Integrating this with Photoshop makes the whole graphic and visual design scene even more crazier . Let see where this takes us . Results are really astonishing
Wow, you've got some great use cases there. At this point it's just a tool to augment our own creativity. It's great for cleaning up images, and obviously for so much more. I'm looking forward to seeing how it progresses, but in my mind it will never be the end of photography. A large part of photography is just being out, camera in hand, and I can't replicate that with AI.
@@glyndewis Yeah but no one will care if it's taken outside or generated. AI is here to replace the craft, anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional. Just give it time and we'll all be replaced.
We've been testing the fill feature and I have to say it's pretty amazing. We actually couldn't believe how accurate the fill is. We had a vertical image of two subjects in a train station (surrounded by trains on either side and wanted to see if it could fill for a horizontal. Well, it filled in the trains and walkway perfectly and even added correct colors/grading, lighting and DOF. We also tested it out with an image of a couple during fireworks on a balcony with hundreds of people below BUT there was an annoying table with drinks and a mans leg in the shot (couldn't ask him to move). The fill perfectly rebuilt the railing with spindles, filled in people below and added directional lighting. Amazing. I'm not a big fan of Adobe and their politics but on a purely technical level this is a huge positive development.
Need a new computer to access features. I ordered it yesterday and will take 2 weeks to arrive. Hopefully Photoshop does not become obsolete before then, and humans manage survive Ai development
I think we need a way of disclosing the use of AI in our photographs - at least for the time being. There are many viewers of photographs who expect a certain correspondence to a real-world time and place. It depends on the context of where the images are being presented, whether they might be mistaken for verisimilitude or understood as artistic expression.
This line of thinking is self-limiting I believe: do we currently notate our photographs when we have used the clone-tool to remove one stray cigarette butt from the ground? But some would have us do that if we use Photoshop's new feature instead of the clone-tool. A tad silly methinks. Which of course leads on to the matter of 'acceptable (or not) degree' of manipulation. I'm looking forward to a working, realistic, universally-accepted definition of an acceptable level of generative fill that can be applied to photographs . . . I think I may be waiting for a very, very long time.
That's awesome...Adobe finally found an answer to fixing the issue in the first 2 photos that we have been struggling with for many years! (either cloning or try stretching the photos 😅)
@@yeohi But what about those, who you seem to have ingnored, who "manipulate" their photos ever-so-slightly, well short of 'illustration'? Is it not a game-changer for them too?
It's insane what this and AI generated artwork can do. And this is only just the start of it - It's still hit or miss sometimes, but in a year or two it'll be so much better, and it's already pretty amazing. What I love most about it (other than speeding edits up by a lot, and making previously impossible things now possible), is that it does allow so much more control over creativity. Things you couldn't do before or could only imagine in your head, are now much more achievable. Previously my skills might not have been good enough to get exactly what I wanted, or to fix things that really annoyed me about a photo, but this literally does it in seconds, and usually way better than I could have done it. Combining this with Midjourney means it's a pretty exciting time for creative work - but it does also mean you can no longer trust any image you see as being real.
I don't think I'd call it creative work per se. It's more like uncreative work. The AI software is doing the "creative" part. Instant gratification (especially when used by non-creatives), with AI being the workhorse part of the art or photography, will just subdue real human creativity by laziness and lack of pursuing skills and fresh, new ideas and concepts.
this is insane, I have been playing with it with mixed results, the good results are really crazy good, the bad results are comically bad, but of course its in Beta, once it has been improved and understood with user submited data it is going to be insane
Totally agree with your thoughts, Glyn. For me it is a time saver, nothing we couldn't have done before, however investing a lot of efforts and time. It simply speeds things up. Technology advances, and we do not want to stop it. There are still people who think that vinyl records are the best. Oh yeah, I also remember those who thought that digital cameras are trendy toys and will go away. Great inspiration once again. Thank you Glyn.
This is a tremendous video! I am a photo retoucher and the new AI is a thrill to have - soon - haven't checked out the Beta, but will now! Thanks so much for your enthusiasm!
I love the creative opportunities and the ability to enhance one's own original work. The main thing that concerns me though (with AI generation generally, not just Adobe's Generative Fill) is where the replacement / additional elements are being harvested from other photographers' work. For instance, were all the hair options for the viking created from scratch by Photoshop? Far more likely they were derived at least in part from the work of another unknown, unpaid photographer. Next time it may be your work making-up someone else's photo. Is that saleable as an original work? Is it copywritable? What happens when the client spots that 'copy' in another work, when they think they have an original work with exclusive rights?... That potential come-back bothers me. Not to mention how I will feel when the faces of my family taken from my Facebook galleries start appearing on toilet roll ads... Secondly, I really don't like the idea that Adobe can say 'NO' to whatever I want to create. What the h*** has it got to do with them? 'Computer says no'!... It's bad enough that my lenses are computerised, without my editing software starting to preach morality! Bah humbug! ;)
chat-gpt has that same problem. For some reason they think they can 'limit' the potential for morally / ethically questionable things by preventing 'bad commands', while at the same time not even beginning to answer the big question : whose source material is being used and are they getting fair compensation ? It's tricky enough as is for samples in music/audio, because humans are doing that (for now). I can't even begin to imagine the potential for ethical/moral issues when 'the machine' has done this with zero proof of source material.
according to PHLEARN's recent post about this same subject, Adobe is only using images from its massive collection of Adobe Stock, as opposed to random harvesting from the internet.
@@thatericguy1 Adobe Stock doesn’t hold the copyrights to independent Adobe Stock contributors’ work, so it isn’t really their own library. From what I understand, Adobe Stock contributors have not to date been compensated by Adobe for the use of their photos to train the AI software. As a related aside, an artist’s share of the Adobe Stock licensing fee = 33-35%, and Adobe’s share = 65-67%. So Adobe makes almost twice what the artist does for each stock photo/video download - they can afford to compensate. Adobe claims they are working towards a compensation model, but as they say, that ship has already sailed. Adobe Stock contributors can’t opt out of data set training either, so if they want to sell their photos on Adobe Stock, they are basically agreeing to let Adobe use their images for free to create software they weren’t told about in enough detail to make an educated decision up front - software that will eventually replace them. It’s a passive form of pay-to-play, which is still a form of exploiting artists without paying them, only worse because they are using artists to train their replacements. If we think that this won’t replace stock artists to a huge extent, we aren’t paying attention. In my opinion, the right thing for Adobe to have done would have been to set up the compensation model before they used the contributors’ images, clearly described to artists how they planned to use their work (that’s what everyone else has to do when they license an image), and provide an opt out if an artist didn’t want their images used to train the software.
@@thatericguy1 Interesting. Even if that is true of Adobe, it begs a couple of questions, such as whether contributors were specifically asked if they approved their images for AI harvesting. Elsewhere, Getty have an ongoing legal battle with stability AI, who they allege have harvested 12 million images without permission or payment, with AI companies claiming 'fair use'.
I think it is great. Although it blurs the line of what is real and what is not ... soon enough we won't be able to tell the difference. I wonder what effect that will have in how we perceive our reality and how we process it. Video is next ...
In the portrait of the farmer, the generated areas of rock & grass lack what is important in those areas of the original, the fine gritty texture. Simply adding more stuff that resembles the original portion says that the artist didn't understand what was of value, ie what made the look valuable. In fact were the final version the original, it would have been improved by cropping back to the vertical version. So while this is a great tool it does nothing for visual judgement.
