form to either fix or remove any mistakes, errors, or undesired content/elements, or to add new elements.

Adetailer very much falls into that description of removing mistakes, errors, and undesired content/elements. Not all inpainted images are inpainted just to add more pretty things to the image. Hell, on one of my older images I also inpainted over a leg I didn't like.

Lopi999 said:

Honestly we should only care about what it's doing on the technical level for inpainting. I have a few old images that were inpainted but the way I did it, it was basically a manual way of doing adetailer (eg, highlighted the eyes in sketch and then prompted for eyes or whatever).

Note the official wiki description for inpainted:

Adetailer very much falls into that description of removing mistakes, errors, and undesired content/elements. Not all inpainted images are inpainted just to add more pretty things to the image. Hell, on one of my older images I also inpainted over a leg I didn't like.

tbf, I'd feel more comfortable personally if we'd have a tag that would imply manual alteration vs automated. If we go at technical level, sure yes, they are technically the same, but if we go on how they are used when we compare Adetailer and Inpainting, and how broadly the latter can be utilized compared to the former, for example ComfyUI + Krita Inpainting Plugin allow you to make completely controlled images with a graphics tablet, generating portions as you draw along, and even the build in inpainting toolset on forge for example allow you to do so much more then Adetailer. Not a fan of lumping the two together at least under one tag.

WanderingDiffusion said:

tbf, I'd feel more comfortable personally if we'd have a tag that would imply manual alteration vs automated. If we go at technical level, sure yes, they are technically the same, but if we go on how they are used when we compare Adetailer and Inpainting, and how broadly the latter can be utilized compared to the former, for example ComfyUI + Krita Inpainting Plugin allow you to make completely controlled images with a graphics tablet, generating portions as you draw along, and even the build in inpainting toolset on forge for example allow you to do so much more then Adetailer. Not a fan of lumping the two together at least under one tag.

Even then man, I still don't get why there has to be this distinction between manual versus automated, if they're the same at the technical level, I don't see why they don't belong together. Just take a look at inpainted in general, I won't hate on people or anything, but how many artists do you see in that tag that actually really use it to it's full potential? iodoff and antlers anon of course, but mostly everyone else? A chunk of those images look the same as every other image on the site, not saying they're bad or anything, I just mean it in the sense that really, it just seems like most people use it for error correction than anything else. Again, error correction is literally one of the things the wiki says about inpainting. What is it about adetailer that makes it not count? What, just because a computer selects a region and inpaints over it instead of a human doing the same thing, and would probably accomplish a similar result?

Lopi999 said:

Even then man, I still don't get why there has to be this distinction between manual versus automated, if they're the same at the technical level, I don't see why they don't belong together. Just take a look at inpainted in general, I won't hate on people or anything, but how many artists do you see in that tag that actually really use it to it's full potential? iodoff and antlers anon of course, but mostly everyone else? A chunk of those images look the same as every other image on the site, not saying they're bad or anything, I just mean it in the sense that really, it just seems like most people use it for error correction than anything else. Again, error correction is literally one of the things the wiki says about inpainting. What is it about adetailer that makes it not count? What, just because a computer selects a region and inpaints over it instead of a human doing the same thing, and would probably accomplish a similar result?

Well, guess I'm indifferent about it now. However you do make a point "A chunk of those images look the same as every other image on the site" if it for the majority does not make a visual difference in most images and as you said, a good chunk of them look like any other image. Why even have the inpainting/Adetailer tag to begin with?

WanderingDiffusion said:

tbf, I'd feel more comfortable personally if we'd have a tag that would imply manual alteration vs automated. If we go at technical level, sure yes, they are technically the same, but if we go on how they are used when we compare Adetailer and Inpainting, and how broadly the latter can be utilized compared to the former, for example ComfyUI + Krita Inpainting Plugin allow you to make completely controlled images with a graphics tablet, generating portions as you draw along, and even the build in inpainting toolset on forge for example allow you to do so much more then Adetailer. Not a fan of lumping the two together at least under one tag.

what difference does it make whether it was done automatically or manually? the tag means that the image was inpainted, there is no mention anywhere that the mask should be made manually and not automatically

WanderingDiffusion said:

Well, guess I'm indifferent about it now. However you do make a point "A chunk of those images look the same as every other image on the site" if it for the majority does not make a visual difference in most images and as you said, a good chunk of them look like any other image. Why even have the inpainting/Adetailer tag to begin with?

The point of metatags is to tell people the method(s) used for the production of the final image. Inpainting can be pretty much either manual or automatic as iodoff said, it doesn't matter that as I said they may look "the same as most other images on the site", I was just saying that just to showcase that inpainting can be a lot of different things. You can't really make a subjective tag about images that were heavily inpainted like iodoff's images, just some people use it more effectively than others. The point is that adetailer is a sort of automatic inpainting method, which still counts as inpainting.

This automatic vs manual has been my main thought around this ever since this BUR was created. At least before, we used to make some metadata tags to indicate that "you cannot get this same image by pressing generate on your own WebUI". In this case, if it's tagged with ADetailer but not inpainted, it's still considered "out of the box", but if inpainted tag is involved it gives the idea that the image had some work afterwards.

I did not say anything before because this was the logic we went with 1-2 years ago with metatags, but somewhere along the way we've realized it has become harder and harder to reproduce an image considering how many factors there are.

I am not familiar with this kind of stuff so I might be just yapping nonsense, but hopefully that made at least some sense.

Lyren said:

This automatic vs manual has been my main thought around this ever since this BUR was created. At least before, we used to make some metadata tags to indicate that "you cannot get this same image by pressing generate on your own WebUI". In this case, if it's tagged with ADetailer but not inpainted, it's still considered "out of the box", but if inpainted tag is involved it gives the idea that the image had some work afterwards.

I did not say anything before because this was the logic we went with 1-2 years ago with metatags, but somewhere along the way we've realized it has become harder and harder to reproduce an image considering how many factors there are.

I am not familiar with this kind of stuff so I might be just yapping nonsense, but hopefully that made at least some sense.

You could argue that the inpainted tag has changed meaning then. Obviously there are so many methods that can be considered inpainting now, for instance as was mentioned, you can do inpainting through Krita, I know iodoff has done "inpainting" with Adobe Firefly in PS, it now basically means an image that was touched up afterwards by AI. Inpainting was always a sort of "automated" method of patching things up, stuff like a first-party edit is different where you're actually hand-editing the image itself with no AI to help you out, like inpaint is. Adetailer is simply a way of automating the automation.

IME "inpainted" means gen based AI tools were used to modify the original gen, or specifically you cannot get to the result from a "stock" gen. It can be useful for people browsing and trying to learn to gen images to see that images are not straight out of the box. Adetailer definitely falls into that category imo, even though you could include adetailer metadata to replicate results.

I agree that "inpainting" could be seen to mean something specific, but the only solution in that case would be to leave "manual_inpainting" as something completely separate from adetailer and other methods and create a new tag along the lines of "first-party_generative_edit" but I feel like leaving "inpainting" to mean that makes more sense in the context of the site.