Adobe Generative Fill and Underwater Photography: A Practical Guide and Ethical Considerations

There are tools that change the way we work, and others that change the way we think about our work. Adobe Generative Fill belongs to both categories, and that's precisely why a conversation is necessary before using it underwater (or rather, with images that have come from underwater).

Because underwater photo editing has never been a neutral topic. It touches on the authenticity of the testimony, the relationship we have with living things, and the fine line between revealing what we have seen and creating what we would have wanted to see.

The principle is remarkably simple. In Photoshop, you select an area of the image with any selection tool (lasso, rectangle, magic wand). You click on "Generative Fill". Adobe Firefly's artificial intelligence analyzes the context around your selection and generates a fill that is consistent with the rest of the image.

You can remove an unwanted element, and the AI reconstructs the background. You can extend the edges of an image, and the AI extends the scene in a believable way. You can replace an element with something completely different by typing a text prompt. Three options appear with each generation, and you choose the one that works best.

It's fast, it's intuitive, and the results on organic textures (corals, sand, open water) are often stunning.

To understand why this tool is changing the game in underwater photography, you need to have spent hours editing backscatter. These hundreds of particles suspended in the water, illuminated by the flash, which pepper your images with white dots – every underwater photographer and editor knows them and curses them.

Traditional methods all have their limitations. The "Dust & Scratches" filter in Photoshop works well on plain backgrounds (blue water, sand), but consistently fails on detailed backgrounds such as a coral reef. It smooths everything, destroys textures, and the cure is worse than the disease. The clone stamp tool works everywhere, but it requires extreme patience, working particle by particle, which can take twenty minutes on a single image.

Generative Fill changes the equation. You select an area with backscatter, click, and the AI reconstructs the seabed, respecting the coral textures, the water gradients, and the surrounding biological details. In a matter of seconds, you get a result that would have taken a quarter of an hour to achieve with the flash. On a batch of fifty images from a night dive with flash, the time saving is considerable.

At AquaExposure, the position is clear from the first training module: post-processing reveals beauty, it does not create it. It must remain "subtle and precise," never transformative. These principles do not change because the tool has become more powerful.

The Underwater Photographer of the Year (UPY) has clarified the issue in its 2026 rules: the use of generative AI to create or complete images is prohibited in competition. However, traditional techniques (removing backscatter, color correction, noise reduction) remain permitted, including the use of AI tools.

This distinction is fundamental. Removing backscatter particles that obscure your subject is cleaning. Slightly expanding a framing to correct a composition that is too tight in the heat of the moment is adjustment. Adding a clownfish that wasn't there, replacing a sand bottom with a tropical reef, or "improving" a scene by generating invented elements is creation. And creation is not photography.

The line is not always sharp, and it will continue to move. But the main principle is simple: everything that appears in the final image must have been actually present at the time of the shot.

After several months of use, here are the situations where Generative Fill provides real value in underwater retouching.

Cleaning backscatter on flashed images remains the most effective application. Select the affected areas, generate, and verify that the reconstructed textures are accurate. The time saved is spectacular on night dives.

A framing that is too tight works remarkably well when the background is open water or sand. A piece of palm or pipe that extends into a corner of the frame disappears cleanly without leaving any trace.

Removing unwanted elements (floating line, misplaced bubble, part of another diver's arm) produces natural results, provided that the area to be reconstructed remains modest in relation to the overall image.

However, some uses are not appropriate in an honest workflow. Generating marine life that is absent from the original scene is fabrication. Replacing a background (transforming green water into the crystal-clear blue of the Maldives) is fiction. "Improving" a scene by adding corals, fish, or light that did not exist is a betrayal of reality. And smoothing biological surfaces (shark skin, coral texture, sand grain) directly contradicts the fundamental principles of underwater retouching.

The tools are evolving, and that's a good thing. From the clone stamp to Generative Fill, editing becomes faster, more precise, and more accessible. But the ethics of the underwater photographer remain the same, regardless of the software version.

The work of the underwater photographer begins before the shot is taken. Being there, in the right current, at the right depth, with the right light, at the precise moment when the subject decides to appear. No artificial intelligence can replicate this presence, nor the held breath in front of a manta ray that passes at a meter, nor the patience of waiting for an octopus to emerge from its hole.

The AI can remove noise. It can remove particles. It can correct a framing error by a few pixels. But it cannot replace the human element.

And it is this encounter, precisely, that your images tell. The editing is only there to ensure that it is heard clearly.

Post-production is the final link in the chain, not the first. Our Module 6 Post-processing teaches you how to develop your underwater images with the right tools, the right reflexes, and the right limits.

Can Generative Fill really effectively remove backscatter?

Yes, and it's arguably its most compelling application in underwater photography. The AI reconstructs background textures (coral, water, sand) with a fidelity that classic filters like Dust & Scratches cannot achieve on complex backgrounds. The result is natural, fast, and works particularly well on flash underwater diving images.

Does the UPY prohibit the use of AI on competition photos?

No. The 2026 rules of Underwater Photographer of the Year clearly distinguish between technical processing (backscatter, noise, color) and content generation (adding or replacing elements). The former is permitted, the latter is prohibited. The fundamental principle is that every element visible in the final image must have actually been present when the photo was taken.

What is the difference between Generative Fill and the duplication buffer for underwater editing?

The patch copies existing pixels from one area to another, which requires careful and repetitive manual work. Generative Fill analyzes the overall context of the image and generates new pixels that are consistent with the environment. On an image with two hundred particles of backscatter in front of a detailed reef, the patch takes twenty minutes, while Generative Fill takes thirty seconds.

Can Generative Fill be used to extend the framing of an underwater photo?

This is a legitimate use within certain limits. Extending a framing by a few percentage points to correct a composition (a cut palm, a subject too close to the edge) remains in the realm of technical adjustment. Doubling the image size to invent a scenery that did not exist, on the other hand, falls into the category of creation. The rule: the larger the area generated in relation to the original image, the further one moves away from photography.

Does the AquaExposure doctrine allow the use of AI tools in post-production?

The principle is clear: editing should remain "subtle and focused," revealing beauty without creating it. AI tools like Generative Fill, Topaz DeNoise, or RC-Astro Backscatter Eliminator are means, not ends. They are welcome as long as they are used to correct what the water has degraded (noise, color, particles), and not to invent what did not exist. Never smooth out organic surfaces, never over-saturate beyond realism.

• DaVinci Resolve: Color correction for underwater video
• Red filters, magenta filters, or software correction?
• AI and underwater photography 2026: From SeaSplat to Topaz and Adobe
• Ethical underwater photography and citizen science
• Access the complete AquaExposure training
• Underwater photography training in Belgium
• Discover our articles