AI is great .. the only problem is that it will make so that most people with computer jobs will be able to do their work in half the time or less and so half with become unemployed. And since people are already using so much time consuming media there is not really a new marked to grow into as a solution. So its great for creating and having fun, but for people trying to make a living from it, this is really bad news.
7:38 ah so scar. Ive found since you know its early AI, it can be used for some disturbing imagery. So far ive just been using "meat" to make it work, and of course, teeth. But scars is something ill have to try out in the future.
@@glyndewis Clicking and clicking again and again is also not creative in editing. It´s a useful tool for layouting, when the photo is cropped too tight, but I cant see any creativity in turning portrait to landscape.
I have been testing this feature in the couple of days. I must say I am impressed. It does great job with hair. Though I would only use this feature for low resolution files or the fill areas should be around 1024 pixels. I did have a lot of fun using this AI feature to add spacecrafts for my astrophotography image.
Hi Glyn yet another great video. Can you tell me if the Remove tool uses pixels from the original image and not add pixels it’s got from else where. I do know you don’t need the internet to use it so it’s not using the cloud to generate the pixels for the image. I’m just researching the ethics of the AI generative tools for competition purposes. Thanks
Does anyone know how you change the theme? Like putting a filter over the whole photo? I want to change my photos in a van gogh style, I know its possible on these AI websites, but somehow in photoshop it doesnt work like that
When I hear people arguing this, it takes me back to when people said digital cameras weren't "real" photography. Embrace the future or get left behind.
One word = #Gamechanger Just ONE feature #GenerativeFill has shook creative industries around the world! The level of intelligence this thing has is mindblowing. The photography, graphic design, fashion design, concept art, production design etc. is going to have a breakthrough. As a creative professional, the amount of experiments I have been doing on this, in #AdobeFirefly, is insane but what is more insane is that the results are even more INSANE, that's why one is not able to stop! It is only going to get better!
One word Outdated This stuff is over a year old The features adobe offers are lagging like half a year behind the market leaders, which are all free and open source. It’s funny to see how people can shill so hard for something that is so benign and not even good just bc it’s released by their favorite monopoly company instead of unpaid hobbyists around the world in their sparetime
Amazing. I'm so excited to play with it more - I've already used the ai generative fill to expand photos and it's truly mind-blowing. Would love to see more videos for inspiration.
I love it. Our design team does as well. We’re always asked for extracurricular things to spice up images in post, or remove very difficult things like cranes, forklifts, woodpiles and tricky license plates. This has greatly sped up mock-ups and workflows. It’s light years better than content aware algorithm and this is still in its infancy, let’s see how accurate it gets 2-5 years from now.
Great video. I have been playing with this for a couple days now. It’s mind blowing. I realize this is a beta version, but is there anyway to use this as a plugin with LR Classic????
For any of us using this type of software to create our own “AI art”, we need to at least recognize what we are doing: we are commissioning (via prompts) machine learning software that is being programmed using other artists’ stolen intellectual property to create a stolen derivative work in whole or in part. In any realm, real life or digital, commissioning a piece of art by describing what we want the “artist” (in this case the software) to create for us, does not make us the artist, it makes us the client. If we are using this cloud-based tool to enhance any of our own non-ai art, it is probably wise to assume our truly original human-made work is also being used without compensation to further train this machine learning software. In other words, our artwork may show up in someone else’s “commissioned art”, and that someone else may try to claim it as their own. And if we go to register our work with a copyright office, we may be required, depending on jurisdiction, to disclose if and where we used “AI” to create the work, even if we only added a few AI elements to an otherwise fully human work of authorship. At least in the US, “AI” generated “art” is not considered a work of human authorship and therefore cannot be registered. This means others are free to steal our already stolen work. I suppose the latter constitutes a bit of poetic justice, but it doesn’t remedy the original art heist. If we don’t disclose the use of AI on a copyright application, and the omission is later discovered, there may be consequences depending on jurisdiction. The biggest takeaway here is that this “creative tool” was and is being programmed using mass intellectual property theft from real artists that put in the time, talent, and hard work to be able to do what they do. This “creative tool” exists at their expense.
Guidelines limitations are ridiculous. It's on our computers and it's a tool we bought. We should be able to do whatever we want. I don't expect a message to tell me to stop drawing when I use my brush to paint a bloody scar
Photography is now more like painting than ever before. Creating the changes is not "fake / false" but merely allowing photographers to become creative painters. This is beyond impressive and opens massive improvement potential for any "creator." Thanks for your video.
@ANASTASI LINE does painting only become painting when you get dirty? What if you use paint while staying clean? And what if your mouse is so dirty that you get messy while using the computer? Hmm. Besides, there are many paintings known by well known painters which are "painted over". So that is no argument.
A decade ago, at one of astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson's lectures, when asked about UFOs, he joked that currently Photoshop probably has a built-in "UFO button" ;) Now we really have it.
So I recreated the image (and maybe it's my internet connectio) but when I type in "shaved head mohican hair pulled back ponytail" I get nothing remotely like this!? Even trying to add in a simple beard the results were poor and unusable.
I haven't had a chance to try the Generative Fill yet but Unmesh Dinda (Piximperfect) states that the fill resolution is limited to a cap of 1024 pixels on the long side which implies that you need to keep you "fill" selection areas within this "cap" to maintain the resolution of bigger images. The examples you've shown don't seem to address this Glyn - so I'd be interested in your view on this issue. In the wider context, whilst I agree that creative images makers will use these tools to add to their creations - my concern is that Ai technology will be another big step in driving photography and design down to the lowest common denominator, with the result that it will become even more difficult for professional photographers and designers to make a living. As a book cover stock photographer it concerns me that the market will eventually be inundated with Ai generated images and designs that have never, as it were, seen the inside of a camera but generated from text prompts alone. There has already been one high-profile example of this where Bloomsbury used an Ai generated image on the cover of "House of Earth and Blood".
Depends on your input, here nothing is specified so the ai has to do a lot of big lifting by pulling out all the information from the original input pic, specifying realism, types of camera and lighting situation can increase the end result tremendously. It also strongly depends on the dataset adobe offers, so you are dependent on them not mixing too much stylization into the mix , thus other alternatives are superior for specified usecases. While this may be a solution for general photoediting, you really want datasets just for realism or just for drawings, oil paintings and so on, maybe even trained on your own photography’s or artistic styles if you‘re a painter and then use the different datasets accordingly. You can compare adobe at this point to a fully Automatic coffeemachine, it does every type of coffee but they all taste sub mediocre. What you want is a filter machine and one for espresso, not a solution to do everything but at sub par quality
@@pfizerpricehike9747 Excellent insights. Your choice of the term mediocre resonated for me. I wonder if this technology might just make mediocre photographers even more mediocre. That’s probably too harsh.
I just used the remove tool to remove a blurry robin from in front of my bird photo of a juvenile starling. using the remove tool. I then used generative fill to generate a new tail for my bird. After a second try, I got a near perfect result!
I agree with the last part for someone who are creative and professional its an added tool, for others will be just filling their portfolio with unrealistic photos, and people by their nature will not care to distinguish between authentic photos that uses the tool to enhance or just completely generated by AI. The value and story behind a photograph will not matter as AI eliminates the hassle of going out and shoot your photos ( in majority of none photographer’s mind set)
Initially, I started to feel threatened by AI fearing that i would be out of work very soon. But then i decided I'm still the one in charge of creativity, and I'm just going to make AI my bitch, and consider it another powerful tool in the box.
I've always used alternative software to Photoshop, but honestly this is a game changer and I'm considering switching. Are there any requirements to use this tool? Also, do you need to pay extra to enable it, or is it enabled with an ordinary Photoshop subscription?... And, is there a feature to add objects to a photo? I've recently started making framed wall art mockups using stock photos of interior rooms, but it's so time consuming to make the frame blend in with the room and look realistic. If I could just write a prompt to add a blank frame on a wall, and if it looks as realistic as the chair's legs, that would save me like 99% of the time I spend doing it manualy
I love it. Gives you complete creative freedom to express yourself in ways that are now less limited. I don't have huge amounts of money for a studio, so using AI can really plug that gap for me.
The "I mean, come on, look at that" part at 04:36, you totally sound like Wallace :D Anyway, this is supercool for photographers. Scary part of AI is that in illustration world people can create what others have mastered for years, because it can steal basically whatever and change it that much, so you cant say its yours anymore...
A great tool for digital artists. For photographers? No. That's not what photography is, and you can't call yourself a photographer if half of the image is AI generated.
Well someone is now out of a job. The mortgage will not be paid and the school fees in the red. Skills critical skills are no longer needed. Soon architects will be fired and AI will do all the math and designing.
I'm trying Photoshop Beta in particular the Generative Fill function to increase the photos all around, I'm doing various tests, I mainly shoot with Canon Eos R5 with 45 million megapixels, with the original photos the artificial intelligence only works on skies or out of focus parts , with detailed subjects it is clear that the resolution is not at all sufficient and consequently unusable. So I tried to drastically reduce the size of the images like 2000 pixels on the long side, in this case the AI works perfectly with any type of image. So I wanted to know what the exact resolution limit of the Photoshop Beta AI was.
@@glyndewis Hi, what does this mean exactly? That Photoshop Beta SI only works at 100% quality with 1024x1024 photos? Do we know in the future with the final version at what resolution it will work?
@@AlessandroChiariniphotographer It's in beta. Hardly think Adobe are going to make full-resolution capabilities possible in free beta version. Once it's fully developed, I'd imagine a couple of things: firstly, better resolution. Secondly, you pay for it.
Generative fill aI is interesting, but simple quirks like this mislead, giving the impression its amazing. The results are often terrible, especially in complex images. The image he has here is flat and full on, I would wager it would be a lot harder if the guy took a picture of him in a crowd in the street and tried to apply the same thing. I have tried taking modern images and removing modern features to make them look old. Removing cars, signage, lamp posts etc and its crazy how soon you meet the limitations. Changing tarmac to cobbles is very iffy. I spent 30 minutes trying to remove two cars and all it did was replace the cars with cars of its own making, often hilariously bad. It has its uses, for example, removing time stamps from photos. I think I would be able to makke more fail videos that 'wesome' ones like this based on AI's performance from my side. Take any shot and 'add a dinosaur'. Great, except it has 5 legs. Oh well.
I manage to cut the feets of a man and his two dogs, and tried to fill it in with generative fill. There was some strange results at first, but after a few shots, it saved the whole image. But it added some weird banding in the sky that I fixed with the good old remove tool. Later I figured out I had forgotten to add lens correction in Lightroom that caused the banding because off the vignette from the lens 😂 Used right, this is a great feature.
Funny thing is I downloaded the beta and did everything everyone said to get it working on both on an apple and windows and it’s still not giving me the option to use the generative fill. Yep - I have an adobe subscription
Great experimentation here, Glyn. I love how it handles the shadows and lighting from original image. Also a great way of adjusting to somehing that seems obvious is here tostay. It truly is the creative mind that produces the final image and AI is just another, albeit phenomenal tool.
You can tell how advanced of a leap it was because the first reaction from everyone was to get scared... like we'd just seen fire for the first time and it looked like magic.
you handed over your unique art to algorithms, artificial intelligence is ones and zeroes, the art of photography is dying, you may as well sell your camera gear now Glyn as all you'll have to do soon is say what you want to produce and the algorithm will do it for you, no more photography shows needed, no printing to be done as everything will be on a screen either on a phone or a wall. this tech isn't for me.
Bit of an 'over the top' reaction there I think. ALL of the photographs it was used on had already been edited by 'me' and the Viking picture ... you saw all the layers done 'manually' right? As for 'printing' ... nothing has changed. If this isn't for you then so be it, but this isn't Terminator and Judgement Day 😎
@@glyndewis just a feeling on how ai is going Glyn and not aimed at you personally, we are being lulled into believing artificial intelligence is a real intelligence when it isn't, it has good and bad uses like most, when this tech moves into film then all I'll need is some meta data, subtitles and a picture of you on stage and I'll be able to create your next nec photography gig, no nec or parking fees although you might get a fee per ai video, i saw you at the nec when you had your brother on stage in the raf uniform, the whole day interacting with like minded people etc cannot be replaced but ai makes us lazy, an expensive day travelling from Manchester for the day out to the photography and video show at the nec compared to commanding an algorithm in my living room and saving a good sum of money, I'd prefer the day out, there's many axamples you could think of not just this one, i fear we are going in the wrong direction and the worst aspects of ai will be dominating the good.
Brilliant video! You're spot on with your comment at the end. I've had ideas floating around in my head for years that I just don't have the time or energy to produce due to having to learn new several new software packages extensively. Now I can take my main skills of PS compositing and color grading and combine them with Ai to produce these art pieces. It's about using the tools that we are giving to our advantage.
The warning about what the TRUE path of all of this AI "stuff" has been sounded years ago! People like yourself and many others unknowingly are making this tech seem to just be some common "new" fun thing to do, experiment with, etc. This is slowly making "AI" seem to be harmless and acceptable. When in fact, and for long-term, it isn't! The long-term effects and affects of AI technology won't be as "fun" and "gadgety" as it is now! Don't believe me? Do a google search for the many warnings from "The God Father of AI" himself, Geoffrey Hinton! He left Google because he knows what the use of AI will be used for. In his own words, 'The technology is being developed in a society that is not designed to use it for everybody's good'. Much like 'social media' platforms.. step back and 'look' have they actually increased people being 'social'? I would argue that have increased people being anti-social! Keyword "social" as in 'socialize'.
@@glyndewis Actual photographers? Gallery owners? Competitions? But mostly myself. You do understand that photography (an image focused on a light=sensitive medium with a camera) will be entirely unnecessary for commercial purposes? Who needs a camera, when AI can search millions of images and combine them according to a prompt. Stylists? MUA? Who needs 'em? Lighting? Why? There's millions of styles on the Internet. What you are creating are illustrations. NOTHING wrong with it. Illustrators have existed since cave persons. Yes, Reijländer made composites in the 19th c., but he shot the negatives and freely admitted what he had done. Now, a whole architecture of photography is imperiled, and that includes you.
@@lesberkley3821 🤣Don't ever recall a competition that required the physical film negative had to accompany the print. Nor have I never had to present a gallery with a negative. And I've never had to show myself a negative to prove to myself blah blah . . .
@@DustyDingoPhotos You will encounter such competitions. You may also be required by galleries, etc, to sign a paper stating whether AI was used, and on sale, you may need to prove it.
@@lesberkley3821 Have had to state veracity of images at galleries, but never been asked to show the negatives . . . nor to show forensic authentication of a digital image. Regardless, I think folk are over-reacting hugely to this software. I have used it to remove distracting components of a background. That is NOT using anyone else's images, it is using my image and replicating aspects of MY image to generate the fill. If my images at a gallery include one where I "removed" one little bird in the sky that looked much like a dust-spot, does it matter whether I used the clone-tool, repair-tool, or generative fill? Of course it doesn't.
Interesting video. June 2023 And there's AI software available where you Just _type_ in a few key words and within seconds the Ai computer _makes a unique 2d colour illustration_ . *Are Human craftsmen and women now obsolete* ? Is fine art painting and *lighting camera work kaput* ? Thank you
I spent some time learning this new feature in Photoshop yesterday. I love it and am excited to see how it will evolve. This is another excellent tool I will use when needed, and understand it is limited so I will always have to put my finishing touches on the final image. I had some things I wanted to accomplish with Midjourney and could not with its deep learning curve. This PSD AI feature is a walk in the park. Of course, there will be those who will exploit it and think they are now real artists by using it by creating tacky art, just like the millions who believe they are real photographers using their cell phones & DSLRs on auto mode.
While the assertion you mentioned emphasizes the role of our minds, hands, and tools in expressing creativity, there are indeed other perspectives to consider. Here are a few alternative viewpoints: Environment and Inspiration: Creativity can also be influenced by external factors such as the environment we inhabit and the experiences we encounter. Our surroundings, interactions with others, and exposure to different cultures and ideas can all contribute to our creative expression. Emotion and Intuition: Creativity often emerges from a deeper level of emotional and intuitive understanding. It is not solely a product of our cognitive processes or the tools we use. Our feelings, instincts, and personal experiences can play a significant role in shaping our creative output. Collaboration and Interactions: Creativity can be enhanced through collaboration and interaction with others. Engaging in discussions, brainstorming sessions, and receiving feedback from peers can foster new ideas and perspectives, transforming individual creativity into collective creativity. Constraints and Limitations: Sometimes, limitations and constraints can actually fuel creativity. When faced with challenges or restricted resources, individuals may find innovative ways to overcome these obstacles and generate unique solutions or artistic expressions. Imagination and Vision: Creativity often originates from the power of imagination and the ability to envision possibilities beyond the present. It involves the capacity to think beyond what currently exists, to dream, and to visualize novel concepts or artistic creations. Inner Exploration: Self-reflection, introspection, and personal growth can also contribute to creativity. Exploring our own thoughts, beliefs, and emotions can lead to self-expression and the generation of original ideas. It's important to note that creativity is a complex and multifaceted concept, and different individuals may have unique perspectives on what fuels their creative process. The interplay between our minds, hands, tools, environment, emotions, and interactions ultimately shapes how we express our creativity to the world. Generated by ChatGPT - but I pretty much agree :-)
Absolutely mind blown tbh. Sod creativity, if A.I can help me stack money by assisting / speeding up my work flow i'm game. I don't care if A.I is making things too easy or taking away creativity.
Hopefully, the special effects lady understands that it is time to look for a new job. Because why add just some scars and dirt if AI can add it all? SCARY SH*T!!!
Awesome video ! Have you videos about adding details like in you shot ? Enhance photography is a game changer, mix reality and AI. I loved it, and to be clear, if this is WRONG, what's make a composite shot good ? That's just another way to bring creativity to more people. Even full generated AI image has its upside. You worked with your mind, you try to translate it and re iterate to get what you want...There is creativity in it.
I think this AI is empowering but can make us lazy in long term .what i think is less time spent working with a pc is more time to workout and hangout with friends so why not ? AI is empowering and a big tool to live easier XD just like electricity or Nuclear Energy , I think Ai is a more powerful breakthrough than Nuclear Energy in long term just wait and see in 10 years how things change .
I bet it's not a limitation of the tech, but yet another way to squeeze extra money out of people who subscribe to this feature. It's not the first time tech was crippled in order to get people to pay more ... (and it won't be the last time either).
@@NotTheStinkyCheese yeah true, ut currently, these types of AI generated model really has resolution limitation due to how they normally are trained. Thats why normally after the image is made, it made another AI Method to upscale the image.
![KAYTRANADA - Witchy (feat. Childish Gambino) [Official Video]](http://i.ytimg.com/vi/jGK3YVmGZ3Y/mqdefault.jpg)
So excited to try out generative fill! I was impressed with kahmas ability to generate stunning AI profile photos.
I absolutely love your education style. You always deliver. Thank you
Thanks so much Charles
I used the generative fill on a recent composite of 9 dogs. Extending the background in the same way you did on your farmer portrait.
So brilliant!
Nice one 😃
I agree wholeheartedly with your summation. Thanks Glyn.
Thank you Pip; interesting times ahead
So excited to try out generative fill! I was impressed with kahmas ability to generate stunning AI profile photos.
Thank you, Glyn for the video and the explanations. 🌷
You're welcome ; thanks for watching
Integrating this with Photoshop makes the whole graphic and visual design scene even more crazier . Let see where this takes us . Results are really astonishing
Slightly depressing that I use a lot of negative space purposefully in my wedding shots, and now everyone just does it in post 😂
Wow, you've got some great use cases there. At this point it's just a tool to augment our own creativity. It's great for cleaning up images, and obviously for so much more. I'm looking forward to seeing how it progresses, but in my mind it will never be the end of photography. A large part of photography is just being out, camera in hand, and I can't replicate that with AI.
Exactly that
@@glyndewis Yeah but no one will care if it's taken outside or generated. AI is here to replace the craft, anyone that thinks otherwise is delusional. Just give it time and we'll all be replaced.
adding fog etc with A.i sold it for me! I always feel like I need a fog machine or aerisol can. Can't wait to use it! :D
Pretty impressive, Glyn.
We've been testing the fill feature and I have to say it's pretty amazing. We actually couldn't believe how accurate the fill is. We had a vertical image of two subjects in a train station (surrounded by trains on either side and wanted to see if it could fill for a horizontal. Well, it filled in the trains and walkway perfectly and even added correct colors/grading, lighting and DOF. We also tested it out with an image of a couple during fireworks on a balcony with hundreds of people below BUT there was an annoying table with drinks and a mans leg in the shot (couldn't ask him to move). The fill perfectly rebuilt the railing with spindles, filled in people below and added directional lighting. Amazing. I'm not a big fan of Adobe and their politics but on a purely technical level this is a huge positive development.
Excellent break down
Need a new computer to access features. I ordered it yesterday and will take 2 weeks to arrive. Hopefully Photoshop does not become obsolete before then, and humans manage survive Ai development
I think we need a way of disclosing the use of AI in our photographs - at least for the time being. There are many viewers of photographs who expect a certain correspondence to a real-world time and place. It depends on the context of where the images are being presented, whether they might be mistaken for verisimilitude or understood as artistic expression.
This line of thinking is self-limiting I believe: do we currently notate our photographs when we have used the clone-tool to remove one stray cigarette butt from the ground? But some would have us do that if we use Photoshop's new feature instead of the clone-tool. A tad silly methinks.
Which of course leads on to the matter of 'acceptable (or not) degree' of manipulation. I'm looking forward to a working, realistic, universally-accepted definition of an acceptable level of generative fill that can be applied to photographs . . . I think I may be waiting for a very, very long time.
Agreed
Agreed, @@DustyDingoPhotos. Manipulating images have been done for decades already, its just that this makes it faster
That's awesome...Adobe finally found an answer to fixing the issue in the first 2 photos that we have been struggling with for many years! (either cloning or try stretching the photos 😅)
Yeah, generative fill is a total game-changer. I've worked with retouching for almost two decades, and this honestly blows my mind.
It's a game-changer for those who are playing the game of manipulating their photos into illustrations.
@@yeohi But what about those, who you seem to have ingnored, who "manipulate" their photos ever-so-slightly, well short of 'illustration'? Is it not a game-changer for them too?
It's insane what this and AI generated artwork can do. And this is only just the start of it - It's still hit or miss sometimes, but in a year or two it'll be so much better, and it's already pretty amazing.
What I love most about it (other than speeding edits up by a lot, and making previously impossible things now possible), is that it does allow so much more control over creativity. Things you couldn't do before or could only imagine in your head, are now much more achievable. Previously my skills might not have been good enough to get exactly what I wanted, or to fix things that really annoyed me about a photo, but this literally does it in seconds, and usually way better than I could have done it.
Combining this with Midjourney means it's a pretty exciting time for creative work - but it does also mean you can no longer trust any image you see as being real.
Great to hear you find the A.I. helpful
I don't think I'd call it creative work per se.
It's more like uncreative work.
The AI software is doing the "creative" part.
Instant gratification (especially when used by non-creatives), with AI being the workhorse part of the art or photography, will just subdue real human creativity by laziness and lack of pursuing skills and fresh, new ideas and concepts.
this is insane, I have been playing with it with mixed results, the good results are really crazy good, the bad results are comically bad, but of course its in Beta, once it has been improved and understood with user submited data it is going to be insane
Totally agree with your thoughts, Glyn. For me it is a time saver, nothing we couldn't have done before, however investing a lot of efforts and time. It simply speeds things up. Technology advances, and we do not want to stop it. There are still people who think that vinyl records are the best. Oh yeah, I also remember those who thought that digital cameras are trendy toys and will go away. Great inspiration once again. Thank you Glyn.
m.ruclips.net/video/BwmAPSXgXbA/видео.htmlsub_confirmation=1
m.ruclips.net/video/BwmAPSXgXbA/видео.htmlsub_confirmation=1
WOW!!! that is astonishing almost like wizardry
This is a tremendous video! I am a photo retoucher and the new AI is a thrill to have - soon - haven't checked out the Beta, but will now! Thanks so much for your enthusiasm!
I love the creative opportunities and the ability to enhance one's own original work.
The main thing that concerns me though (with AI generation generally, not just Adobe's Generative Fill) is where the replacement / additional elements are being harvested from other photographers' work. For instance, were all the hair options for the viking created from scratch by Photoshop? Far more likely they were derived at least in part from the work of another unknown, unpaid photographer. Next time it may be your work making-up someone else's photo. Is that saleable as an original work? Is it copywritable? What happens when the client spots that 'copy' in another work, when they think they have an original work with exclusive rights?... That potential come-back bothers me. Not to mention how I will feel when the faces of my family taken from my Facebook galleries start appearing on toilet roll ads...
Secondly, I really don't like the idea that Adobe can say 'NO' to whatever I want to create. What the h*** has it got to do with them? 'Computer says no'!...
It's bad enough that my lenses are computerised, without my editing software starting to preach morality! Bah humbug! ;)
chat-gpt has that same problem.
For some reason they think they can 'limit' the potential for morally / ethically questionable things by preventing 'bad commands', while at the same time not even beginning to answer the big question : whose source material is being used and are they getting fair compensation ?
It's tricky enough as is for samples in music/audio, because humans are doing that (for now). I can't even begin to imagine the potential for ethical/moral issues when 'the machine' has done this with zero proof of source material.
according to PHLEARN's recent post about this same subject, Adobe is only using images from its massive collection of Adobe Stock, as opposed to random harvesting from the internet.
@@thatericguy1 Adobe Stock doesn’t hold the copyrights to independent Adobe Stock contributors’ work, so it isn’t really their own library. From what I understand, Adobe Stock contributors have not to date been compensated by Adobe for the use of their photos to train the AI software. As a related aside, an artist’s share of the Adobe Stock licensing fee = 33-35%, and Adobe’s share = 65-67%. So Adobe makes almost twice what the artist does for each stock photo/video download - they can afford to compensate. Adobe claims they are working towards a compensation model, but as they say, that ship has already sailed. Adobe Stock contributors can’t opt out of data set training either, so if they want to sell their photos on Adobe Stock, they are basically agreeing to let Adobe use their images for free to create software they weren’t told about in enough detail to make an educated decision up front - software that will eventually replace them. It’s a passive form of pay-to-play, which is still a form of exploiting artists without paying them, only worse because they are using artists to train their replacements. If we think that this won’t replace stock artists to a huge extent, we aren’t paying attention. In my opinion, the right thing for Adobe to have done would have been to set up the compensation model before they used the contributors’ images, clearly described to artists how they planned to use their work (that’s what everyone else has to do when they license an image), and provide an opt out if an artist didn’t want their images used to train the software.
@@L8chasr very good points. Here’s hoping the compensation model evolves to a more satisfactory solution for Stock contributors.
@@thatericguy1 Interesting. Even if that is true of Adobe, it begs a couple of questions, such as whether contributors were specifically asked if they approved their images for AI harvesting. Elsewhere, Getty have an ongoing legal battle with stability AI, who they allege have harvested 12 million images without permission or payment, with AI companies claiming 'fair use'.
Excellent video. Thank you.
Thank you
This new feature blew me away. But you aint seen nothing until you try kahma!
Well if you can do a photo totaly from AI why not using it on your own photo ?
I think it is great. Although it blurs the line of what is real and what is not ... soon enough we won't be able to tell the difference. I wonder what effect that will have in how we perceive our reality and how we process it. Video is next ...
Photoshop said no more boring blank spaces and I said heaven be praised!
I was on the right track! Lol
Great video. Thanks.
Brilliant, What about the "not for commercial use" agreement?
In the portrait of the farmer, the generated areas of rock & grass lack what is important in those areas of the original, the fine gritty texture. Simply adding more stuff that resembles the original portion says that the artist didn't understand what was of value, ie what made the look valuable. In fact were the final version the original, it would have been improved by cropping back to the vertical version. So while this is a great tool it does nothing for visual judgement.
You do understand "beta"?
The stool example was mind-blowing to me! So much fun ahead for us!
Incredible huh 😃
AI is great .. the only problem is that it will make so that most people with computer jobs will be able to do their work in half the time or less and so half with become unemployed. And since people are already using so much time consuming media there is not really a new marked to grow into as a solution. So its great for creating and having fun, but for people trying to make a living from it, this is really bad news.
#Whoa thats insanely cool. You have to try kahma to make portraits of passed loved ones with AI too.
7:38 ah so scar.
Ive found since you know its early AI, it can be used for some disturbing imagery. So far ive just been using "meat" to make it work, and of course, teeth. But scars is something ill have to try out in the future.
This is very different than midjourney this is a tool midjourney is a replacement
Writing prompts and continously clicking until the rsult fits, is creative?
No you misunderstand ... using it in conjunction with edits 'is' creative ... you saw all the layers too right? 😉
@@glyndewis Clicking and clicking again and again is also not creative in editing. It´s a useful tool for layouting, when the photo is cropped too tight, but I cant see any creativity in turning portrait to landscape.
I have been testing this feature in the couple of days. I must say I am impressed. It does great job with hair. Though I would only use this feature for low resolution files or the fill areas should be around 1024 pixels.
I did have a lot of fun using this AI feature to add spacecrafts for my astrophotography image.
Well said these are new tools similar to what was digital art against traditional art.
Hi Glyn yet another great video. Can you tell me if the Remove tool uses pixels from the original image and not add pixels it’s got from else where. I do know you don’t need the internet to use it so it’s not using the cloud to generate the pixels for the image. I’m just researching the ethics of the AI generative tools for competition purposes. Thanks
Does anyone know how you change the theme? Like putting a filter over the whole photo? I want to change my photos in a van gogh style, I know its possible on these AI websites, but somehow in photoshop it doesnt work like that
Great!
Amazing video thank you! If the editor is in Europe, how does copyright work after he/she edits an image with generative fill?
When I hear people arguing this, it takes me back to when people said digital cameras weren't "real" photography. Embrace the future or get left behind.
One word = #Gamechanger
Just ONE feature #GenerativeFill has shook creative industries around the world! The level of intelligence this thing has is mindblowing. The photography, graphic design, fashion design, concept art, production design etc. is going to have a breakthrough. As a creative professional, the amount of experiments I have been doing on this, in #AdobeFirefly, is insane but what is more insane is that the results are even more INSANE, that's why one is not able to stop! It is only going to get better!
One word
Outdated
This stuff is over a year old
The features adobe offers are lagging like half a year behind the market leaders, which are all free and open source.
It’s funny to see how people can shill so hard for something that is so benign and not even good just bc it’s released by their favorite monopoly company instead of unpaid hobbyists around the world in their sparetime
Amazing. I'm so excited to play with it more - I've already used the ai generative fill to expand photos and it's truly mind-blowing. Would love to see more videos for inspiration.
Thank and yeah no problem ... will be done
Hi Glyn, was curious if you've compare Topaz Gigapixel vs Adobe Photoshop's Upscaling.
I love it. Our design team does as well. We’re always asked for extracurricular things to spice up images in post, or remove very difficult things like cranes, forklifts, woodpiles and tricky license plates. This has greatly sped up mock-ups and workflows. It’s light years better than content aware algorithm and this is still in its infancy, let’s see how accurate it gets 2-5 years from now.
Great video. I have been playing with this for a couple days now. It’s mind blowing. I realize this is a beta version, but is there anyway to use this as a plugin with LR Classic????
For any of us using this type of software to create our own “AI art”, we need to at least recognize what we are doing: we are commissioning (via prompts) machine learning software that is being programmed using other artists’ stolen intellectual property to create a stolen derivative work in whole or in part. In any realm, real life or digital, commissioning a piece of art by describing what we want the “artist” (in this case the software) to create for us, does not make us the artist, it makes us the client. If we are using this cloud-based tool to enhance any of our own non-ai art, it is probably wise to assume our truly original human-made work is also being used without compensation to further train this machine learning software. In other words, our artwork may show up in someone else’s “commissioned art”, and that someone else may try to claim it as their own. And if we go to register our work with a copyright office, we may be required, depending on jurisdiction, to disclose if and where we used “AI” to create the work, even if we only added a few AI elements to an otherwise fully human work of authorship. At least in the US, “AI” generated “art” is not considered a work of human authorship and therefore cannot be registered. This means others are free to steal our already stolen work. I suppose the latter constitutes a bit of poetic justice, but it doesn’t remedy the original art heist. If we don’t disclose the use of AI on a copyright application, and the omission is later discovered, there may be consequences depending on jurisdiction. The biggest takeaway here is that this “creative tool” was and is being programmed using mass intellectual property theft from real artists that put in the time, talent, and hard work to be able to do what they do. This “creative tool” exists at their expense.
Guidelines limitations are ridiculous. It's on our computers and it's a tool we bought. We should be able to do whatever we want. I don't expect a message to tell me to stop drawing when I use my brush to paint a bloody scar
Beta
Photography is now more like painting than ever before. Creating the changes is not "fake / false" but merely allowing photographers to become creative painters. This is beyond impressive and opens massive improvement potential for any "creator." Thanks for your video.
m.ruclips.net/video/BwmAPSXgXbA/видео.htmlsub_confirmation=1
@ANASTASI LINE does painting only become painting when you get dirty? What if you use paint while staying clean? And what if your mouse is so dirty that you get messy while using the computer? Hmm. Besides, there are many paintings known by well known painters which are "painted over". So that is no argument.
@ANASTASI LINE DID I EVER SAY ANYTHING THAT CONTRADICTS YOUR STATEMENTS?. AND WHY ARE WE TYPING IN CAPITALS?
eventually these tools will be so good you won't need anyone.
@ANASTASI LINE and what does this have to do with anything beeing said? :D
I'm kinder scared as a photographer but also mind blown and want to experiment!!!
A decade ago, at one of astrophysicist Neil deGrasse Tyson's lectures, when asked about UFOs, he joked that currently Photoshop probably has a built-in "UFO button" ;) Now we really have it.
So I recreated the image (and maybe it's my internet connectio) but when I type in "shaved head mohican hair pulled back ponytail" I get nothing remotely like this!? Even trying to add in a simple beard the results were poor and unusable.
I haven't had a chance to try the Generative Fill yet but Unmesh Dinda (Piximperfect) states that the fill resolution is limited to a cap of 1024 pixels on the long side which implies that you need to keep you "fill" selection areas within this "cap" to maintain the resolution of bigger images. The examples you've shown don't seem to address this Glyn - so I'd be interested in your view on this issue.
In the wider context, whilst I agree that creative images makers will use these tools to add to their creations - my concern is that Ai technology will be another big step in driving photography and design down to the lowest common denominator, with the result that it will become even more difficult for professional photographers and designers to make a living. As a book cover stock photographer it concerns me that the market will eventually be inundated with Ai generated images and designs that have never, as it were, seen the inside of a camera but generated from text prompts alone. There has already been one high-profile example of this where Bloomsbury used an Ai generated image on the cover of "House of Earth and Blood".
@6:53min what type of Camera are you using ???
Absolutely love the Generative fill, used in on many of my photos already!
👍🏻
I think I would regard the results as CGI or illustration rather than photography.
Then all images that enter digital editing software are digitsl art and not photography too right, seeing as they've ALL been manipulated?
@@glyndewis I wouldn’t go that far Glyn, but expect everyone will have their own ideas about where they draw the line.
Depends on your input, here nothing is specified so the ai has to do a lot of big lifting by pulling out all the information from the original input pic, specifying realism, types of camera and lighting situation can increase the end result tremendously. It also strongly depends on the dataset adobe offers, so you are dependent on them not mixing too much stylization into the mix , thus other alternatives are superior for specified usecases. While this may be a solution for general photoediting, you really want datasets just for realism or just for drawings, oil paintings and so on, maybe even trained on your own photography’s or artistic styles if you‘re a painter and then use the different datasets accordingly. You can compare adobe at this point to a fully Automatic coffeemachine, it does every type of coffee but they all taste sub mediocre. What you want is a filter machine and one for espresso, not a solution to do everything but at sub par quality
@@pfizerpricehike9747 Excellent insights. Your choice of the term mediocre resonated for me. I wonder if this technology might just make mediocre photographers even more mediocre. That’s probably too harsh.
I just used the remove tool to remove a blurry robin from in front of my bird photo of a juvenile starling. using the remove tool. I then used generative fill to generate a new tail for my bird. After a second try, I got a near perfect result!
Superb
I agree with the last part for someone who are creative and professional its an added tool, for others will be just filling their portfolio with unrealistic photos, and people by their nature will not care to distinguish between authentic photos that uses the tool to enhance or just completely generated by AI. The value and story behind a photograph will not matter as AI eliminates the hassle of going out and shoot your photos ( in majority of none photographer’s mind set)
Initially, I started to feel threatened by AI fearing that i would be out of work very soon. But then i decided I'm still the one in charge of creativity, and I'm just going to make AI my bitch, and consider it another powerful tool in the box.
@@DavidStarkdyvarg Completely agree with you here.
I think AI will release the creativity in people like never before. Just like that crop tool extends boundaries so will the AI!
I've always used alternative software to Photoshop, but honestly this is a game changer and I'm considering switching. Are there any requirements to use this tool? Also, do you need to pay extra to enable it, or is it enabled with an ordinary Photoshop subscription?... And, is there a feature to add objects to a photo? I've recently started making framed wall art mockups using stock photos of interior rooms, but it's so time consuming to make the frame blend in with the room and look realistic. If I could just write a prompt to add a blank frame on a wall, and if it looks as realistic as the chair's legs, that would save me like 99% of the time I spend doing it manualy
Yes you could select a specific area and then prompt for a blank frame in the space.
I love it. Gives you complete creative freedom to express yourself in ways that are now less limited. I don't have huge amounts of money for a studio, so using AI can really plug that gap for me.
Great that this technology is going to be so useful for you 👍🏻
The "I mean, come on, look at that" part at 04:36, you totally sound like Wallace :D Anyway, this is supercool for photographers. Scary part of AI is that in illustration world people can create what others have mastered for years, because it can steal basically whatever and change it that much, so you cant say its yours anymore...
Wallace?
@@glyndewis From Wallace and Gromit :D
in 2-3 years, maybe even less (scary) reality and fiction will be indistinguishable from each other. AI is amazing and terrifying at the same time.
A great tool for digital artists. For photographers? No. That's not what photography is, and you can't call yourself a photographer if half of the image is AI generated.
Does the AI feature require an online connection?
I think it is a good time to sell my camera
Well someone is now out of a job. The mortgage will not be paid and the school fees in the red. Skills critical skills are no longer needed. Soon architects will be fired and AI will do all the math and designing.
Is generative fill in every new version of PS or is a paid add on. Thanks
its in Beta at the moment, available in Photoshop Beta in Creative Cloud
I'm trying Photoshop Beta in particular the Generative Fill function to increase the photos all around, I'm doing various tests, I mainly shoot with Canon Eos R5 with 45 million megapixels, with the original photos the artificial intelligence only works on skies or out of focus parts , with detailed subjects it is clear that the resolution is not at all sufficient and consequently unusable. So I tried to drastically reduce the size of the images like 2000 pixels on the long side, in this case the AI works perfectly with any type of image.
So I wanted to know what the exact resolution limit of the Photoshop Beta AI was.
1024 x 1024 in Beta
@@glyndewis Hi, what does this mean exactly? That Photoshop Beta SI only works at 100% quality with 1024x1024 photos? Do we know in the future with the final version at what resolution it will work?
@@AlessandroChiariniphotographer It's in beta. Hardly think Adobe are going to make full-resolution capabilities possible in free beta version. Once it's fully developed, I'd imagine a couple of things: firstly, better resolution. Secondly, you pay for it.
Generative fill aI is interesting, but simple quirks like this mislead, giving the impression its amazing. The results are often terrible, especially in complex images. The image he has here is flat and full on, I would wager it would be a lot harder if the guy took a picture of him in a crowd in the street and tried to apply the same thing. I have tried taking modern images and removing modern features to make them look old. Removing cars, signage, lamp posts etc and its crazy how soon you meet the limitations. Changing tarmac to cobbles is very iffy. I spent 30 minutes trying to remove two cars and all it did was replace the cars with cars of its own making, often hilariously bad. It has its uses, for example, removing time stamps from photos. I think I would be able to makke more fail videos that 'wesome' ones like this based on AI's performance from my side. Take any shot and 'add a dinosaur'. Great, except it has 5 legs. Oh well.
what about importing video and working on content, i'm downloading it right now but curious to know about the video side of it.
I manage to cut the feets of a man and his two dogs, and tried to fill it in with generative fill. There was some strange results at first, but after a few shots, it saved the whole image. But it added some weird banding in the sky that I fixed with the good old remove tool. Later I figured out I had forgotten to add lens correction in Lightroom that caused the banding because off the vignette from the lens 😂 Used right, this is a great feature.
Funny thing is I downloaded the beta and did everything everyone said to get it working on both on an apple and windows and it’s still not giving me the option to use the generative fill.
Yep - I have an adobe subscription
Great experimentation here, Glyn. I love how it handles the shadows and lighting from original image. Also a great way of adjusting to somehing that seems obvious is here tostay. It truly is the creative mind that produces the final image and AI is just another, albeit phenomenal tool.
100% agree with you there
You can tell how advanced of a leap it was because the first reaction from everyone was to get scared... like we'd just seen fire for the first time and it looked like magic.
you handed over your unique art to algorithms, artificial intelligence is ones and zeroes, the art of photography is dying, you may as well sell your camera gear now Glyn as all you'll have to do soon is say what you want to produce and the algorithm will do it for you, no more photography shows needed, no printing to be done as everything will be on a screen either on a phone or a wall.
this tech isn't for me.
Bit of an 'over the top' reaction there I think. ALL of the photographs it was used on had already been edited by 'me' and the Viking picture ... you saw all the layers done 'manually' right? As for 'printing' ... nothing has changed. If this isn't for you then so be it, but this isn't Terminator and Judgement Day 😎
@@glyndewis just a feeling on how ai is going Glyn and not aimed at you personally, we are being lulled into believing artificial intelligence is a real intelligence when it isn't, it has good and bad uses like most, when this tech moves into film then all I'll need is some meta data, subtitles and a picture of you on stage and I'll be able to create your next nec photography gig, no nec or parking fees although you might get a fee per ai video, i saw you at the nec when you had your brother on stage in the raf uniform, the whole day interacting with like minded people etc cannot be replaced but ai makes us lazy, an expensive day travelling from Manchester for the day out to the photography and video show at the nec compared to commanding an algorithm in my living room and saving a good sum of money, I'd prefer the day out, there's many axamples you could think of not just this one, i fear we are going in the wrong direction and the worst aspects of ai will be dominating the good.
Brilliant video! You're spot on with your comment at the end. I've had ideas floating around in my head for years that I just don't have the time or energy to produce due to having to learn new several new software packages extensively. Now I can take my main skills of PS compositing and color grading and combine them with Ai to produce these art pieces. It's about using the tools that we are giving to our advantage.
100% agree with you there. Glad you liked the video 👍🏻
Can it make my boobs bigger?
The warning about what the TRUE path of all of this AI "stuff" has been sounded years ago! People like yourself and many others unknowingly are making this tech seem to just be some common "new" fun thing to do, experiment with, etc. This is slowly making "AI" seem to be harmless and acceptable. When in fact, and for long-term, it isn't!
The long-term effects and affects of AI technology won't be as "fun" and "gadgety" as it is now!
Don't believe me? Do a google search for the many warnings from "The God Father of AI" himself, Geoffrey Hinton! He left Google because he knows what the use of AI will be used for.
In his own words, 'The technology is being developed in a society that is not designed to use it for everybody's good'.
Much like 'social media' platforms.. step back and 'look' have they actually increased people being 'social'? I would argue that have increased people being anti-social! Keyword "social" as in 'socialize'.
I think I'll go back to film. That way, I'll have a negative to show that my print/file comes from a real source that I made.
Who are you having to prove this to and why?
@@glyndewis Actual photographers? Gallery owners? Competitions? But mostly myself. You do understand that photography (an image focused on a light=sensitive medium with a camera) will be entirely unnecessary for commercial purposes? Who needs a camera, when AI can search millions of images and combine them according to a prompt. Stylists? MUA? Who needs 'em? Lighting? Why? There's millions of styles on the Internet. What you are creating are illustrations. NOTHING wrong with it. Illustrators have existed since cave persons. Yes, Reijländer made composites in the 19th c., but he shot the negatives and freely admitted what he had done. Now, a whole architecture of photography is imperiled, and that includes you.
@@lesberkley3821 🤣Don't ever recall a competition that required the physical film negative had to accompany the print. Nor have I never had to present a gallery with a negative. And I've never had to show myself a negative to prove to myself blah blah . . .
@@DustyDingoPhotos You will encounter such competitions.
You may also be required by galleries, etc, to sign a paper stating whether AI was used, and on sale, you may need to prove it.
@@lesberkley3821 Have had to state veracity of images at galleries, but never been asked to show the negatives . . . nor to show forensic authentication of a digital image. Regardless, I think folk are over-reacting hugely to this software. I have used it to remove distracting components of a background. That is NOT using anyone else's images, it is using my image and replicating aspects of MY image to generate the fill. If my images at a gallery include one where I "removed" one little bird in the sky that looked much like a dust-spot, does it matter whether I used the clone-tool, repair-tool, or generative fill? Of course it doesn't.
Interesting video. June 2023 And there's AI software available where you Just _type_ in a few key words and within seconds the Ai computer _makes a unique 2d colour illustration_ .
*Are Human craftsmen and women now obsolete* ? Is fine art painting and *lighting camera work kaput* ?
Thank you
You chose the exact word to describe the stool and floor generation - INSANE!!!!!!!! Many thanks!!!!
😃👍🏻👍🏻
Its about time Photoshop caught up to our creative genius, way to go team!
I spent some time learning this new feature in Photoshop yesterday. I love it and am excited to see how it will evolve. This is another excellent tool I will use when needed, and understand it is limited so I will always have to put my finishing touches on the final image. I had some things I wanted to accomplish with Midjourney and could not with its deep learning curve. This PSD AI feature is a walk in the park. Of course, there will be those who will exploit it and think they are now real artists by using it by creating tacky art, just like the millions who believe they are real photographers using their cell phones & DSLRs on auto mode.
FYI, real photographers often use auto exposure modes and autofocus on their DSLRs.
Should have kept the original mouth on the viking shot, it really removed the personality of person in the shoot. Otherwise, this blows me away.
What is the version of this photoshop
While the assertion you mentioned emphasizes the role of our minds, hands, and tools in expressing creativity, there are indeed other perspectives to consider. Here are a few alternative viewpoints:
Environment and Inspiration: Creativity can also be influenced by external factors such as the environment we inhabit and the experiences we encounter. Our surroundings, interactions with others, and exposure to different cultures and ideas can all contribute to our creative expression.
Emotion and Intuition: Creativity often emerges from a deeper level of emotional and intuitive understanding. It is not solely a product of our cognitive processes or the tools we use. Our feelings, instincts, and personal experiences can play a significant role in shaping our creative output.
Collaboration and Interactions: Creativity can be enhanced through collaboration and interaction with others. Engaging in discussions, brainstorming sessions, and receiving feedback from peers can foster new ideas and perspectives, transforming individual creativity into collective creativity.
Constraints and Limitations: Sometimes, limitations and constraints can actually fuel creativity. When faced with challenges or restricted resources, individuals may find innovative ways to overcome these obstacles and generate unique solutions or artistic expressions.
Imagination and Vision: Creativity often originates from the power of imagination and the ability to envision possibilities beyond the present. It involves the capacity to think beyond what currently exists, to dream, and to visualize novel concepts or artistic creations.
Inner Exploration: Self-reflection, introspection, and personal growth can also contribute to creativity. Exploring our own thoughts, beliefs, and emotions can lead to self-expression and the generation of original ideas.
It's important to note that creativity is a complex and multifaceted concept, and different individuals may have unique perspectives on what fuels their creative process. The interplay between our minds, hands, tools, environment, emotions, and interactions ultimately shapes how we express our creativity to the world.
Generated by ChatGPT - but I pretty much agree :-)
Magic in photoshop now! But have you seen what kahma can do with AI generated pics?
Absolutely mind blown tbh. Sod creativity, if A.I can help me stack money by assisting / speeding up my work flow i'm game. I don't care if A.I is making things too easy or taking away creativity.
Hopefully, the special effects lady understands that it is time to look for a new job. Because why add just some scars and dirt if AI can add it all? SCARY SH*T!!!
Where are now the the "Anti-AI artists", ehh?? lol...😎
Awesome video ! Have you videos about adding details like in you shot ? Enhance photography is a game changer, mix reality and AI. I loved it, and to be clear, if this is WRONG, what's make a composite shot good ? That's just another way to bring creativity to more people. Even full generated AI image has its upside. You worked with your mind, you try to translate it and re iterate to get what you want...There is creativity in it.
Do you still own the image after AI adds to the image?
yes it just creates another layer with a mask the original picture is the first layer and is not touched.
I think this AI is empowering but can make us lazy in long term .what i think is less time spent working with a pc is more time to workout and hangout with friends so why not ? AI is empowering and a big tool to live easier XD just like electricity or Nuclear Energy , I think Ai is a more powerful breakthrough than Nuclear Energy in long term just wait and see in 10 years how things change .
Very impressive. The first thing that comes to mind is "bye bye jobs!"...
The 1024 pixel imitation is the giveaway atm, but if / when they overcome this, and offer true native resolution, it will be epic!
I bet it's not a limitation of the tech, but yet another way to squeeze extra money out of people who subscribe to this feature.
It's not the first time tech was crippled in order to get people to pay more ... (and it won't be the last time either).
@@NotTheStinkyCheese yeah true, ut currently, these types of AI generated model really has resolution limitation due to how they normally are trained. Thats why normally after the image is made, it made another AI Method to upscale the image.
how does it know? Back in the day we could blame God